New Posts All Forums:Forum Nav:

Multi-IEM Review - 349 IEMs compared (LIFE Headphones added 12/30/15 p. 1096)

Subscribe Search This Thread

« Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
…
1097
Next »

Start a New Thread

post #1 of 16444

3/19/10 at 6:19pm

Thread Starter

ljokerl
Trader Feedback: +103
Portables Reviewerus Prolificus
offline

10,212 Posts. Joined 3/2009
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Select All Posts By This User

Intro:

This thread contains my sound quality-focused reviews of In Ear Monitors (IEMs) in my possession. It is meant to be a quick reference for those in need of earphone recommendations or a start-off point for research into IEMs.

A more up-to-date, interactive, sortable version of this thread can now be found here.

An abridged buyer's guide containing my some of my favorite earphones by sound signature, can be found here.

A guide to my favorite sub-$50 earphones can be found here.

A few of my favorite custom monitors can be found in the CIEM Buyer's Guide here.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 16444

3/19/10 at 6:20pm

Thread Starter

ljokerl
Trader Feedback: +103
Portables Reviewerus Prolificus
offline

10,212 Posts. Joined 3/2009
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Select All Posts By This User

Tier 3B ($15-30)

(3B1) MEElectronics M6 / M6P

Reviewed Nov 2009

Details: Sports-style earphone from MEElectronics
Current Price: $22 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $49.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cord: 4.6’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrids, De-Cored Shure Olives
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Hard clamshell carrying case, shirt clip, silicone single-flange (3 sizes), bi-flange, and tri-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips
Build Quality (4/5) - Solid-feeling plastic housings are coupled with Meelec's excellent new cabling terminated with a low-profile L-plug. Two inches of memory wire provide additional strain relief
Isolation (3/5) – By design they cannot be inserted too deeply, but still provide average levels of isolation
Microphonics (5/5) Over-the-ear fit and excellent cables, coupled with an included shirt clip, make microphonics nonexistent
Comfort (4/5) – Comfort itself is quite good but getting them fitted initially can be difficult due to the memory wire. Luckily, memory wire can be removed with a bit of knifework

Sound (5.7/10) – Despite sharing a basic signature with the Meelec M9, the M6 are superior in every way except airiness. They just don’t sound as breathy as the M9. They are, however, more detailed and have good extension on both ends. Soundstage and positioning are good for the price. Clarity across the range is also impressive, with decent bass control and crystal-clear sparkle at the top of the range. There is a mid-bass hump but it’s hardly distracting and doesn’t detract much from the overall balance. Treble is also quite pronounced, leading to a somewhat V-shaped signature. Still, they provide a very good all-around sound at the price point and can please both the detail freak and the casual listener.

Value (9/10) – Taken as a total package, the Meelec M6 is a steal - Techno/Trance and Electronica listeners need not look any further, but nearly everyone is sure to be impressed with the combination of sound and comfort at the price point. One of my favorites in its class.

Pros: Well-built, comfortable, great sound
Cons: Can be an epic pain to get fitted

(3B2) Head-Direct RE2

Reviewed Dec 2009

Details: Old ($99) version of the RE2 IEM
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32 Ω | Sens: 103 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cord: 5’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Soundmagic PL30 bi-flanges, stock small bi-flanges, De-Cored Olives.
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (4/5) – Spare filters, a nice selection of silicone tips (single- and bi-flanges), and a shirt clip. A nice leather-wrapped wooden case was included with my version but is no longer provided.
Build Quality (3/5) – completely plastic shell, some reports of splitting; Cables are thick and sturdy but very plasticky and tangle easily. Hard plastic stem can damage cables
Isolation (2/5) – ported. Bi-flange tips help, but still below average isolation
Microphonics (2/5) Rather poor and cannot be worn over-the-ear well. New cables are improved
Comfort (2.5/5) – cannot be worn over-the-ear; regular straight-barrel IEM otherwise

Sound (6.1/10) – The overall sound surprises with its clarity. The highs are detailed and sound extended, but roll off earlier than I expected and can sometimes be overly bright and a little forward. The mids have good clarity and detail. The smoothness is very impressive for the price, as well. The low frequencies roll off quickly but what is there is detailed and precise. Amping helps.

Amping: Likes a warm amp for a more well-rounded sound. Excessive power is not necessary. Bass boost helps with raising the low-end response.

Value (8.5/10) – At $39, it was easy to recommend the RE2s for lovers of genres that benefit from a neutral/analytical presentation and high level of detail, such as classical. At the new $29 price, they are an absolute steal.

Pros: Great detail and clarity, smooth mids & highs
Cons: Mediocre isolation, cannot be worn over the ear, poor low-end extension, not much bass quantity, can be bright

(3B3) MEElectronics M9

Reviewed Dec 2009

Details: Meelec’s high bang/buck contender in the $20 range
Current Price: $17 from amazon.com (MSRP: $24.99); $23 for M9P with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Freq: 18-20k Hz | Cord: 4’ 45-degree plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Hard clamshell case, shirt clip, single-(3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips
Build Quality (4/5) – While the old version had known build issues, the new M9s are very solidly constructed out of metal using the same cables as rest of the range – striped silver on the silver version; dark grey on the black version
Isolation (3/5) – Longer housings and included bi-flange help achieve deeper insertion and greater isolation despite the vented design
Microphonics (4/5) – Low when worn cable down; nonexistent otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5)– Shallow insertion and fairly light weight make these quite comfortable for long term use but bi-flanges may be required for the best sound. The sound is very sensitive to insertion depth so all of the tips are worth trying

Sound (5.3/10) – The M9 share their general signature with the Meelec M6, which happen to be my favorites from the entire Meelectronics lineup. The soundstage is fairly wide and they sound quite airy – much more so than the top-of-the-range M11. They have great extension at the top end and very strong bass. The bass is sometimes excessive in quantity and tends towards ‘boomy’. The mids are slightly recessed and a bit dry, just like the M6. Though clarity is great all-around, they can be overwhelmed a tiny bit by busy tracks and there is some upper-end harshness. Treble is strong and sparkly, boasting surprising detail and extension for a $20 earphone. Of note, the sound they put out is very fit-dependent; experimentation with different tips may be necessary to get the best out of them.

Value (9/10) – The sound of these is easily worth the price of admission. Clarity and detail are superb and the sound is more airy than any of Meelec’s other models. It’s very hard to compete with the detail these are capable of producing at such a low price point. Meelectroncs’ excellent customer service deserves a nod here too.

Pros: Excellent accessory pack, excellent sound at the price point, good build quality, very low microphonics
Cons: Can be difficult to wear over-the-ear, bass may be too strong/boomy for some

(3B4) MEElectronics R1

Reviewed Nov 2009 / Updated Jan 2011

Details: MEElectronics first “woody” IEM
Current Price: $28 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $39.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cord: 4.6’ L- plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock Single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Single-flange (3-sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, cord wrap, airplane adapter, shirt clip, and hard clamshell carrying case

Build Quality (3.5/5) – Housing is made of a light-colored wood and sealed with a clear lacquer. The cable is similar to the new M6 and M11 cables but in a dark grey color. L/R markings rub off way too easily.
Isolation (2.5/5) – The bulge on the housing which holds the driver prevents deep insertion with single-flange tips. Bi-flange tips just don’t sound quite right.
Microphonics (3/5) – Surprisingly bad considering the cable is similar to the (stellar) one on the M11. Wearing them over-the-ear with the shirt clip helps
Comfort (3/5) – The driver bulge on the housing prevents these from being truly comfortable the way the M11s are. Also makes it more difficult than I would like to wear the cables over the ear.

Sound (4.2/10) – Warm. Very warm. These can almost make the RadioPaq Jazz sound cold in comparison. While the warmth makes them feel full and intimate, it really gets in the way of hearing detail, especially at the low end. There is very little texture to the bass, but a whole lot of power. As a result, it sounds poorly controlled, albeit rather smooth. The same warm intimacy really messes with the soundstage and positioning as well, which these severely lack. The treble extension is also harmed by the warmth – they just have too much low-end bias. The mids are definitely there, but they sound a little hollow. If the JVC HA-FX300 “BiMetals” sound metallic, these definitely sound “woody”.

Value (5/10) – At $26, the R1 is an earphone to be considered only by true lovers of warm and bassy sound. While still providing good value for money, it just isn’t good enough otherwise to compete against Meelec’s other offerings. It should be noted that there are variances between individual production units of Meelectronics earphones in my experience. The fact that my R1 cables are very microphonic is a testament to this.

Update (01/11): An updated version of the R1 was released several months ago, with the ambient vent relocated from the side of the housings to the rear. While the original R1 was nauseatingly warm and slightly de-emphasized at the top, the new version is a bit more balanced, with prominent lower treble and more neutral overall tonality. The sound signature of the still hinges on the huge bass – though slightly less controlled than that of the M9, the bass of the R1 is softer in character and more pleasant on the whole. The depth and power of the bass are quite good for an entry-level in-ear and give music a characteristic underlying rumble. There is still not a whole lot of texture to the low end and the bass is felt more than it is heard but on the whole the relaxed low end is a welcome change from the explosive aggressiveness of the Meelec M9 or the tight-and-controlled presentation of something like the Sennheiser CX200.

The midrange is slightly recessed but not as much as that of the M9. It is, however, less clear and detailed than the dryer, thinner-sounding mids of the M9. There’s a bit of a veil present and the sub-bass rumble additionally blankets the midrange on some tracks. On the upside the lower mids are smooth, full, and liquid. The upper midrange, on the other hand, is quite strident. There are noticeable response spikes, resulting in mild harshness and sibilance on certain tracks. Lower treble response is hard-edged – even more so than that of the M9 – but becomes softer and more smooth towards the top and extends higher than that of the 1st-gen R1. Presentation-wise the R1 is fairly airy but not as wide-sounding as the M9. The omnipresent bass leads to issues with positioning but on the whole the new R1 sounds less confined than the old one. Combined with the somewhat harsh treble, this makes the R1 a better earphone for movies and games than it is for music but it is an improvement over the old model either way.

Pros: Interesting design, good build quality
Cons: L/R identifiers come off too easily, disappointing microphonics, not particularly comfortable, sound is too warm

(3B5) Soundmagic PL21 / MP21

Reviewed Nov 2009

Details: The latest budget earphone from Soundmagic
Current Price: $18 from focalprice.com; $28 for MP-21 (with microphone)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cord: 4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: VSonic foamies, stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Silicone single-flange (4 sizes) and foam (3 sets) tips, pleather carrying pouch, set of rubber cable guides, and shirt clip
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The shells are aluminum and feel well-machined. Cables are rubberized and feature articulated strain reliefs. Not as thick as the PL50 cabling or Meelctronics’ cables, but still very functional
Isolation (2.5/5) – Isolation is about average; foam tips help
Microphonics (4/5) – present when worn straight-down. Can be eliminated entirely by wearing them over-the-ear. Shirt clip and gable guides are included.
Comfort (4/5) – They are extremely light and the driver bulge is smaller and farther from the nozzle than on the Meelec R1 or Skullcandy Titans so they are far more comfortable

Sound (4.8/10) – The sound produced by the PL21s is massively different from their PL30 and PL50 brethren. While the latter two are the more neutral and accurate earphones, the PL21 is a lot more fun. It produces a dark, bassy, and aggressive sound. The bass is impactful but occasionally lacking restraint (i.e. boomy). The midrange is recessed compared to the lows but still plenty lively. The treble is okay but high-end extension could be better. Soundstage is good but not as wide and airy as the older PL30s. They also lose out to the Meelec Ai-M9 in treble quality, quantity, and detail. Still, the entire signature is coherent and very enjoyable for a budget IEM and they are still one of my favorites in their class

Value (8/10) – The Soundmagic PL21s offer a much more mainstream sound than the PL30 and PL50 at a bargain price. They are not perfect by any means, but they offer a very lively signature as part of a complete entry-level package and have no glaring faults – the build quality is good, the accessories are good, the comfort is good. There is really very little fault I can find with these for $21.

Pros: Rich sound, decent soundstage, comfortable
Cons: Bass is a sometimes boomy, not as airy or detailed as the PL30 or Ai-M9

Full review can be found here

(3B6) JVC HA-FXC50 “Micro HD”

Reviewed Dec 2009

Details: JVC’s unique IEM utilizing a microdriver positioned at the tip of the nozzle
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $39.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 103 dB | Freq: 10-24k Hz | Cable: 3.3’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (2/5) - Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes) and carrying pouch
Build Quality (2.5/5) – Plastic housing with molded strain reliefs. I like the design and the beveled JVC logo but I’ve had two pairs of these where one of the channels went out so I’m wary of the build quality. Cabling is thinner than on the other JVC IEMs and more prone to tangling
Isolation (3/5) – Much better than I expected. I think the fact that the driver is at the very tip of the nozzle helps with the isolation
Microphonics (2.5/5) – These are meant to be worn cable-down; the microphonics aren’t particularly bothersome but definitely present
Comfort (3/5) – This driver of the earphone is right inside the nozzle and the housing is completely empty. JVC could’ve shaped it any way imaginable, but after the impossibly comfortable aircushions, the FXC50s are a disappointment. They are nearly impossible to wear over-the-ear and while it does hold them in place well, the rubber-padded plastic bit on the side causes the strain relief to put unpleasant pressure on the bottom of my ears

Sound (5.8/10) – The HA-FXC50 is characterized by the 5.8mm “Micro HD” driver positioned at the very tip of the nozzle, right inside your ear. The overall signature is bright and detailed. They remind me of the Head-Direct RE2s but with less smoothness and more bass. Due to the peculiar positioning of the drivers their sound is extremely sensitive to the seal. Without a proper seal they sound tinny, flat, and distant. With a good seal, however, they are quite balanced and intimate. The soundstage is small but they still mange to convey depth. The bass is punchy and slightly above average in quantity. Mids are fairly present, though not a forward as the treble. The treble is bright and at times slightly harsh, but no worse than some much higher-end earphones. Overall the signature is pretty unique at the price point and can be quite enjoyable.

Value (7.5/10) – At the current market price the FXC50s are excellent budget earphones. They offer superior detail and clarity to JVC’s other budget earphones and are quite good performers all around. I just wish JVC had made these as practical as the Marshmallows and AirCushions. Better QC, thicker cabling, and a way to wear them over-the-ear comfortably would truly make these top contenders.

Pros: Very detailed, good balance and clarity
Cons: QC issues, brightness can be tiring

(3B7) JLAB JBuds J3 Micro Atomic

Reviewed Dec 2009

Details: Newly released IEM from Jlabs touted as being less mainstream-oriented than the old J2
Current Price: $20 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $79.95); $25 for J3M (with microphone) (MSRP: $89.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 88 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) - Silicone single-flange tips (4 sizes) and hard clamshell case
Build Quality (3/5) – The housings are metal and quite nice to the touch. They feel like they will last. The cord is especially nice – it seems to be Teflon-coated and is very soft with a bit of memory character. The biggest problem for me is driver flex and pop. They can be very annoying when a good seal is achieved and the driver may not ‘pop’ back to its normal shape for several minutes.
Isolation (3/5) – Above-average isolation; perfectly reasonable for my commute
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Present when worn straight down; very low when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The housings are very small – only slightly bigger than those on the Meelectronics M11s. A good fit and seal are very easy to achieve either cord-up or cord-down. One small annoyance is the Left/Right identification, which takes the form of a small “L” stamped in the strain relief of the left earpiece. It can be located by touch, but I prefer easily visible identifiers

Sound (4.7/10) – The J3s are surprisingly balanced earphones that offer tight, well-controlled bass and impressive treble extension. The treble-focused signature may make them seem treble-biased, but it isn’t quite so. The bass is definitely present but not emphasized like JLabs previous model, the J2. With a proper seal the bass has more impact than tone but stays out of the midrange’s way. Treble is very harsh out of the box but evens out significantly over time. They are still quite cold-sounding and slightly metallic even after significant burn-in, but enjoyable in their own right. Soundstage is a bit smaller than average but the detail put out by the microdriver is very reasonable.

Value (7.5/10) – The J3s offer a revolutionary, rather than evolutionary, step up from the J2, moving away from the crowd-pleasing bass-centric sound of its predecessor and towards a more balanced signature. While not everyone will be pleased with the somewhat cold and analytical presentation, those looking for a way to get more out of their music for less will be impressed. The tiny slim housings and nice cables add to the appeal.

Pros: Good cabling, comfortable, impressive treble quality
Cons: Massive driver flex; ridiculous MSRP, cold signature

(3B8) Lenntek Sonix Micro

Reviewed Dec 2009

Details: Updated version of Lenntek’s Sonix model
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $39.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32 Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.6’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) - Silicone single-flange tips (4 sizes in black + extra set of Medium tips in white), 2’ extension cable, and velvet snap-close pouch
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The housings are metal and very well-built. Nylon-sheathed cabling is thick and sturdy. Housing strain reliefs could be better but the overall build is excellent.
Isolation (3/5) – Above-average isolation; perfectly reasonable for my commute
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Present when worn straight down; very low when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – Tiny housings make these about as comfortable as straight-barrel in-ears can get

Sound (4.4/10) –The Sonix are bass-biased but don’t sound particularly unbalanced. The signature is warm and intimate. The Soundstage is rather narrow but boasts good positioning and above-average depth. The bass is impactful with a hint of bloat. It can be excessive at times but is also hugely fun on dance and other beat-heavy tracks. The slight bass bloat does not significantly affect the midrange, which is warm and dynamic, if a bit muddy. The treble is recessed compared to the bass and mids, but still present. Expectedly, they lack the clarity and detail of some higher-priced products, but overall the sound of the Sonix Micro compares favorably to other earphones in the price range and has something a lot of the competition lacks – the fun factor.

Value (7.5/10) – The Lenntek Sonix offer a mainstream, bass-heavy sound at an excellent price point and without sacrifice in other areas. Bass-lovers from all walks of life will be impressed. Though not sonically perfect, the Sonix Micro make up for their shortfalls by offering great build quality, above-average isolation and comfort, and a lifetime warranty. They feel first and foremost like a quality product, and that is their main strength.

Pros: Excellent build quality; fun, mainstream, bass-heavy sound
Cons: Can be a bit muddy

Full review can be found here

(3B9) Soundmagic PL30

Reviewed Jan 2010

Details: Soundmagic’s first widely acknowledged success, the PL30 redefined the attitude towards budget IEMs at Head-Fi
Current Price: $25 from focalprice.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 12 Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 20-22k Hz | Cord: 4’ L-plug (old revision shown)
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock Single-flanges, Stock foamies
Wear Style: over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Silicone single-flange (3 sizes, 2 sets), bi-flange, and foam tips, hard clamshell carrying case, cable winder, set of rubber cable guides, and shirt clip
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The PL30 is my oldest fully functional IEM. The plastic shells (rubberized in the black version) are well made and feature proper strain reliefs. Cabling is rubberized and similar to that found on the PL21s but terminates in a simplistic I-plug rather than the L-plug used on the PL21/PL50. The only real (small) flaw I can think of are that the bass knobs can become loose if fiddled with often and the paint rubs off over time
Isolation (1.5/5) – Shallow insertion and a ported design mean that the PL30s don’t shine in isolation
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent. Shirt clip eliminates them entirely
Comfort (4.5/5) – With properly-fitting tips these are some of the most comfortable IEMs out there. Wearing them over-the-ear is a must but they’re light, low-profile, and very easy to forget about

Sound (5.2/10) – The PL30 produce a very pleasant and balanced sound characterized by a slightly forward midrange and a very soft/smooth presentation all around. The low end is tight and accurate, but not particularly impactful. Switching to the bass-heavy setting bumps up the bass very little. Treble is rather tame as well, without a hint of harshness or sibilance (granted my PL30s may have an advantage here in being my oldest working IEM and probably having close to 1k hours on them). The one area where the PL30s undoubtedly triumph over the competition is the lateral width of the soundstage. It is truly massive, beaten only by the Cyclone PR1 Pro under the $100 mark. With the large soundstage comes excellent instrumental separation and good positioning. Another interesting property of the PL30s is the transparency – they are extremely revealing of both source and source material and by far the cheapest IEM that allows me to distinguish between 192k and 320k mp3 files played straight from my Fuze. Worth noting is that the low impedance leads to some very slight hiss with some sources and amps (though the Fuze headphone out remains nearly silent).

Value (8.5/10) – The aging Soundmagic PL30 offers a whole lot of bang for your buck with its stellar accessory pack, lack of microphonics, and comfortable form factor. The sound may not be for everyone – they are quite laid back overall, lack low-end ‘oomph’ and some high-end extension and sparkle, and aren’t particularly forgiving of poor recordings - but for a wide, airy, and well-balanced sound these are unbeatable at their price point.

Pros: Outstanding accessory pack, comfortable form factor, balanced and wide sound
Cons: Can hiss with some sources/amps

(3B10) JVC HA-FX66 “Air Cushion”

Reviewed Jan 2010

Details: JVC’s follow-up to the well-received HA-FX33 ‘Marshmallows’
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $29.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 101 dB | Freq: 10-23k Hz | Cable: 3.3’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:5.5mm | Preferred tips: Soundmagic PL30 BiFlanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (2.5/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes), foam tips, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – Housings are rubber-covered plastic and feel like they will last. Cabling is similar to that found on the HA-FX34 and HA-FX300 – thick and flexible
Isolation (1.5/5) – The Air Cushion fitting system makes for a very shallow insertion. Isolation is a tradeoff for comfort with these
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Fairly low but the FX66 cannot be worn cord-up. A shirt clip would have been nice
Comfort (4.5/5) – The Air Cushion fitting system leaves a space between the earphone housing and the ear; combined with the angled nozzles and soft rubber-covered housings this results in a completely unobtrusive fit

Sound (4.5/10) – Like the Marshmallows, the overall sound of the Air Cushions is on the warm side and fairly smooth. Bass is strong and punchy, albeit lacking control. Low-end extension is still surprising for a $20 earphone. The midrange is obscured slightly by the bass at the low end and recessed overall but clarity and detail are superior to unmodded marshmallows and on-par with my Kramered set. Still nothing to brag about compared to the current crop of budget earphones. There is just a tiny bit of sibilance in the treble but it is still less sharp than that of the marshmallows. The overall sound is wider and more open than the marshmallows. It is also brighter but at the same time less tiring. From memory, I like these better than my marshmallows when they were stock but not better than my Kramered marshmallows, which have a more forward midrange and better treble detail.

Value (8/10) –The Air Cushion is still a very good buy at the current street price for someone looking for an extremely comfortable and decent-sounding set of IEMs without the need for modification. Though definitely not as suitable for critical listening as the Ai-M9, PL30, or even PL21, the FX66 is a balanced and smooth-sounding earphone with ‘user-friendly’ written all over it.

Pros: Very comfortable, low microphonics, durable, decent sound
Cons: Arguably poorer sound than (cheaper) Kramered marshmallows, cable may be too short for some, subpar isolation

(3B11) Beta Brainwavz Pro

Reviewed Feb 2010

Details: Flagship earphone from mp4nation’s Brainwavz line
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $34.50)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 24 Ω | Sens: 110 dB | Freq: 8-28k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size:4.5mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrid
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (4.5/5) – Silicone ‘cone’ (2 sets) and bi-flange tips, Ety-style orange foamies, Soundmagic-style black foamies (3 sizes), Mofi carrying pouch, shirt clip, clip-on cable winder, silicone ear guides, and a pair of bass filters
Build Quality (4/5) – Plastic housings look a bit cheap but the metal nozzles, heatshrink strain reliefs, and rubberized cabling the Betas feel like they will cope well with abuse
Isolation (3/5) – Adequate for a ported dynamic IEM
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Non-existent when worn cord up and nearly unnoticeable when worn cord-down
Comfort (4/5) – The housings are very light and easy to wear cord-up or cord down. The ‘cone’ tips are useless but with Sony Hybrids or the included orange foamies they are extremely comfortable

Sound (5/10) – As with the Phonak PFEs, the sound signature of the Beta Brainwavz can be altered by installing the included ‘bass filters’, which tightens the low-end response and tones down the upper mids and treble. However, a chunk of much-needed treble resolution is lost in the process so I preferred them without the filters. It should be noted that the overall sound is rather bright in the filter-less configuration; adding the filters brings it closer to neutrality. The bass is reasonably tight and quite fast, accurately hitting distinct notes whether the filters are installed or not. The low end is not integrated into the overall sound as much as I would like and lacks raw impact, but truthfully is about as good as it gets for the price. The midrange is neither forward nor recessed but the whole signature seems slightly distant, causing the mids to sound hollow at times. There also seems to be some emphasis on the upper midrange, which gives certain vocals an ‘edgy’ quality and cuts down significantly on upper midrange/lower treble clarity. As a result the upper mids of the betas can sound run-together and lacking in detail. The treble has a bit of sparkle but rolls off near the top. Denser tracks are clearly are not the Betas’ forté as instruments such as high-hats can get downright lost. For pop and soft rock, however, they work quite well.

Value (8/10) – Though it may seem like I dislike the Betas, I will admit to being overly critical of them partly because I reviewed them side-by-side with some far more expensive offerings and partly because they just don’t work all that well with my preferred music genres. But the sound really is quite good for the asking price – among their similarly-priced peers the Betas surprise most with their speed and lack of low-end bleed. Build and comfort are above par as well, making the Betas quite easy to use and well-worthy of consideration for a budget set.

Pros: Lots of accessories, comfortable, almost no microphonics; sound is fast and tight
Cons: Stock tips are mostly useless, lack of clarity in the upper mids/lower treble, no cord cinch

More impressions and a comparison to several competitors can be found here

(3B12) ECCI PR100

Reviewed Mar 2010

Details: Budget IEM developed in-house by Cyclone and released under the company’s new ECCI brand
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $32)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock (wide-tube) single flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) - Narrow-tube (3 sizes) and wide-tube (3 sizes) single-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and oversize clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – Sturdy two-piece metal shells feel solid and are finished in a handsome gunmetal color with the model name etched on the front. The dark-grey TPE (Thermoplastic Elastomer) cable is thick and sturdy, with proper strain reliefs on cable entry and a functional cord cinch. Sadly, the translucent hard plastic sheath on the 3.5mm plug is more likely to damage to the cord than protect it, tainting an otherwise excellent build
Isolation (3.5/5) – The extra long nozzles allow for deep insertion of the earphones, boosting isolation above what one would expect for a ported straight-barrel dynamic. On the downside, the bottom-facing vents make the earphones more susceptible than most to wind noise
Microphonics (3.5/5) – bothersome when worn cord-down; good otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – The extra-long sound tube allows the earphones to be inserted deeply without pressing the wearer’s ear into the housings - a good thing as the front edges of the shells are rather sharp. Short strain reliefs and elongated bodies make the earphones easy to wear cord-up as well as cord-down. Either way they are quite comfortable for prolonged listening sessions

Sound (5.6/10) – The PR100 goes after a more mainstream market while still maintaining the balance emphasis of the older PR1 Pro model. The bass of the PR100 extends to 30Hz or so before dropping off, not reaching into the sub-bass quite as well as the PR1, but performing respectably for the asking price. There is a tiny hint of mid-bass emphasis but the overall response of the ECCIs is surprisingly linear. Bass is tight and punchy but not particularly powerful - low notes are heard more than they are felt. The transition to the midrange is smooth and with no bleed. The midrange is obscured by neither the bass nor the treble – it’s really quite pleasant but not the focus of the presentation the way it is with, for example, the Soundmagic PL50. Detail is very good for the price though they are notably lacking in resolving power compared to higher-end IEMs. Same goes for clarity – good for the price but not class-leading. The treble of the ECCIs is fairly accurate and rolls of gently near the top. There is some peakiness in the lower treble and they will accentuate sibilance already present in recordings. I personally found the treble perfectly pleasant on properly-recorded material. Soundstaging is good – not as wide as with the PR1s, but there is space around each instrument and a good sense of air in the overall sound. Positioning and instrumental separation, going hand-in-hand, are both quite decent.

Value (8/10) – For as long as I’ve owned them, the Soundmagic PL30 have been my favorite budget headphones when it comes to over balance. But the $30 PR100 is aiming straight for the PL30 throne, offering a similarly impeccable balance and a slightly meatier overall sound. For those looking for a well-built all-rounder that does nearly everything right, the PR100 is right up there with the best earphones I’ve heard in its class.

Pros: Good isolation and build quality, comfortable, balanced sound
Cons: Microphonics can be bothersome

Full review can be found here.

(3B13) Sennheiser CX300

Reviewed Apr 2010

Details: Sennheiser’s aging mid-range model, quite possibly more popular than any other IEM currently in production
Current Price: $29 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $49.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: 18-21k Hz | Cable: 3.3’ L-plug, j-cord
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (1/5) - Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality (3/5) – Plasticky housings with rubber strain reliefs all-around. The relief on the 3.5mm L-plug is not molded but at least the cables are rubberized and not too thin
Isolation (3/5) – Very shallow insertion leads to average isolation
Microphonics (2.5/5) – Quite poor when worn cord-down; just passable otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – Short housings with short nozzles mean that deep insertion is difficult with stock tips. J-cord configuration can also make over-the-ear wear awkward

Sound (4.8/10) – The CX300s are known around here mostly for their bass, which is usually cast in a negative light. The low end does offer a whole lot of grunt but lacks in detail and rolls off steeply below 35Hz. There is some mid-range bleed, coloring the sound and obscuring lower-midrange detail. The lack of definition also causes drums to sound ‘hollow’ at times. But there are upsides: compared to a lot of bottom-tier offerings the sound of the CX300s is dimensional and well-spaced. Clarity is quite decent in the rest of the range. The midrange isn’t recessed and the treble boasts decent extension; there’s just not enough of it. The overall balance is very reminiscent of the Lenntek Sonix Micro, with a slightly better sense of space but also poorer bass control. The sound is very pleasant for pop, rap, and soft rock, though it starts deteriorating on fast and dense tracks.

Value (4/10) – With current prices hovering around $25, the CX300 loses terribly in value to the majority of competing models. The pricing of earphones such as the Lenntek Sonix Micro and the “younger sibling” CX250 render the CX300 inexcusably mediocre in today’s crowded marketplace. Their popularity is easy to explain – the powerful bass works well with the dimensionality and clarity of the rest of the range. Plus the CX300s were one of the only IEMs in their price range upon release, building up fame and a loyal following rather quickly. I do think that much of the distaste for the CX300 around the forum is exaggerated - they really aren’t offensive to my ears. But as a whole package, this one is best left to the history books.

Pros: Lightweight and comfortable, decent build quality
Cons: Microphonic, j-corded, lacks bass control and treble presence

(3B14) Sennheiser CX250

Reviewed Apr 2010

Details: Fairly obscure and surprisingly competent budget entry from Sennheiser
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $59.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Jays Single-flange Silicones
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (2.5/5) - Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes) and carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The housings are entirely plastic but seem well-made and feature proper strain reliefs. MX-style Y-split and hard rubber L-plug sheath make them feel rather solid but the earbud-sourced cable has no sliding cinch. The cable features a sliding volume pot. Slight driver flex is present
Isolation (3/5) – Longer nozzles and rounded housings mean these can be inserted far more deeply than the CX300, leading to better isolation
Microphonics (3/5) – bothersome when worn cord-down; good otherwise
Comfort (4.5/5) – Very light housings that can achieve a proper insertion depth. Very easy to wear cord-up or cord-down

Sound (5.1/10) – It is unclear just where in Sennheiser’s CX range the CX250 belongs. To my ears they are clearly superior to the older but still popular CX300s, as the slightly higher MSRP indicates. The street price of the CX250, however, has historically been much lower than that of the CX300s. What, then, of the sound? Well, the CX250 follows in its predecessors footsteps in terms of bass quantity, providing plenty of punch to a deep 30Hz (unlike the CX300, which rolls off steeply past 35). The impact is much tighter and the mid-bass hump seems a good bit shallower, leading to greatly reduced bloat and mid-range bleed. The bass isn’t quite as visceral as with my $20 bass fave, the Meelec M9s, but also not at all boomy. The mids are still fairly laid back and boast good clarity, similar to how the CX300 midrange should sound if the bass bloat were eliminated. Soundstage width is nothing to brag about but the sound is well-spaced and dimensional. The treble is more forward than on the CX300s, though not as present and sparkly as on the Meelec M9. Treble smoothness is compromised only slightly. The overall sound is the most balanced of the three, which makes the CX250 a great all-rounder more similar to the rarely-mentioned Soundmagic PL21s.

Value (8/10) – The sound of the CX250 is exactly what I would have wanted Sennheiser to do with the CX300 – tighten up the bass and boost the treble while retaining the midrange clarity and fun factor. Combined with a smaller price tag and superior all-around usability, the CX250 comes out as one of the best all-around $20 IEMs out there.

Pros: Lightweight and comfortable, good build quality, fairly isolating, solid sonic characteristics
Cons: Microphonics can be bothersome

(3B15) JVC HA-FX67 “Air Cushion”

Reviewed Jun 2010

Details: Second generation of JVC’s comfort-oriented budget IEM

Current Price: $17 from buy.com (MSRP: $19.95)

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 101 dB | Freq: 10-23k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ I-plug

Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flange

Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (2.5/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes), foam tips, and double-sided shirt clip

Build Quality (3.5/5) – Housings are rubber-covered plastic and feel like they will last. Cabling is soft and flexible, with decent relief on either end

Isolation (2/5) – The Air Cushion fitting system makes for a very shallow insertion but the FX67 seems to isolate slightly more than the FX66

Microphonics (3.5/5) – Fairly bothersome and exacerbated by the fact that the FX67 cannot be worn cord-up. However, the new shirt clip helps

Comfort (4.5/5) – The Air Cushion fitting system leaves a space between the earphone housing and the ear; combined with the angled nozzles and soft rubber-covered housings this results in a completely unobtrusive fit

Sound (4.5/10) – The HA-FX67 use the same drivers as the older HA-FX66. The sound they produce is basically identical – slightly warm and fairly smooth. Bass is strong and impactful but a bit slow and lacking in control. Low-end extension is quite impressive. The lower midrange is obscured slightly by the bass end and the mids are recessed overall. Clarity and detail are fine, though they can’t compete with the Meelec M9s or Soundmagic PL30s. A tiny bit of sibilance is present in the treble but it’s not nearly bothersome enough to be a con. The treble is bright and not as recessed as the midrange but lacking in detail and extension. The overall sound is fairly spacious but the poorly controlled bass makes the low end sound more boomy and closed than would otherwise have been possible. Overall it’s a fun, tap-your-toes type of sound that can be both engaging and relaxing. Not audiophile by any means but perfectly tolerable for a budget set.

Value (8/10) – Though it may seem like JVC has made nearly no changes to the AirCushion in the three and a half years since the FX66 was released, there is one major difference between the FX67 and FX66 – the price. In 2007 the AirCushion was very difficult to find for less than $35. The FX67, however, is retailing for under $20 at the outset – the market price of this level of performance has fallen twofold, which is about what I would have expected. Because of that, the AirCushions remain a decent set of earphones for the price, especially for those concerned primarily with comfort.

Pros: Very comfortable, durable, decent sound

Cons: Subpar isolation

(3B16) Fischer Audio Toughstuff TS-9002

Reviewed Jul 2010

Details: Budget-oriented IEM from Fischer Audio’s Toughstuff line, which emphasizes build quality and durability over all else

Current Price: $27.50 from gd-audiobase.com (MSRP: $27.50)

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 91 dB | Freq: 20-22k Hz | Cable: 4’L-plug

Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: UE Single flanges, stock single-flanges

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and soft denim carrying pouch

Build Quality (3.5/5) – The finely-machined metal shells are rock-solid and the thick, flexible cables are identical to those used by the Meelectronics IEMs. The nozzles are metal but, like most budget IEMs, contain paper filters. By far the biggest weakness of the TS-9002 is the lack of strain reliefs, both on the metal stems of the housings and the plastic 3.5mm L-plug. On the upside, the shells can actually be unscrewed quite easily and the earphones can probably be recabled should the need arise

Isolation (3/5) – The Toughstuffs are shallow-insertion earphones but the wide bodies seal well and isolation is quite decent

Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low when worn cord-down, nonexistent when worn cord-up

Comfort (3/5) – The TS-9002 housings are quite large and have very short nozzles. Their fit is similar to that of the Ortofon e-Q7 but with housings that are rounded at the front. They are a bit weighty but not as heavy as Monster Turbines or HJE900s and are easy to wear cord-up or cord-down. The overall fit will be similar to most other straight barrel IEMs for all except those with the smallest ears

Sound (5.4/10) – For a mainstream budget-oriented earphone, the TS-9002 is surprisingly well-balanced and competent. The bass is fairly deep and very impactful but relatively well-controlled right out of the box and tightens up a bit more over time. Some mid-bass emphasis is present but it would be unfair to call the TS-9002 bloated. The sub-bass rumble that the Meelec M9 is capable of is absent but so is the slightly boomy nature of the Meelecs – a fair trade-off in my book. However, the Fischers also lack some of the texture and detail present in bass of the M9s.

The midrange of the TS-9002 is slightly warm and quite clear. Compared to the dry and slightly de-emphasized mids of the Meelec M9, the midrange of the TS-9002 sounds well filled-out and balanced, if not quite as crisp. The treble is in good balance with the rest of the sound and rolls off mildly at the very top. Compared to that of the Meelec M9, the treble of the TS-9002 is less detailed and lacks sparkle and extension but also boasts better refinement and control. Soundstaging is adequate but not great. The Toughstuffs carry decent air and a spacious sonic image but calling them open-sounding would be a huge overstatement. Soundstaging is just adequate - no more, no less. Overall the sound is very respectable for a budget-oriented earphone and offers a good alternative to those who may find the Meelec M9 too aggressive, especially in the treble.

Value (8/10) – The Fischer Audio Toughstuff TS-9002 is another capable and well-built budget entry from the Russian audio firm. The unique metal shells look and feel like they should cost quite a bit more than the asking price and the sound isn’t far behind in terms of value for money. The lack of strain reliefs all around is slightly disheartening and the large housings with short nozzles may not fit absolutely everyone, but the TS-9002 is still one of the better sub-$30 earphones I’ve encountered, beating out some far more expensive units when it comes to sounding and looking like a quality product.

Pros: Housings are sturdy and pleasant to the touch, low microphonics, surprisingly capable sound

Cons: No strain reliefs, rather large shells

(3B17) Yamaha EPH-20

Reviewed Jul 2010

Details: Diminutive earbud-style IEM from Yamaha’s new EPH line

Current Price: $19 from amazon.com (MSRP: $29.95)

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 17 Ω | Sens: 103 dB | Freq: 20-21k Hz | Cable: 4’ L-plug

Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Generic bi-flanges

Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (1/5) – Single flange silicone tips (3 sizes)

Build Quality (2.5/5) – The housings are made completely out of plastic and, except for the nozzles, look like conventional earbuds. The rubberized cabling is fairly sturdy but prone to tangling. However, though the 3.5mm L-plug is downright excellent, a hard plastic stem takes the place of a proper strain relief on housing entry

Isolation (2.5/5) – Like the higher-end EPH-50, the EPH-20 is a shallow-insertion earphone and is also vented. Isolation is rather average with the stock tips and a bit better with aftermarket biflanges

Microphonics (3.5/5) – Some cable noise is present and the EPH-20 cannot be worn over-the-ear, exacerbating the problem

Comfort (4.5/5) – The strength of the EPH-20 is their absolutely tiny size – they are dwarfed by my stock Sansa earbuds and weigh absolutely nothing. The angled-nozzle design is ergonomically perfect and really puts the straight-nozzle Yuin OK1 to shame. The only issue with the EPH-20 is that the hard plastic stem of the earphones is square in cross section and has sharp corners, which means I cannot sleep on my side in these without serious discomfort

Sound (3.5/10) – The sound of the EPH-20 is quite typical for a budget dynamic IEM. The earphone has a low-end bias, extending into the sub-30Hz regions of bass and sacrificing overall range at the top. The bass is full and warm, a bit muddy at times but overall rather pleasant. It intrudes a good amount on the lower midrange, making the IEMs sound rather warm and a bit veiled. The slightly recessed midrange doesn’t help and the earphones don’t have the clarity of the similarly-priced JVC HA-FX67. There is also a small amount of grain/scratchiness toward the upper mids, giving these a grungy texture. On the upside, unlike the JVCs, the Yamahas never sound harsh or sibilant while maintaining the same level of treble presence and detail. Despite the lack of brightness, the treble of the EPH-20 stands out over the midrange and isn’t drowned out by the bass. The soundstage is average in size but surprisingly airy. Separation and positioning could certainly be better but for $18 retail I didn’t expect much of either. The overall signature is smooth and a bit boomy, dark but not excessively so, and generally quite listenable.

Value (6/10) – The Yamaha EPH-20 is another sub-$20 IEM that is quite passable in terms of sound, very easy to use, reasonably well-built, and extremely light and comfortable. No, these won’t displace the Soundmagic PL30s and Meelec M9s as my favorite sub-$20 earphones, but as a product that is readily available all over the web, comes in a variety of color options (I happen to think they look excellent in “red berry brown”), and produces a mainstream, bass-heavy sound without much sacrifice in other areas, the little Yamahas make a good introduction into the world of IEMs.

Pros: Very lightweight and comfortable, user-friendly, inoffensive sound

Cons: Plasticky build

(3B18) Koss KE29

Koss KE29 400x300.jpg

Reviewed Jul 2010

Details: Budget IEM from Koss notable for being covered under the manufacturer’s no-questions-asked lifetime warranty

Current Price: $19 from amazon.com (MSRP: $29.99)

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 15-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug j-cord with volume control

Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2/5) – Single flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and soft carrying pouch

Build Quality (2/5) – The housings are made completely out of plastic and visible molding imperfections abound. The short hard stems pose a danger to plastic cabling but the 3.5mm I-plug is well-relieved. A volume control is located about halfway down the j-cord and the low-quality potentiometer can result in channel imbalance at low volumes

Isolation (3/5) – Despite being ported dynamic-driver IEMs, the KE29s isolate a surprising amount and can easily be used in loud environments

Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low due to j-cord setup and plastic cabling

Comfort (3/5) – Though the KE29s are very light, their nozzles are extremely short. To achieve a proper seal I therefore have to push the housings, including the fat driver bulge, deep into my ear, which becomes uncomfortable after some time. Some may find the j-cord bothersome as well

Sound (4.1/10) – Like the similarly-priced Yamaha EPH-20, the KE29 is a mainstream earphone with a mainstream sound. Its signature is bass-centric, with low reach and a good amount of bloat, smooth midrange, and rolled-off treble. The bass itself is somewhat muddy and intrudes on the lower midrange, not unlike that of the Sennheiser CX300, but carries decent detail. Impact is not too sharp but quite powerful – not as tooth-rattling as that of the TDK EB900, but not too far off, either. The bass bloat results in a slightly veiled midrange. On bass-light tracks or with the low end dropped several dB on the equalizer, the midrange has nice clarity and transitions smoothly into the treble. The treble has some inoffensive unevenness and rolls off quite early – 14k is notably de-emphasized compared to the similarly-priced Soundmagic PL30. The soundstage is capable of surprising air but for the most part the KE29 keeps sonic cues closer to the center for a decidedly in-your-head feel.

Value (5/10) – The KE29 is an inexpensive and readily available budget earphone that offers plenty of bass, a smooth and slightly veiled midrange, and laid-back treble. It competes well with mainstream budget earphones such as the Yamaha EPH-20 and JVC HA-FX34/FX67. Compared to head-fi favorites such as the Soundmagic PL21 and Meelec M9, however, the KE29 shows its age with unimpressive build quality and less-than-ideal ergonomics. On the upside, microphonics are notably low and the inline volume control and J-cord may actually make them appealing for active use. Those with the luxury of ordering online can easily do better for the $20 asking price. Those who just need to grab something off the shelf at Radioshack can do much, much worse than the KE29.

Pros: Bass-heavy but unfatiguing sound, low microphonics, decent isolation

Cons: Plasticky build, J-corded, integrated volume control may cause channel imbalance at low volumes

(3B19) Earjax Tonic

Reviewed Nov 2010

Details: Entry-level dynamic-driver earphone from Earjax

Current Price: $27 from earshack.com (MSRP: $37.50)

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug

Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (6 sets in 3 sizes), triple-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and metal capsule carrying case with detachable lanyard

Build Quality (3.5/5) – The shells are made entirely of metal and feel solid. The cable is slightly rubbery and strain relief is sufficient all-around. Interestingly, the Tonic is missing conventional Left/Right markers - different-color nozzle filters are used instead (red for right, black for left). A bit of driver flex can be coerced from the earphones but not so much that it can be bothersome

Isolation (2.5/5) – Rear vent results in fairly average isolation

Microphonics (3.5/5) – The rubber cords bounce around a bit when the included shirt clip is not used but wearing the earphones over-the-ear solves the problem

Comfort (3.5/5) – The fit is pretty conventional for a straight-barrel in-ear. The nozzles are fairly long and the shells are rounded at the front so fairly deep insertion is possible. The strain reliefs are short enough that the earphones can be worn over-the-ear comfortably and the shells aren’t too heavy despite being metal

Sound (5.1/10) – The Tonic is a mid-range earphone with a popular, fun sound signature. Its bass is deep and thumping, with decent extension and a fair amount of mid-bass emphasis. At the very bottom the bass stays strong up to around 45Hz and is still audible at 30. Impact is generally hard and heavy. The Tonic is not the most controlled earphone and the bass can definitely step out of line but the aggressive low end works well for a lot of modern music. The earphones also exhibit slightly forward mids, which keeps vocals, guitars, and other instruments relatively free of bass bleed. Midrange clarity is quite impressive, especially at lower volumes, and with the bass equalized down can match that of the Meelec M9 and Hippo Boom. The midrange is warm, full, and very easy to listen to. The Tonic stays smooth into the upper midrange and lower treble, introducing no harshness or sibilance and even masking some that may be present on the track. Indeed, the Tonic lacks just enough resolution to make my 192kbps mp3s sound good.

The treble is a recessed slightly in comparison to the bass and mids, making the Tonic a dark-sounding earphone. It can be a bit grainy and rolls off a slightly earlier than with the M9. There really isn’t much sparkle but at the very least the treble is inoffensive and portrays what’s on the track. The vented earphones possess a decent soundstage, too, both in width and depth, but the aggressive presentation tends to center things rather than spread them out in the sonic space. On busy tracks the bass-heavy nature of the earphones can act as a detriment to separation and positioning but for an entry-level set the Tonic performs well enough on both counts. Listening to the Tonic I can’t help but be reminded of the Sennheiser CX300 – it really has a similar overall sound signature, albeit with less mud at the bottom end, more prominent mids, and a slightly airier presentation.

Value (8/10) – Though the Earjax Tonic is fairly typical of a budget earphone when it comes to sound quality, it is a solid all-around performer and will appeal to those who like deep, thumping bass. The slightly dark tonality and treble that’s mostly smooth but still carries a bit of grain and texture gives the earphones some character compared to the similar-sounding Senn CX300. The build quality and accessory pack are both quite good for the price as well. Those in the market for a budget earphone and worried that the Meelectronics M9 may be too harsh in the treble or too recessed in the midrange would do well to check out the Tonic.

Pros: Well-built; plenty of tips included; fun sound signature

Cons: Mild driver flex; bass can be overpowering at times; slightly dark

Full review can be found here

(3B20) Sony MDR-EX082 / MDR-EX85

Reviewed Dec 2010

Details: Aging ergonomic canalphone bundled with a few of Sony’s portable players and reportedly identical to the EX85
Current Price: $16 from accessoryseek.com (MSRP: $69.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 5-24k Hz | Cable: 3.6’ I-plug J-cord
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (2/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) silicone tips and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (2.5/5) – The MDR-EX082 is almost completely plastic and doesn’t feel all that solid. The cable is thin and very prone to tangling, which is made worse by the asymmetric cord lengths
Isolation (2/5) – Low due to shallow-insertion design and front-facing vents
Microphonics (4/5) – Low due to j-cord and shallow ear coupling
Comfort (3.5/5) – The MDR-EX082 is a half in-ear canalphone similar in design to the Phiaton PS210 and Yamaha EPH20/50. Featuring 13.5mm driver units, the Sony earphones are quite a bit larger than the Yamahas and have more steeply raked nozzles, resulting in a drop in comfort. Longer tips are recommended for a more secure fit – generic bi-flanges work well for me

Sound (4.7/10) – Unlike the Sony XB40EX, the older and cheaper EX082 is a reasonably balanced and generally very enjoyable earphone. In stark contrast to the XB40, the bass of the EX082 does not dominate the rest of the frequency range. The low end lacks extension but is generally more controlled and textured that of the XB40. Impact, depth, and fullness trail the Meelec M9 as well but the EX082 sounds cleaner as a result - the Meelecs are definitely capable of pumping out more low-end detail but the sheer quantity of their bass can sometimes hinder the detail level.

The midrange of the EX082 is warm and slightly recessed but generally competent in comparison to most of the similarly-priced sets. Compared to the Meelec M9 the Sonys are actually less recessed in the midrange, though they also lag behind in detail level and clarity. Compared to the XB40EX, the EX082 sounds dry and grainy but doesn’t gloss over detail or get overwhelmed by the bass. The treble of the EX082 is not particularly noteworthy, appearing smooth and well-defined but ultimately a bit rolled-off and lacking sparkle. For an entry-level earphone it’s not very flawed and generally pretty competent but really nothing to brag about in the grand scheme of things. On the whole, the sound signature of the EX082 lacks a bit of refinement but I still like it better than the XB40EX by a fair margin. The presentation, too, is quite enjoyable for a budget set. The slightly warm EX082 is fairly spacious and has decent air, resulting in a pleasant overall feel. It lacks the air of the Meelec M9 and positioning is not very precise but taken as a whole it’s surprisingly convincing and about as competent as anything I’ve heard in the price range.

Value (7.5/10) – The MDR-EX082 is an old design and as such it is extremely overpriced in its retail incarnation (the MDR-EX85). The bundled version, however, can be purchased for much less and even comes as a stock earphone with several Sony mp3 players. For a stock earphone, the EX082 is unreasonably good. Impressive comfort and low microphonics make up for the low isolation and mediocre build quality and the sound, while not great from a technical standpoint, is generally very enjoyable. In that respect, the EX082 is the complete opposite of something like the Meelec M9, which is a technically proficient but very polarizing earphone. One potential issue for Sony users is that a true upgrade to the EX082 may be difficult to find among budget earphones but I doubt anyone will be serious in complaining about that.

Pros: Good air and sense of space, quite controlled and pleasant overall
Cons: Low isolation, plasticky build, may be uncomfortable for some

(3B21) dB Logic EP-100

Reviewed Dec 2010

Details: Tiny dynamic-driver IEM with an integrated volume limiter
Current Price: $30 from dblogic.com (MSRP: $34.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 19Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock bi-flanges, Shure Olives
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Bi-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and UE-style hard plastic carrying case
Build Quality (3/5) – The positively tiny EP-100 is made entirely out of plastic and resembles the Soundmagic PL50 in size and construction. Unfortunately the plasticky cable is thin and stringy, though the 3.5mm I-plug is well-relieved. The bulbous y-split houses the volume limiting circuitry and can sometimes be slightly unwieldy
Isolation (3.5/5) – With the stock bi-flange tips or Shure Olives the isolation is excellent – the tiny EP-100 can be inserted very deeply and blocks out a lot of noise
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Fairly annoying when worn cable-down and still slightly noticeable with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (5/5) – It is very difficult to convey just how small the EP-100 really is – it is by far the tiniest dynamic-driver earphone I’ve ever encountered. The 9mm dynamic driver is mounted vertically and the chamber is much smaller than that of my ATH-CK10. It is very difficult to imagine an ear for which the EP-100 itself won’t be a good fit, though the deep-sealing bi-flange tips may take some getting used to for those accustomed to conventional canalphones. Shure Olives are a perfect fit, however, and make for one of the most comfortable listening experiences among all IEMs

Sound (5/10) –The main selling point of dB Logic’s headphones and earphones is the proprietary volume-limiting circuitry (dubbed Sound Pressure Level Limiting, or SPL2), which is intended to maintain safe volume levels at all times. Though the company won’t reveal the underpinning principle of the technology, the intended result is clear – distortion-free damping of the output when the input power becomes high enough to produce sound pressure levels considered dangerous for the human ear. To test this claim I matched the low-volume sensitivity of the earphones to a variable-impedance set – a Sennheiser CX281. At a relative volume of 10 on my Fiio E7, I matched the output of the EP-100 and CX281 by ear and verified it using an SPL meter. From there I donned the CX281 and increased the volume until my ears started bleeding (so to speak). At a relative volume of 30 I had to stop. The dB Logic set increased in output volume much more slowly than the CX281 even with a matching starting point and actually hit a full-stop limiter at 40. Turning the E7 up between 40 and 60 volume units had no effect on the output of the EP-100 and - far as I can tell - maxing out the SPL limiter introduced no clipping or distortion to the signal. Impressive, but what about the quality of the sound itself?

The dB Logic EP-100 is quite clearly a consumer-class pair of earphones. There is a slight bit of added kick to the bass and an overall smoothness and warmth typical of mid-range consumer-class earphones. The signature of the EP-100 fits right in with sets like the Sennheiser CX281 and JVC HA-FX67. The bass is smooth and powerful. With sufficiently deep insertion there is surprising depth and rumble to be found at the low end. The bass leans slightly towards the softer and fuller side of the spectrum (as opposed to crisp/tight) but remains perfectly enjoyable at all times. Bass quantity is very close to the CX281 – the EP-100 has slightly slower attack, resulting in a sound with less ‘punch’, but slightly better sub-bass presence.

The midrange is slightly warm but not overshadowed by the low end in the least. Clarity and detail are decent – a hair below the Meelec M9 but not as poor as with the Skullcandy FMJ or Sony XB40EX. The tradeoff is note thickness – the SPL2 fleshes midrange notes out a bit better than the M9 and doesn’t sound nearly as dry. The midrange isn’t particularly forward but then the SPL2 doesn’t have the monstrous low end of aggressive treble of the M9, either, so the overall balance is quite good. In fact, it seems that dB Logic went to great lengths to make the SPL2 as inoffensive as possible – there is nearly no unevenness in the upper mids and treble, resulting in a smooth sound that is low on both sparkle and harshness. Treble extension is solid for a set of budget-class in-ears and the response remains crisp and clear, albeit not particularly authoritative or energetic.

The presentation is competent but not quite outstanding. Airiness, which is derived in part from treble emphasis, is lacking compared to the Meelec M9 and the soundstage, though 3-dimensional, is fairly confined. It extends far enough outward for a $30 earphone but doesn’t portray intimacy very well. Imaging and positioning are a little vague but the earphones are convincing enough on the whole. Tonally the EP-100 is hardly neutral but the coloration is pleasant and works well for modern music. In fact, I would venture to say that the EP-100 was tuned for the type of Top 40 music popular among those most likely to be in danger of self-induced hearing loss. Most of my heavy metal, however, still sounds better with the MEE M9s.

Value (8/10) – For some reason I expected that I’d be able to hear the SPL-limiting circuitry at work in the dB Logic EP-100 but they sound like ‘normal’, albeit not very sensitive, entry-level earphones – and that’s a good thing. There is no distortion or clipping at the volume limits and clarity is about where I’d expect it to be for the price. The sound is well-rounded and goes well with pop- and soft rock-type music. Add in the variety of color options, high isolation, and impossibly tiny form factor and the EP-100 comes out looking like a winner for the price. Those interested in risking early-onset hearing loss may want to give these a pass but for everyone else the EP-100 is a solid option for the money.

Pros: Excellent noise isolation; impossibly tiny design; volume-limiting; easy-going sound signature
Cons: Cable could be better; chunky y-split; deep-insertion tips will take some getting used to

(3B22) Xears Bullet XB120PRO

Reviewed Jan 2011

Details: Bullet-shaped budget earphone from Xears/Playaz
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: 24.95€)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: 125 dB | Freq: 6-28k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ I-plug j-cord
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock triple-flanges, Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and padded soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (3/5) – The metal shells are similar in appearance to those of the Fischer Audio Silver Bullets but feel lighter and a bit less solid. The j-cord is thick and soft – identical to that found on the TD100 – but lacks articulated strain reliefs on housing entry just like the Silver Bullet. Some driver flex is present but the XB120 seems to be less offensive in that regard than the TD100
Isolation (2.5/5) – Limited by short nozzles and wide housings but still decent
Microphonics (4/5) – Fairly low but the j-cord is a two-edged sword – it reduces cable travel and therefore microphonics but at the same time makes the earphones more difficult to wear over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The housings of the XB120 are not tapered at the front like those of the Fischer Silver Bullets and the sharp edges prevent deep insertion but comfort is fine with shallow insertion. The light weight of the earphones means that the long shells don’t torque the tips loose, even while walking

Sound (6.3/10) – The sound of the XB120PRO is both quite impressive from a technical standpoint and easily likeable, especially with the price factored in. The bass has good depth and impact. Extension is solid and the mid-bass hump is quite shallow. The Bullets definitely aren’t bass monsters – even the Brainwavz M2 is a bit more impactful - but they aren’t lacking, either. However, the bass is a bit soft of note and can sound a little hazy and slow at times. It’s not muddy but the Brainwavz M2 that I used as a benchmark sounds noticeably tighter. On the whole the bass reminds me of the Thinksound TS02 but with slightly rounder notes.

The midrange is smooth, clean, and clear. Clarity is on-par with the better $60 sets and detail isn’t far behind, either – very impressive for an earphone costing less than lunch for two. The soft and voluminous bass leaves the midrange slightly warm and the roundness of note carries over to vocals and guitars. Compared to the similarly-priced Meelec M6, the XB120Pro lacks crispness and a bit of bite but sounds smoother, more forward, and more cohesive on the whole. Timbre is quite natural as well and the open presentation helps make up for the lack of crispness. So far, then, my experience with bullet-shaped earphones has been two for two in terms of genuinely excellent midranges.

The treble is similar to the midrange in smoothness and clarity but emphasized a bit less on the whole. Still, it is neither forward nor recessed and has decent detail. There is minimal sparkle and extension is not quite up there with many pricier sets but again the XB120PRO is extremely impressive for the asking price. The overall balance is actually quite good, with a slight bass dominance counterbalanced in part by impressive midrange and treble clarity. The presentation, too, is impressive – the XB120 generally sounds big and spacious. The soundstage doesn’t have the greatest depth but sounds quite open. Separation is decent but positioning and imaging are somewhat vague – partly due to the softness of the sound the XB120 can sound a bit ‘smeared’, especially with fast and busy tracks. Still, for the money, the XB120 is incredibly adept at making the competition sound tinny and ‘in-the-head’ in comparison.

Value (9/10) – The Xears Bullet XB120PRO is yet another high bang/back contender from Xears that sacrifices a bit of build quality and isolation to offer more sonic performance per dollar. In some ways the XB120 is an improvement over the older (and pricier) TD100 – the included tips are better, the carrying case has been improved, and driver flex is inoffensive most of the time. It still carries the j-cord of the TD100 and lacks real strain relief on housing entry but for sound this good at the price point. I’m willing to overlook that. Those looking for a sturdy <$30 earphone to abuse be better off with something like the Earjax Tonic. Looking purely at audio performance, however, the XB120 is clearly a top contender in its price bracket.

Pros: Class-leading performance, lightweight housings
Cons: J-corded, tubular shells may be a bit too large for those with smaller ears

(3B23) MEElectronics M16 / M16P

Reviewed Feb 2011

Details: Slim-shelled budget-oriented earphone from Meelec
Current Price: $25 from meelec.com (MSRP: $24.99); $30 for M16P with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 92 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: stock single flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – Like the pricier M21/M31 models, the M16 is mostly metal but the strain relief isn’t as convincing and the stubby nozzles lack filters. The build quality is still very good for the price but it won’t be putting Meelec’s older M9 to shame
Isolation (3/5) – Good but limited by the earphones’ rear vent
Microphonics (4/5) – Reasonably low when worn cable-down, nonexistent when worn cord-up
Comfort (4/5) – The housings of the M16 are similar in size to the M21 model but the nozzles are shorter and the strain reliefs are oddly angled. They can still be worn over-the-ear but the M11 housings are just a bit more convenient

Sound (5/10) – Competing directly with Meelec’s legendary M9 model as well as the RX11 from the new ‘Rhythm’ series, the M16 is an interesting earphone with a somewhat uncharacteristic sound signature. The bass is tight but impactful. Extension is average and so is detail. In general, the bottom end of the M16 borrows heavily from the pricier M21, with similar mid-bass emphasis and a touch of softness. However, the mids of the M16 are slightly recessed compared to those of the M21, making the bass appear more prominent. As with the M21, bass bleed really isn’t an issue.

The midrange recession of the M16 bears a similarity to the aging M9 but is less striking due to the more intimate presentation of the former. The mids are slightly veiled but not offensive on the whole. There is some unevenness towards the top of the midrange and the M16 boasts the most prominent treble of the recent M-series additions (the others being the M21 and M31). As a result, there is a bit of sibilance and harshness on some tracks. Treble roll-off is somewhat more noticeable than with the M9 but there is a good bit of treble sparkle and the high end doesn’t seem lacking. In terms of presentation, too, the M16 doesn’t quite sound as spacious or airy as the M9 but it is more precise in terms of positioning. The soundstage has good width but generally sounds a bit tubular next to the more spherical stages of the M9 and RX11. Next to the pricier M21, the M16 has slightly poorer separation and the timbre is less natural to my ears. The M16 is also a bit more fatiguing as a result of the greater treble emphasis. When all is said and done, however, its sound is still quite impressive for an entry-level earphone and makes for an interesting alternative to the more v-shaped M9 and the more bottom-heavy RX11.

Value (8/10) – Rounding off the latest batch of additions to Meelec’s M-line, the M16 is a slightly v-shaped contrast to the more balanced (and pricier) M21. With a slight emphasis on bass and a more significant one on the lower treble, the M16 can alternate between sounding well-rounded and tiring, depending on the track. As usual, the build quality, fit, and day-to-day usability of the M16, while not as exemplary as those of the M11+, are more than adequate for the asking price so what it comes down to is the sound. For those worried about the heavy bass or recessed midrange of the M9, the M16 is a safer option. However, despite its flaws, I still find the M9 a bit more agreeable on average.

Pros: Good build quality and fit; decent isolation
Cons: Treble can be a bit too prominent

(3B24) MEElectronics RX11

Reviewed Feb 2011

Details: First model in Meelec’s Rhythm series
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $24.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 99 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: stock single flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips and shirt clip
Build Quality (3/5) – The housings are made entirely of plastic and the short nozzles are protected by metal mesh filters. Sadly, the hard plastic stems of the earphones lack proper strain relief and the cable cinch is a bit too loose on the smooth, plastic-sheathed cord
Isolation (2.5/5) – The fat housings and wide nozzles limit the insertion depth of the RX11 and the rear vents keep the isolation average
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low when worn cable-down, nonexistent when worn cord-up
Comfort (4/5) – The housings are small and light and the nozzles are angled for increased comfort (though not nearly steeply enough to be called ‘ergonomic’)

Sound (4.7/10) – As the ‘Rhythm series’ moniker implies, the RX11 is a bass-heavy earphone but the nature of its bass is different from that of the classic M9 model. Whereas the bass of the M9 is deep and hard-hitting, the RX11 is conventionally bassy, with gobs of mid-bass and moderate bottom end extension. It is competition for the likes of the Sennheiser CX300 and JVC Marshmallows – mainstream earphones with decent presence across the range and boosted bass.

The mids of the RX11 are slightly laid-back next to the aggressive mid-bass but the overall balance isn’t bad for a budget product. The budget nature of the drivers does show in the more minute aspects of the sound, such as with clarity and detail that don’t quite keep up the aging Meelec M9. There is also some unevenness in the lower treble response, most likely added to balance out with the bass of the earphones. The treble of the earphones is not offensive but it does make them sound a bit sharp on some notes. Truth is, the RX11 is less shrill than the M16, less of the time but still has moments of slight treble sharpness on occasion. Top-end extension is moderate, as it is with the older M9 and M2 models.

The budget nature of the earphones shows through again in the presentation, which is quite intimate next to the M9, M16, and M21. Indeed, the RX11 is not only more forward-sounding than the other earphones but also tends to cluster instruments together for a somewhat less layered presentation. On the upside, this makes the soundstage of the RX11 seem less tubular and more spherical compared to that of the M16 and the bassy signature works reasonably well with this sort of presentation. On the whole, it is pretty clear that the RX11 targets the mainstream consumer and not the audiophile, which makes me all the more glad that the M9 was kept in the lineup.

Value (7/10) – As part of Meelec’s new Rhythm series, the RX11 was designed to focus in equal measure on sound and style – and to an extent it is successful. However, while the smooth red cable is indeed quite pleasant in everyday use, the overall build quality of the earphones lags behind Meelec’s M-series models. The sound, too, is more in line with budget-level mainstream offerings from brands such as JVC and Sony than the technically impressive, though not always likeable, performance of Meelec’s M-series models. Still, for those in search of something aesthetically ‘different’, the RX11 is still at least as good as most <$30 earphones. It just isn’t as clear-cut an alternative to the M9 as I was hoping for.

Pros: Lightweight & comfortable; low microphonics
Cons: Not as well-built or well-accessorized as most of Meelec’s other models

(3B25) H2O Audio Flex

Reviewed Jan 2011

Details: Entry-level waterproof earphones from H2O Audio
Current Price: $19 from amazon.com (MSRP: $29.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (1/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) & H2O SealTight adapter (for use with H2O Audio waterproof mp3 player cases)
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The colorful shells of the Flex are made entirely out of plastic but feel quite solid overall. The cable entry point is protected by a flexible rubber sleeve and the strain relief on the angled 3.5mm stereo plug is one of the most impressive I’ve seen on an entry-level earphone. The cable itself, however, is a real letdown – far too thin for my liking and very rubbery compared to that of the higher-end Surge. On the upside, the Flex is waterproof. I can’t say how long the earphones will last with constant underwater use but for the occasional sweaty workout they should work just fine
Isolation (3/5) – Quite decent due to small housings and thicker silicone tips
Microphonics (3/5) – Bothersome with cable-down wear but easily tolerable when worn cord-up
Comfort (4.5/5) – The plastic shells of the Flex are small and exceptionally light. The spherical shape allows for very comfortable fitment with the right tips and I’ve even managed to sleep in them with no discomfort whatsoever

Sound (5.9/10) – H2O Audio’s original waterproof IEM, the Surge, surprised me last year with the likeable and reasonably refined sound produced by its waterproof transducers. The new Flex is just as impressive, pursuing a sound signature rarely found among budget-level earphones – one that is balanced and spacious rather than intimate and bass-heavy. The bass of the Flex is easily the most mundane aspect of its sound signature – controlled and fairly accurate but lacking in depth and impact. The Flex, with its slight mid-bass boost and fair amount of roll-off, is definitely not one for the basshead but for those who prefer a more balanced sound the low-end response should be adequate.

The midrange of the earphone is more impressive – free of bass bleed and surprisingly clear. As with the Surge, the transducers of the Flex aren’t the quickest in existence and as a result detail and texture lag slightly behind most mid-range earphones but the impressive clarity makes up for it. Compared to the de-emphasized bass and treble of the Flex, the midrange is slightly forward though it can seem distant when compared to the more intimate-sounding earphones usually found in the entry-level price bracket. The smoothness and laid-back presentation make the sound of the Flex quite likable and easy-going - good traits for an exercise earphone to have. Sibilance and harshness are absent from the lower treble response but a bit of treble sparkle is present nonetheless. Treble clarity and detail are both reasonably good in the context of the smooth sound signature and extension is decent as well.

It is the sonic presentation of the Flex, however, that is most interesting – the soundstage is wide and extends farther in every direction than with most other entry-level earphones. The space is relatively spherical in nature and positioning is quite convincing on the whole. Layering and separation are lacking slightly and the Flex isn’t as adept at separating a track’s background and foreground as most higher-end sets but for a $30 earphone the presentation is very impressive nonetheless. Aside from the aging Soundmagic PL30, really aren’t any entry-level earphones out there with the spaciousness and airiness of the Flex – and that alone makes it worth the asking price.

Value (8/10) – The Flex may not be particularly pretty or as well-built or well-accessorized as the Meelectronics M9, but it does several things very well – it is extremely comfortable, sounds surprisingly good, and shrugs off water and sweat. While those in search of deep, thumping bass will be unimpressed, the Flex can match far pricier models when it comes to clarity and space. Will it survive daily underwater use as advertised? I really don’t know, but there are (pricier) waterproof sets that are likely better-suited for the purpose. However, as a reasonably-priced everyday earphone for music and movies that can also survive a sweaty workout, the Flex very difficult to beat.

Pros: Lightweight and comfortable; Water- and sweat-proof; Balanced, spacious, and surprisingly refined sound
Cons: Not much in the way of pack-ins; Rubbery cable can be noisy; Bass lacks depth and rumble

(3B26) Kozee E100

Reviewed June 2011

Details: Sole universal IEM from Kozee Sound Solutions
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $24.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (1.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips and microfiber carrying pouch
Build Quality (2/5) - The housings of the E100 are made completely out of plastic with a metal mesh filter used in the nozzle and a metal grille at the front of the earphones. The cable is a fairly generic plastic-sheathed affair. It has no memory and is quite easy to live with. Strain relief is fine at the earphone end but far too stiff at the plug end
Isolation (1/5) - The E100 is incapable of sealing due to the front-facing earbud-style grille. Isolation is very low as a result
Microphonics (3.5/5) - The cable is relatively quiet and the consistent lack of a good acoustic seal with the E100 means that bone conduction is reasonably low. However, the earphones are difficult to wear cord-up and lack a cable cinch
Comfort (3.5/5) - The E100 uses a half in-ear design with a form factor very similar in size and shape to the Hippo 10. However, it only comes with one size of eartips which will pose a problem for some users

Sound (0.5/10) - The horror! I am not usually swayed by emotion when it comes to reviewing earphones but remaining positive while using the E100 is has proven difficult. Most of the problems stem from a fundamental flaw in the design of the earphone; namely - the fact that the front of the IEM has fully functional earbud-like grilles. Functionally, the E100 is just an earbud with a nozzle but, unlike proper half in-ear designs, the housing is not sealed at the front. The result is tragic - the E100 is guaranteed never to achieve an acoustic seal with the listener's ear.

With a design oversight of this magnitude, the Kozee E100 probably was not a stellar-sounding earphone to start with. However, the fact that it never seals means that all of the issues that normally stem from poor fit hold true for the E100 all of the time. Its sound is tinny, harsh, and rolled off on both ends. It sounds worse than most stock earbuds. I could probably declare this review finished at this point but the E100 is a truly fascinating insight into the importance of an acoustic seal. There is no deep bass and what little mid- and upper bass there is sounds hollow and lacks body and weight – basically, the same as with any other IEM used without a seal. Cranking up the volume does bring up the bass but listening fatigue settles in very quickly as the mids and highs are brought up as well.

The midrange is relatively clear and crisp but tends to be grainy and unrefined. The treble is harsh and rolled off at the top. Worse still, the lack of a seal affects the presentation of the earphones negatively or, in this particular case, mortally. Because of its design, the E100 lacks the ability to image. There is no single, cohesive soundstage. Those who are unfamiliar with higher-end earphones may consider this sort of presentation normal but the H2O Audio Flex, which is pretty much the cheapest earphone I own, shows that some modicum of a cohesive, three-dimensional presentation can be delivered at almost any price point. Really, the sound of the E100 is difficult to justify on any level.

Value (1/10) – In stark contrast to the Infinity X1 customs, the E100 is a definite miss for Kozee. I almost feel that with its sizable design flaw, the E100 shouldn't be rated alongside proper in-ears. Though the pricier E300 earbud shows that Kozee can make a decent universal earphone, the only positive thing I can say about the E100 is that Kozee has obviously been paying far, far more attention to the sound of their customs.

Pros: Comfortable half in-ear form factor; fairly low cable noise
Cons: Flawed design results in poor sound quality

(3B27) Fischer Audio Daleth

Reviewed Jun 2011

Details: Entry level wooden earphone from Fischer Audio
Current Price: $27 from gd-audiobase.com (MSRP: $29)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 98 dB | Freq: 26-22k Hz | Cable: 4.1’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrid
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (1.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and shirt clip
Build Quality (2.5/5) – Like the wooden earphones from Woodees and Thinksound, the shell of the Daleth is split into two parts – the driver chamber, finished in reddish-looking wood, and a metal front bit with a slim, filterless nozzle. The rubbery cable is thin and has a bit of memory character. Though the strain relief on the L-plug is quite beefy, the other strain reliefs are made of hard plastics. A sliding cable cinch is nowhere to be found and mild driver flex is present on insertion
Isolation (2.5/5) – The slim nozzles contribute to fairly decent isolation but the stock tips are too flimsy to seal well
Microphonics (3/5) – Very noticeable when worn cable-down; fine otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5) – The slim housings and long nozzles of the Daleth allow for comfortable insertion but the stock tips could be better

Sound (5/10) – The sound signature of the Fischer Audio Daleth is, if nothing else, unique and ambient. The bass is nothing special – less extended and a bit less controlled than that of the pricier wooden earphones from Thinksound and Woodees but not offensive in any major way. Most of the impact comes from the slight mid-bass lift but the Daleth is nowhere near as muddy as the bassier Skullcandy Holua. There is less bleed and less warmth than with the Holua and the mids are less veiled. However, the Daleth has a strange way of presenting music – though the vocals are clear and nicely-centered, there seems to be no point source in the soundstage from which they originate. The resulting sound is enveloping and yet strangely lacking in focus – veiled, but without a drop in clarity. The best I can do to describe it is say that it lacks crispness and sounds a tiny bit ‘smeared’ and too soft of note.

There is a bit of emphasis on the upper mids and lower treble – not so much as to limit the smoothness of the earphones but enough to balance out the tone – the Daleth is only slightly warmer than neutral and noticeably cooler than most of my other wooden earphones. For the most part the treble is not lacking in clarity or detail but, like the midrange, could stand to be crisper. On the upside, the Daleth does have a fairly ‘large’ sound, which is made extremely obvious via juxtaposition with the intimate-sounding Holua. Despite the above-average soundstage size, the Daleth tends to cluster elements closer to the center. There’s no doubt that it can portray distance well, but much of the time it refuses to. The layering and positioning of the Daleth really don’t compete well with higher-end models either. All in all, “big but vague” describes the presentation of the Daleth quite well – for the money it is a fairly impressive performer and, potentially, a good match for vocal-centric music. However, its unique voicing will make the signature hit-or-miss with listeners.

Value (6.5/10) – The Fischer Audio Daleth is a decent entry-level earphone with a number of caveats. Its sound, slightly mid-centric and lacking crispness, won’t please everyone but offers up a good enough performance for the asking price. The accessory pack, build quality, and microphonics all leave a bit to be desired as well. All in all, the Daleth is hardly hi-fi but there are far poorer ways to spend $30, especially if the cosmetics of the earphone are to one’s liking. Those looking for solid build quality and an easier-to-digest sound signature may want to check out the Fischer Audio TS-9002 instead of the Daleth.

Pros: Comfortable; well-balanced for a wooden earphone
Cons: Mild driver flex, thin and tangle-prone cabling

A longer review with comparisons against the Skullcandy Holua, Thinksound TS02, Woodees Blues, and Xears TD-III can be found here

(3B28) ECCI PG100

Reviewed June 2011

Details: angled-nozzle earphone designed to replace the PR100 as ECCI's entry-level model

Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $27)

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 18Ω | Sens: 104 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ I-plug

Nozzle Size: N/A (oval) | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, generic bi-flanges

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, and oversize hard clamshell carrying case

Build Quality (3/5) – The housings are plastic though the molding quality is quite nice. The cable is plasticky and average in thickness. Unfortunately, there is no strain relief on the plastic stems and no sliding cable cinch on the cord

Isolation (2.5/5) – The PG100 is a vented, shallow-insertion earphone. Isolation is rather average with the stock tips and a bit better with aftermarket biflanges

Microphonics (3/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down and the earphones are difficult to wear over-the-ear, exacerbating the problem

Comfort (4.5/5) – The PG100 is very small and weighs next to nothing. The housing are meant to be worn like conventional earbuds with the oval nozzles angled for comfortable insertion into the ear canal. The stems are rounded and angled away from the ear – ECCI has clearly done more homework than Yamaha did with their similarly-tiny EPH-20

Sound (5.2/10) – ECCI’s previous entry-level model, the PR100, was a balanced and neutral affair, performing similarly to the pricier PR200 on the whole. The new PG100 is a bit of a departure from the higher-end ECCI earphones, offering a slightly darker and more bass-heavy sound. The bass of the PG100 beats the Soundmagic PL30 and H2O Audio Flex easily in quantity but stops short of the power and depth offered by the bass-monster MEElec M9. The low end is punchy and a touch boomy. There is slight bottom-end roll-off but it’s quite inoffensive. Bass bleed is minimal although the midrange does lack some clarity next to the H2O Flex, sounding veiled and a bit muffled. The overall balance is good – the midrange is not nearly as recessed as with the MEElec M9 but not as forward as with the PL30 or H2O Flex.

A bit of grain is present in the midrange and treble but the PG100 is still smoother than the sparklier, peakier MEElec M9. Indeed, the sound of the M9 is a good bit more v-shaped on the whole so those looking for flat-and-level will be better off with the ECCIs. Top-end extension is moderate – similar to the M9 and many other budget sets. The presentation of the PG100 is average in size, leaning towards the intimate side of things. The Soundmagic PL30 sounds far more open and spacious. The M9, too, has more air to its sound, as well as a bit more width. The slightly veiled midrange of the PG100 doesn’t do its presentation any favors but the earphone still presents a coherent sonic image. The overall tone is slightly dark.

Value (8/10) – Unlike the PR100 model it replaces, the ECCI PG100 sets itself apart from the higher-end PR200 and PR300 models by offering a slightly more consumer-friendly sound in a very different form factor. The compact half in-ear design is lightweight and comfortable and the sound is well-balanced with a slight bias towards the low end. It’s not going to embarrass the other solid entry-level sets on the market but it does provide a very viable alternative.

Pros: Small, lightweight, and comfortable; sounds good for the money

Cons: Mildly microphonic, not as well-built as previous PR100 model

(3B29) Fischer Audio FA-788

Reviewed Sep 2011

Details: Entry-level half-in-ear earphone from Fischer Audio
Current Price: N/A (est. $23)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 101 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.1’ -plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges; generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (1/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality (2.5/5) – The housings are a combination of metal, rubber, and plastic. None of the bits are glued together particularly well but for the price the construction is reasonably good. Metal bits are used at the I-plug and y-split as well but the strain reliefs are too hard and the cable itself is a bit thin
Isolation (2/5) – Not bad for a half in-ear earphone but nothing to brag about
Microphonics (3/5) – the FA-788 can only be worn cable-down and the cable noise can be bothersome
Comfort (4.5/5) – The half in-ear housings of the FA-788 are lightweight and sit well in the ear. The long stems provide something to grip while inserting or removing the earphones but I wouldn’t use them in that capacity too often for durability reasons

Sound (6/10) – The FA-788 is one of Fischer’s numerous entry-level models but that’s not what makes it special; what sets this one apart from most other sets I’ve heard in the sub-$25 bracket is the analytical nature of its sound. The bass is not very rumbly but it is punchy and extremely well-controlled. Extension is good and the note thickness being slightly on the lean side helps keep the low end quick and resolving. Clarity is excellent across the range, accentuated by the bright top end but still very impressive without the treble emphasis.

The midrange is free of bass bleed and tends to err on the cool side tonally. It lacks the fullness and warmth of sets such as the Klipsch S3 and UE350 but isn’t recessed next to the bass. The FA-788 makes the similarly-priced H2O Audio Flex sound a bit muddy but lacks the more realistic note thickness of the H2O. The sound of the Fischers is very clean – almost clinical – and runs into some of the problems common to analytical entry-level earphones. The treble is slightly emphasized over the midrange and not entirely smooth. It is well-extended but sounds a touch sharp and edgy on some tracks. Harshness is not left completely out of the equation either and as a result the FA-788 works best at lower volumes. Plenty is sacrificed for class-leading clarity so those looking for a smooth, forgiving in-ear for relaxed listening won’t find it here. That said, the closest sets to these in sound signature would probably be JVC’a FXC-series microdriver monitors, which I quite like as well.

When it comes to presentation, the FA-788 is a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand it sounds airy and spacious, with good soundstage width and impressive instrument separation. On the other hand the stage lacks a bit of depth, the layering isn’t class-leading, and the sound isn’t really fleshed out enough to fill the sonic space. The earphones end up sounding a bit cavernous and – oddly – seem to place the sonic image a bit higher up than I’m accustomed to, as if the listener is underneath the stage. The similarly-priced H2O Audio Flex has a larger headstage and gives a better sense of 3-D space, though its sound is not as clean and accurate as that of the FA-788. Ditto on the pricier Soundmagic E10. On the whole, the presentation of the FA-788 is for those who want the coherence of an in-ear earphone with the lateral width and air of a conventional earbud.

Value (8/10) – The Fischer Audio FA-788 is an entry-level earphone that offers the comfort of a shallow-insertion IEM along with surprisingly crisp and accurate sound. Good end-to-end extension and a very clean note presentation complete the picture and make the FA-788 worth recommending on sound quality alone. It may not be particularly well-built and there are certainly sets with less cable noise and better isolation but it sounds as good as anything else I’ve heard in the price range.

Pros: comfortable half-in-ear form factor; clean, spacious, and controlled sound
Cons: mediocre build quality, isolation, and microphonics

(3B30) Brainwavz Beta

Reviewed Nov 2011

Details: half in-ear earphone with a good price/performance ratio
Current Price: $29 from amazon.com (MSRP: $28.50)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 110 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: stock Comply foams, generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (1.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and comply foam tips
Build Quality (2.5/5) – The construction of the Beta is similar to Sony IEMs of yesteryear, with plastic housings and long strain reliefs. The cable is thin and somewhat tangle-prone, similar to what is found on Fischer’s FA-788
Isolation (2.5/5) – Decent for a shallow-insertion design, especially with the included Comply eartips
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Surprisingly mild despite the earphones having to be worn cable-down
Comfort (4/5) – The half in-ear housings of the Beta are lightweight and sit well in the ear. The design mandates shallow insertion and the included Comply tips help comfort further, though replacing them can be a costly affair

Sound (6.7/10) – The Beta is an accurate earphone with fairly neutral tone and surprising range. For a half in-ear design, its bass has impressive depth and impact, both vastly superior to Fischer Audio’s similarly-priced FA-788. It is also punchier than the higher-end M1 model and the pricier Hippo 10EB. The bass is very clean and articulate and maintains impressive resolution for an earphone in the Beta’s price range – those not expecting a bass monster are sure to be pleased.

The mids of the Beta are recessed slightly compared to the bass and come across sounding a touch distant next to the M1 model. Clarity is excellent, however, and exaggerated further by the prominent treble. Detail resolution, too, is impressive for the price and the sound produced is clean, crisp, and edgy. The Beta is not something I would recommend for vocal-centric genres over the M1 but its reproduction of guitars has just the right amount of bite and texture. Whereas the M1 is refined and extremely smooth, the Beta is raw and full of energy.

There is a downside to the wild sound, however – at times the upper midrange and lower treble can come across wildly uncontrolled. The top end can be a touch splashy and sibilance ranges from mild to moderate depending on track, fit, and tips used. The included Complys do a good job of taming most of the treble but the Beta can still be fatiguing at higher volumes. Those who listen with the volume turned down, though, will find sparkly, clear, and moderately extended treble well worth the asking price.

In terms of presentation, the Beta is airy and open-sounding. Soundstage width is excellent and depth isn’t bad, either. Fischer’s FA-788 sounds much smaller and more congested in comparison and even the similarly open-sounding Hippo 10EB can’t match the soundstage size of the Beta. That said, the beta isn’t the most resolving earphone and doesn’t separate quite as well as the Brainwavz M1 does once things get busy. In addition, the space is not quite as cohesive and the imaging lags a little behind the M1. For its price, however, the Beta performs more than adequately and the sheer size of its soundstage is certain to impress.

Value (9/10) – While the old Beta Brainwavz Pro was a great value as an overall package, the new Beta gets by on sound quality alone. Like most entry-level half in-ear designs, it is not the best-built or most isolating set of earphones but for the asking price – and with sound quality this good – it is easy enough to forgive. Simply put, aside from a bit of sibilance the Beta may just be the best-sounding earphone in its price bracket. If that matters more than the functional nuances – as it should to many here at Head-Fi – there is no reason not to buy one.

Pros: comfortable half in-ear design; best-in-class sound quality
Cons: tangle-prone cabling; can be sibilant

(3B31) Koss KEB70

Reviewed Jan 2012

Details: Aluminum-shelled in-ear from Koss
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $44.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 15-20k Hz | Cable: 4' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: generic single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The machined shells of the KEB70 look and feel very sturdy but are attached to a thin, tangle-prone cloth cable that has a tendency to fray. Strain reliefs are a bit hard and there is no cable cinch. L/R markings can be tough to see
Isolation (3/5) – Decent
Microphonics (4/5) – Surprisingly low in the cloth cable
Comfort (3/5) – The shells are smooth and rounded at the front but slightly heavy in the ear. Long strain reliefs and lack of a cable cinch can make over-the-ear wear tricky. The stock tips are strange – short and thick

Sound (5.4) – The KEB70 is a budget-minded earphone with a consumer-friendly sound signature. The low end offers sizeable mid-bass lift with moderate sub-bass extension left over. The deep bass is not emphasized as it is with the MEElectronics M9 and tends to be subdued slightly by the mid-bass hump of the Koss but the low end is decently clean and controlled on the whole. The bass tends to be a little slow but not smeared – just a bit ‘fat’. The midrange is warm and surprisingly detailed for an entry-level product. It is placed just behind the mid-bass in emphasis but not quite as recessed as that of the M9. The M9 is clearer and more neutral in tone but not as smooth as the KEB70.

At the top, the KEB70 is laid-back and slightly rolled-off. There are no significant spikes to cause harshness or sibilance. The M9 has similarly mediocre top-end extension but tends to be harsher and grainier. The KEB70 sounds slightly darker, however, and lacks a bit of detail and resolution in comparison. In terms of presentation, the Koss offers surprisingly decent layering and space, sounding reasonably open but not very airy due to the laid-back treble. The soundstage has good width but not much depth – par for the course as far as budget-minded in-ears go.

Value (8/10) – At the current sub-$30 prices, Koss offers a good-sounding budget earphone with surprisingly solid shells in the KEB70. There are a number of minor quirks that might cause one to think twice before picking one up in place of a MEElec M9 or other established entry-level earphone but the smooth, impactful sound is well worth the price of admission.

Pros: low microphonics; smooth and pleasant sound
Cons: poor stock eartips; heavy; tangle-prone cable

Thanks to kidcharlemagne for the KEB70 loan

(3B32) Sunrise Aodia i100

Reviewed Jan 2012

Details: Entry-level headset in the common Sennheiser CX300 form factor
Current Price: $23 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est. $23)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (1.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and shirt clip
Build Quality (3/5) – Plastic housings are fairly well put together. Standard Sunrise cabling with metal hardware feels nice and sturdy but probably isn’t. A bit of driver flex is present
Isolation (3/5) – Moderate with the conventional straight-barrel housings
Microphonics (3/5) – Bothersome when worn over-the-ear; decent otherwise
Comfort (4.5/5) – Tiny, lightweight housings seemingly identical to those used by the Sennheiser CX300 disappear when worn. Easy IEMs to sleep in

Sound (5.9/10) – Sunrise’s entry-level headset model, the i100 utilizes a conventional sound signature – boosted bass with relatively balanced mids and highs. The bass is full and impactful, with good depth and power. There is a bit of mid-bass emphasis but nothing overblown – the Soundmagic E10 is easily bassier, for example. Bass control is good – not as impressive as with the higher-end Sunrise sets but only a touch on the boomy side considering overall the bass quantity of the i100.

The midrange is warm and pleasant. It tends to be a bit dry but clarity and detail are quite good - a bit better than with the ECCI PG100, for example, but not quite on-par with the Soundmagic E30. In terms of emphasis, the midrange is a half-step back compared to the bass but not particularly out of balance compared to the mid-recessed MEElec M9 or mid-forward Fischer Audio Jazz. The treble transition is smooth – the top end is not perfectly even but sparkle is minimal and it is balanced well with the midrange. Top-end extension is average and with its copious bass the i100 is slightly dark on the whole next to more balanced sets such as the E30 and MEElec CX21. The presentation is agreeable – soundstage size is average but has depth in addition to width and the separation is good – better, for example, than with the MEElec M9s and ECCI PG100s.

Value (8.5/10) – The Sunrise Aodia i100 is a well-rounded entry-level headset, scoring points not only for sound quality but also good long-term comfort and above-average isolation. The consumer-oriented sound signature is rather well-executed, with punchy, robust bass, warm mids, well-controlled treble, and a decent presentation. The generic build and moderate cable noise would be problematic in a higher-end set, but can be excused considering he price of the i100. Those looking for a cheap and cheerful way to listen to music and take calls on the go will get their money’s worth.

Pros: Lightweight and comfortable; easy-going sound
Cons: Generic housings; cable can be noisy

(3B33) VSonic GR99

Reviewed June 2012

Details: Entry-level model from VSonic
Current Price: $28 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est $28)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 24Ω | Sens: 103 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.1' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) - Single-flange UE-style (medium) and hybrid-style (7 sizes) silicone tips, shirt clip, and soft drawstring carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – The GR99 is constructed very well, with solid-feeling housings featuring metal nozzles, filters, and rear grilles. Strain reliefs are strong and flexible and the cable is sturdy despite being thinner than the cords on other VSonic IEMs. Attention to detail is good - colored rings around the rear grilles act as L/R designations and a small bump is present ton the right strain relief for identification in the dark. No cable cinch is present
Isolation (3/5) – Good for a vented dynamic-driver IEM
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Tolerable when worn cable-down; very low with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) – The straight-barrel housings are larger than average but smooth and comfortable in the ear. Tip selection is less generous compared to higher-end VSonics but still greater than expected for the price

Sound (7.3/10) – The entry-level model in VSonic’s growing lineup, the GR99 was tuned to retain the hallmark clarity and natural sound of the higher-end models while emphasizing deep bass for a consumer-friendly ‘wow’ factor. The low end of the GR99 is not the tightest or most controlled, giving up some definition and detail to the higher-end models, but it has great depth and power. Mid-bass punch is strong as well – the GR99 easily matches the Soundmagic E10 in impact and calling it ‘bassy’ is not a stretch.

There is a bit of bass bleed and the overall tone is on the warm side. The mids are clear and positioned well – not as recessed as one might expect with the amount of bass the GR99 can crank out. Detail and clarity do lag slightly behind the pricier GR02 and the id America Spark, as well as the far more balanced-sounding Monoprice 8320, but considering the price and sound signature the GR99 is difficult to fault on either count.

At the top the GR99 is smooth and pleasant. It is the darkest-sounding of all of the VSonic IEMs I’ve heard but treble presence is still sufficient. The occasional predisposition of the GR07, GR06, and even GR02 towards slightly hot treble and accentuating the sibilance is all but absent with the GR99. It is also less bright than the Soundmagic E10, which follows a more v-shaped response. The presentation, too, is pleasant all around – the soundstage is average or slightly above average in size – the Soundmagic E10 and E30, for example, are more spacious. However, the GR99, while not as dynamic as the GR02, has decent enough instrument separation and conveys both depth and width for a fairly well-rounded sonic image.

Value (10/10) – The GR99 is yet another heavyweight offering from VSonic, this time in the bargain sub-$30 category. Its emphasis on sub-bass and smooth treble differentiate it from the higher-end VSonic models while making it well-suited for the consumer market. Good build quality and overall usability, as well as a generous selection of tips, make the GR99 even more difficult to beat as a total package.

Pros: Well-built, impressively functional, great sound for the money
Cons: N/A

(3B34) JVC HA-FX40

Added Sep 2012

Details: First carbon nanotube earphone on the US market
Current Price: $22 from amazon.com (MSRP: $29.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 101 dB | Freq: 8-24k Hz | Cable: 3.9' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: MEElec trimmed triple-flange; UE bi-flange
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), foam tips, and shirt clip
Build Quality (3/5) – The housings are mostly plastic, with paper nozzle filters and no strain reliefs on cable entry. The cables are thinner compared to higher-end JVC IEMs but still soft and flexible. The 3.5mm I-plug is nicely relieved
Isolation (2.5/5) – Good for a shallow-fit earphone
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Low in the soft and flexible cable
Comfort (3/5) – The housings are small and ergonomic except for the plastic stabilizing arm shooting off the side of the housing, which can push against the ear and cause soreness after a while. They can be worn over-the-ear, with the stabilizer pointing outward, for better comfort

Sound (7.2/10) – The HA-FX40 is built around an 8.5mm carbon nanotube driver, the first such transducer available in the US. Billed as the ‘high clarity’ model in JVC’s extensive earphone lineup, the FX40 follows a v-shaped sound signature with strong bass and even stronger treble. It certainly delivers the clarity, but does so at a cost.

The carbon nanotube drivers found at the heart of the FX40 are most impressive in the bass region – the bass is definitely enhanced but far from overbearing. It lacks the absolute extension of sets such as the VSonic GR99 and Philips SHE3580 but still digs plenty deep without jeopardizing control. The treble-heavy nature of the earphones can diminish the relative emphasis placed on the low end but the bass of the FX40 is not to be underestimated – it is quick and impactful, forming a solid backbone for the sound.

Bass bleed is quite low – the Philips SHE 3580 and Brainwavz Beta, two competing v-shaped IEMs, have stronger upper bass response and sound warmer than the FX40. The JVCs are recessed through much of the midrange, though the response picks up towards the upper mids. Vocals, especially male vocals, are too far back in the mix on many tracks. High levels of clarity and detail are probably the most impressive aspect of the mids, though some of the perceived clarity comes from emphasis in the upper midrange and treble. This effect is similar to using a treble booster EQ setting (e.g. BBE’s “Crystal Clear” preset) and highly reminiscent of the far pricier PureSound ClarityOne earphones.

The resolution of the FX40 is still very good but there is another similarity to the PureSound Clarity One – the note presentation is on the thin side. The Philips SHE3580 and id America Spark, for example, both give up a bit of resolution to the FX40 but have a thicker, more fleshed-out note. While both of these earphones also sound colored, their note presentation seems a bit more natural than that of the FX40. The treble of the FX40 is emphasized overall and not entirely smooth but it is not as harsh or sibilant as one may expect from an earphone with enhanced treble response – a little splashy and fatiguing over long listening sessions, but generally tame. The tone is on the bright side, with plenty of energy and a tendency to emphasize cymbal crashes and the initial ‘crack’ of drums. The result of all this coloration, combined with the thinner note presentation, is that the fidelity of the FX40 can swing widely from great to poor depending on track.

Similarly, there are some issues with the presentation – while the FX40 tends to sound nice and open, the high left-right separation is reminiscent of Sony’s higher-end EX-series earphones and the Monoprice 8320 in providing little in the way of a central image. Depth and layering leave some to be desired as well, especially compared to JVC’s higher-end FXT90 model. On the upside, separation is good and there isn’t any of the boomy, closed-in feel that can be such a deal breaker with certain low-end IEMs.

Value (9/10) – JVC’s entry-level clarity-oriented model delivers exactly what it promises – a bright, clarity-oriented signature that doesn’t sacrifice the one must-have trait of a successful entry-level earphone – solid bass. The form factor leaves a little to be desired and the sound signature won’t work for everyone but the FX40 is one of the better treble-heavy earphones in the lower price tiers.

Pros: Minimal cable noise; great clarity and detail
Cons: No strain relief on housing entry; recessed lower mids; treble energy may be excessive for some

Thanks to dweaver for the HA-FX40 loan!

(3B35) Rock-It Sounds R-10

Added Oct 2012

Details: Entry-level earphone from Rock-It Sounds
Current Price: $20 from rockitsounds.com (MSRP: $19.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.2' I-plug
Nozzle Size: N/A (oval) | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), airline adapter, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The R-10 utilizes a plastic housing with a rubber bumper, integrated strain relief, oval nozzles with metal filters, and a plastic-sheathed cable. The molding is a little rough around the edges but durability should be excellent for an entry-level product
Isolation (2.5/5) – Isolation is limited by the shallow fit but is sufficient for general use
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Cable noise can be coerced with cord-down wear but is nonexistent in the intended over-the-ear configuration
Comfort (4.5/5) – The housings are lightweight and highly ergonomic. The rounded shells and rubber bumpers are reminiscent of the highly-acclaimed JVC AirCushions but the over-the-ear fit makes the R-10 more secure and reduces cable noise

Sound (4.7/10) – The sound signature of the R-10 is a warm and consumer-friendly one, with enhanced bass and relaxed treble. Bass extension is decent but the low end is a little boomy compared to similarly-priced sets such as the UE100. Impact is similar to the MEElectronics M9, though the M9 has more subbass and less upper bass for a less bloated sound. Midrange bleed is noticeable but the R-10 displays mids very prominently and could even be called mid-centric. Detail and clarity lag slightly behind the more balanced-sounding UE100 and are no match for the higher-end Rock-It models.

The treble is laid-back and lacking in both sparkle and extension. There’s not a whole lot of air to the sound as a result and the R-10 gets congested easily. Still, the presentation is forward overall and the strong, upfront midrange prevents the earphones from sounding distant and uninvolving as some other entry-level IEMs, such as the Panasonic HJE120, can.

Value (7.5/10) – Priced at just $20, the R-10 is a decent-sounding and very well-designed option for the general consumer. The lightweight, over-the-ear form factor allows the R-10 to be comfortable, secure in the ear, and low on cable noise and the bass- and midrange-heavy sound is non-fatiguing, if somewhat muddy. First-time IEM owners will be happy with the bass and the R-10 makes a great disposable set for the gym. Just don’t expect it to deliver the refinement of Rock-It’s higher-end models.

Pros: Comfortable over-the-ear fit; nearly no cable noise, well-built and accessorized for the price
Cons: Lackluster sound heavy on the bass and midrange

(3B36) Rock-It Sounds R-11

Added Oct 2012

Details: Entry-level earphone from Rock-It Sounds
Current Price: $25 from rockitsounds.com (MSRP: $24.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.2' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), removable rubber bumpers (3 sizes), airline adapter, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The R-11 utilizes plastic housings with a trio of removable rubber bumpers that slide onto the nozzle before the eartip. The cable is twisted, identical to those found on Rock-It’s higher-end models and the MEElectronics A151 – very impressive for an entry-level set
Isolation (3/5) – Isolation is improved compared to the R-10 model. A deeper fit is possible with the front bumpers removed (shown)
Microphonics (5/5) – Cable noise is nonexistent with the excellent twisted cable
Comfort (4.5/5) – The housings are lightweight and highly ergonomic. Over-the-ear fitment makes the R-11 secure and the twisted cable is a pleasure to use. The rubber bumpers can be used for stability with a shallow fit or removed entirely for a deeper seal

Sound (4.2/10) – The sound of the R-11 is reminiscent of the cheaper R-10 model, but while the housings of the R-10 are vented, the R-11 appears to be sealed. This has a negative effect on the sound – the R-11 is still a warm, bass- and mid-focused earphone but its sound isn’t as clear and well-defined as that of the R-10. The bass is noticeably heavier but also boomier and more prone to bleeding up into the midrange. Bass extension is improved but the cost to the overall sound quality is too great.

The heavier bass bleed causes the midrange to sound more muffled compared to the R-10 and sacrifices even more of the clarity. Treble response seems to be less affected by the sealed housings of the R-11 but is still drowned out more by the heavier bass of the R-11. The presentation is intimate and the R-11 has the same tendency towards becoming congested as the R-10.

Value (7/10) – While the R-11 improves on the R-10 in several areas, its non-vented housings result in sound that is less suitable for the discerning listener. The bass is deeper and heavier at the expense of clarity and accuracy and the entire experience becomes more muddy and bloated. The interchangeable front bumpers and excellent twisted cable – a definite luxury in this price bracket - are worthy of a thumbs-up but aren’t quite enough to make the R-11 worth recommending over the R-10.

Pros: Comfortable over-the-ear fit; excellent cable; no cable noise, well accessorized for the price
Cons: Audio quality lags behind cheaper R-10 model

(3B37) JVC HA-FX101

Added Feb 2013

Details: Bass-heavy budget earphone from JVC’s Xtreme Xplosives line
Current Price: $18 from amazon.com (MSRP: $19.95); $29.95 for HA-FR201 model w/mic
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 101 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 (1/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The design of the FX101 resembles the older FX1X and features plastic housings with rubber bumpers, paper nozzle filters, and a thin, plasticky cable. The cord lacks a sliding cinch but carries minimal noise and terminates with a well-relieved I-plug
Isolation (3/5) – Good for an angled-nozzle design
Microphonics (5/5) – Low in the soft and flexible cable
Comfort (4/5) – The fit is generally similar to JVC’s higher-end FX500 model but the rubber-sheathed housings may be a little large for over-the-ear wear for those with smaller ears. Cord-down wear is very comfortable with the angled-nozzle form factor and the shells are smaller compared to the older FX1X

Sound (6.2/10) – JVC’s follow-up to the popular FX1X model, the FX101 has no trouble delivering on promises of copious bass despite its smaller 8.5mm drivers. Its low end is not as loose as that of the older FX1X model and yet the FX101 sacrifices nothing in the way of impact or bass depth. Its bass puts it among the hardest-hitting in-ears on the market, though as usual the low end grunt comes at a price. The bass is on the boomy side compared to sets such as the Philips SHE3580 and can be very intrusive. Happily, the FX101 probably won’t be purchased by those looking for anything less than a bass monster.

The real strength of the FX101 is in retaining good overall sound characteristics despite its massive low end and miniscule price tag. The clarity is quite good for something so bassy – it lags behind the JVC FX40, Brainwavz Beta, and Soundmagic E10 but easily beats the MEElectronics M9 and most other entry-level sets. The sound tends to be a little warm and dark. The signature is v-shaped, with strong bass emphasis and a milder treble boost. Bass bleed helps the FX101 sound a bit less recessed in the midrange compared to the Brainwavz Beta and JVC HA-FX40. As with the FX40, the colored signature of the FX101 works especially well with electronic music and can be hit or miss with recorded instruments.

Treble is somewhat harsh and not very refined compared to higher-end sets. It can accentuate sibilance and doesn’t extend all the way up, resulting in a darker sound compared to sets such as the Soundmagic E10 and Brainwavz Beta. The presentation is above average in its price class – not as wide as that of the Brainwavz Beta but better compared to the MEElectronics M9. The darker tone of the FX101 also prevents it from sounding as open and airy as the Soundmagic E10, which also boasts a better sense of space. Still, the FX101 has nothing to be ashamed of for the price and has another piece of mass appeal up its sleeve – efficiency. The FX101 plays louder than just about anything I put it up against and will crank out the bass even at low listening volumes.

Value (9.5/10) – Comfortable, well-built, and not at all microphonic, the FX101 is a bargain that should cause the bass-obsessed to salivate profusely. The bass-heavy sound means that these are far from the most neutral or natural-sounding earphones, but they deliver on the fun factor without sounding offensive - a definite win for their intended audience.

Pros: Well-built; comfortable; minimal cable noise; tons of bass
Cons: Treble can be harsh; tons of bass

Thanks to mcnoiserdc for the HA-FX101 loan!

(3B38) Astrotec DX-60

Added Mar 2013

Details: Entry-level headset featuring flat cables and 13.5mm drivers
Current Price: $20 from lendmurears.com (MSRP: est $20)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 110 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 3.9' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges, MEElec M6 bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (2.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and TRRS smartphone adapter
Build Quality (3.5/5) – In contrast to Astrotec’s higher-end sets, the DX-60 is mostly plastic save for some metal inserts with the Astrotec logo. The two-tone flat cables are tangle-resistant and feels trong but the strain reliefs are stiff and there’s no sliding cable cinch
Isolation (2/5) – Low due to the shallow fit
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low in the textured flat cable
Comfort (4/5) – The plastic housings are ergonomically designed for cable-down wear. They’re a little big due to the 13.5mm drivers but overall quite manageable. Those with smaller ears may have trouble with the cable exit point at the bottom of the housings.

Sound (4.9/10) – Astrotec’s entry-level in-ear pursues a consumer-friendly sound signature that reminds me of Sennheiser’s now-defunct CX300. The mid-bass of the DX-60 is hyped up to the point of overshadowing parts of the midrange and draws attention away from the rather good subbass. The low end is boomy, but I wouldn’t call the DX-60 a bass monster – it’s not as bassy as the JVC FX101, for example. Instead, it competes with the likes of the MEElectronics M9 and UE100, though it lacks deep bass emphasis compared to the former and control compared to the latter. Next to Astrotec’s higher-end AM-800 model, too, the DX-60 clearly sounds bloated and sloppy at the low end.

The midrange of the DX-60 lacks some clarity due to the uncontrolled bass but has a pleasant smoothness to it. Despite the slight veil, the mids sound more open and natural than the recessed mids of the MEElec M9 or the more congested midrange of the UE100. The treble of the DX-60 is not as energetic as I would have liked, which enhances the warm and bass-heavy character of the earphone but also makes it very forgiving of poor source material. It’s not as harsh as the MEElec M9, for example, and remains less critical of poor-quality recordings than Astrotec’s higher-end AM-800 model. With its shallow-sealing housings, the presentation of the DX-60 is also surprisingly “big” and uncongested. Aside from the mid-bass bloat the only issue seems to be a relative lack of depth. Expectedly, the higher-end AM-800 has far better imaging, but for the price the DX-60 isn’t half bad.

Value (7.5/10) – While not as refined in sound or design as Astrotec’s higher-end in-ears, the DX-60 is an affordable smartphone headset with a warm, easy-going sound signature. It competes well against similarly-priced headsets from the likes of Soundmagic and MEElectronics, especially impressing with its noise-free, tangle-resistant flat cable.

Pros: Almost no cable noise; ergonomic design
Cons: Lacks clarity; low isolation

(3B39) TDK MT300

Added Jun 2013

Details: Entry-level earphone from TDK
Current Price: $24 from amazon.com (MSRP: $29.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 89 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Sony hybrid
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (1/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality (3/5) – The metal housings of the MT300 are solid but the thin, plasticky cable is a reminder of the earphone’s low price
Isolation (3/5) – Good, but limited by the shallow insertion of the earphones
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Tolerable, but the MT300 is difficult to wear cable-up to eliminate cable noise entirely
Comfort (4.5/5) - The small, angled-nozzle housings are lightweight and very comfortable, though wearing the MT300 over-the-ear can be tough.

Sound (5.5/10) – The MT300 is an entry-level earphone with a bass-heavy, consumer-oriented sound. It impresses with the depth and power of its sub-bass response, though there is also mid-bass to match. The bass emphasis of the MT300 gives it a full-bodied, albeit boomy, sound. The Philips SHE3580, which is also rather bass-heavy, keeps its bloat to a minimum due to its thinner, quicker note presentation but the MT300 is not quite so capable, sounding thicker and more bloated.

The weighty low end of the MT300 dominates the sound, producing a veil over the midrange and treble. Comparing the MT300 to the aging MEElectronics M9 reveals a lack of mid-bass bloat - and veiling - with the MEElecs but at the same time shows that the MT300’s mid-bass gives it a warmer, fuller sound with thicker, more natural mids. The midrange of the MT300 is recessed compared to the bass, but not too much so. The mids of the Philips SHE3580, for example, appear more recessed, likely due to its thinner sound and slightly more v-shaped response.

The tone of the MT300 has a dark tilt due to a lack of treble energy. The benefit is a nicely non-fatiguing sound – although the treble is not entirely smooth, its features are masked at lower volumes. It is of better quality than the treble of the MEElec M9 but not nearly as refined as that of the pricier Sony MH1C.

While the MT300 is no MH1C when it comes to presentation, its soundstage is wide for an entry-level set. Size-wise, it is about on-par with the M9 and would probably be even more impressive were it not for the mild congestion resulting from the bass emphasis - something the MH1C manages to do a better job of avoiding. As for the extremely low sensitivity figure in the manufacturer specs of the TDKs, it does not seem to correspond very well to reality in this case – the MT300 reaches high volumes rather easily.

Value (7.5/10) – The TDK MT300 is a capable earphone, performing better than entry-level sets from such big audio brands as Sennheiser and Ultimate Ears. At $25, it is a solid but not entirely outstanding budget earphone that is nonetheless worthy of recommendation due to its pleasant sound, great comfort, and good overall usability. Interestingly, it seems to be pricier and more limited in availability in the US than in Canada, for example, so those outside of the States might find a better deal still in the MT300.

Pros: Good bass response; smooth at reasonable volumes; very comfortable
Cons: Lacks a bit in the way of clarity and bass control

Huge thanks to inline79 for sending in the MT-300 and making this review happen!

(3B40) Etymotic Research ETY-Kids 5 / 3

Reviewed Aug 2013

Details: Etymotic’s volume-limiting safe listening earphones
Current Price: $30 from amazon.com (MSRP: $49); $79 for ETY-Kids 3 with 3-button remote and microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 300Ω | Sens: N/A | 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 (3.5/5) – Triple-flange silicone tips (2 sizes), Etymotic Glider tips, shirt clip, and zippered soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4.5/5) –Though the ETY-Kids are lightweight and made of plastic, the cords are Kevlar-reinforced and well-relieved all around. The cabling is very flexible and doesn’t stick or tangle, making the entry-level Etys feel like a quality product
Isolation (4/5) – Typical of Ety earphones, isolation 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) –The slim housings don’t put pressure on the outer ear and the cable exit angle works well for over-the-ear wear. The included assortment of tips is on the smaller side but it should fit most listeners comfortably as long as they don’t mind the deeper fit of Etymotic earphones

Sound (7.6/10) – The ETY-Kids are the second dynamic-driver earphone from Etymotic Research and the company’s most budget-friendly set yet, marketed to parents as a child-friendly safe hearing model. Volume-limiting earphones are not a novel concept - we’ve previously seen similar designs from brands such as Ultimate Ears and Harman-owned dB Logic. The ETY-Kids achieve this with their 300Ω impedance, which makes it difficult to power the earphone to dangerous volume levels. Unlike headphones with dB Logic’s SPL2 technology, the Etys will still hit high volumes when driven with a powerful enough source, but they do a good job limiting output with conventional mp3 players.

The limited volume of the Etys should be sufficient for most Head-Fiers. At worst, it is a minor inconvenience to turn up the volume, and on more powerful sources such as my desktop amp and HiFiMan HM-901, it is barely noticeable that the volume pot needs another ¼ turn. More importantly the ETY-Kids, low price and all, sound very much like an Ety should. The bass is tight and clean, albeit a touch rolled-off at the bottom. This means the ETY-Kids won’t produce the type of deep, rumbling bass the Beats by Dre generation may be expecting, but it also keeps the tone neutral and midrange free of bleed. In comparison, the VSonic VC02 has slightly punchier bass but keeps it just as clean and controlled as the Etys while the warmer, bassier VSonic VSD1 sounds a bit more bloated.

The midrange of the ETY-Kids is likewise clear and neutral, bumped slightly in presence to make vocals more prominent and intelligible. Due to this, and because of the lack of bass and treble emphasis, the Etys can sound a bit mid-centric – more so, for example, than the VSonic VC02. On the other hand, the fantastic midrange clarity means there is no need to turn the earphones up to discern vocals, which fits nicely in with the whole “safe hearing” push. The ETY-Kids are clearer even than the balanced armature Astrotec AM-90, though they lack some of the warmth and fullness of the Astrotecs as well.

The treble of the ETY-Kids is nicely filled in, though it seems to lack a bit of extension and presence next to the higher-end armature-based Ety models. It is smoother than the treble of the VSonic VC02 and VSD1 but not as smooth as the similarly-priced balanced armature sets from Astrotec and Rock-It sounds. The overall tone of the Etys is a bit on the cool side and the presentation tends to be a little laid-back. Soundstage depth and overall dynamics could be better, but for the price the junior Etys do a great job.

Value (9.5/10) – The ETY-Kids name may be off-putting to some but there is nothing childish about the design or sound of these earphones. Like all things Etymotic, the ETY-Kids are well-built, highly isolating, and boast sound that is clear, accurate, and neutral, though for some listeners perhaps lacking in desired bass presence. They promote hearing safety with a combination of immense noise isolation and volume-limiting impedance. All in all, the ETY-Kids are a great entry-level audiophile IEM that – we can only hope – will help introduce the next generation to Etymotic’s signature sound.

Pros: Stellar noise isolation; solid build quality; clear, balanced, and accurate sound
Cons: Deep-insertion form factor can take some getting used to for new users. Volume-limiting design may be undesirable for some

(3B41) NarMoo R1M

Reviewed July 2013

Details: First earphone model from NarMoo, tunable via interchangeable rear ports

MSRP: $69.99 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $24 from NarMoo.com with coupon code “THL”; $25 from amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 98 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug w/ mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Narrow-channel single-flange eartips (e.g. Dunu or MEElectronics M6)
Wear Style: Straight down (preferred) or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, tuning ports (3 pairs), and oversize zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The body of the R1M is aluminum, quite solidly made, and features screw-in rear tuning ports (three pairs are included). Semi-flexible strain reliefs are fitted over the housings, protecting the sturdy flat cable. A mic and single-button remote unit is mounted on the right earpiece and the cable is terminated with a low-profile L-plug. Some driver flex is present
Isolation (3/5) – About average for an earphone of this type
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Noticeable when worn cable-down but the thick flat cable is not particularly energetic, which helps. Over-the-ear wear is a little difficult but makes microphonics negligible
Comfort (3.5/5) – The housings of the R1M are on the large side, but light enough to still be comfortable. The flat cable, long strain reliefs, mic position, and lack of cable cinch don’t lend themselves well to over-the-ear wear, but it is not impossible to wear the R1M cable up

Sound (7.6/10) – The main feature of the NarMoo R1M is the sound adjustment system with interchangeable screw-in tuning ports. This concept, right down to the color coding of the screws, should be familiar to owners of the MEElectronics SP51. The sound tuning of the R1M follows the same scheme – the black ports are the bassiest by far, followed by the darker silver (metallic) ones and then the light silver ones. In short, the tuning screws are configured as follows:

Silver ports: most balanced sound; slightly v-shaped signature with solid bass punch and ample upper midrange/treble presence
Metallic ports: less balanced, borderline “bassy” sound but for the most part maintains bass control and clarity close to those of the silver ports
Black ports: maximum bass setting. Cranks up both the sub-bass and mid-bass for an experience that will please even serious bassheads, but gives up bass tightness in the process

The R1M looks to be the next generation of sound tuning earphones, with ports that are nice and large in contrast to similar designs I’ve seen in the past, making them easier to use and harder to misplace.

With the black ports in place, the sound of the R1M is suitable for fans of heavy bass. Bass depth is excellent but the mid-bass region is boosted more, resulting in slight masking of the sub-bass. The bass is often too boomy for me in this configuration.

With both the metallic and silver ports the low end is much more manageable – not quite as tight as that of my pricier VSonic VSD1S benchmark, but close. The metallic ports are bassier than the silver ones but still manage to maintain good quality. The midrange and treble are remarkably unaffected when swapping the ports, aside from the effects of the bass quantity differences.

The silver ports being the more balanced – and the most impressive technically – led me to use them for the review. Unless otherwise noted, the rest of this review is based on the R1M with the silver ports installed.

With the silver ports, the bass of the R1M is only slightly enhanced – quantity is similar to one of my favorite budget earphones, the VSonic VSD1S. The R1M has less of a mid-bass boost than the VSonics and less recessed mids, which gives it a cooler overall tonal character.

The most impressive aspect of the silver ports, however, is the overall clarity, which falls only a bit behind the pricier VSD1S but easily beats similarly-priced sets from Dunu, MEElectronics, Ultimate Ears, and the like. This is in part due to strong presence in the upper midrange and treble, which also contributes to the somewhat cool tonal character of the earphones. It’s not the most natural midrange presentation, but it works well in the case of the R1M.

The prominent upper mids of the R1M can sound a little edgy and the earphone doesn’t have the smoothest or most extended treble. It lacks a bit of crispness and instruments like hi-hats can sound a little too distant and vague compared pricier sets. However, despite the strong upper midrange presence, the R1M is surprisingly tolerant of sibilance. Compared to the VSD1S, for example, it’s quite a lot more forgiving.

Presentation is another definite strong suit of the R1M, one that impressed me at first listen. There are previous few budget earphones that sound as spacious, airy, and open as the R1M. The aforementioned lack of crispness takes away from their imaging ability a bit, making the soundstaging a touch vague, but overall the earphones simply provide a great sense of space.

Select Comparisons (Note: in each comparison the port with the best signature match was selected)

Nuforce NE-600X ($15) (black ports)

The sound of the NE-600X is very close to the R1M with the black tuning ports installed. Both have enormous bass that should satisfy even die-hard basshead, and yet despite their deep, booming bass, both earphones still offer pretty good clarity and avoid the sort of congestion that often plagues entry-level basshead earphones. The differences are subtle – the NE-600X is warmer in tone while the R1M is a little more neutral despite having similar bass impact. Vocals are a bit more intelligible on the R1M, likely due to slightly greater midrange presence, but overall the NE-600X is a little clearer and more crisp, especially up top. The NE-600X is a little harsher, however.

RHA MA350 ($40) (black ports)

Though the MA350 doesn’t quite have the bass impact of the NE-600X, its bass quantity is still closer to the black ports of the R1M than the metallic ones. Overall performance is again extremely close between the two earphones – they have similar bass control and clarity, though switching over the metallic or silver ports gives the advantage to the R1M on both counts. The largest difference between them is treble quality – the MA350 tends to be somewhat harsh and grainy compared to the NarMoo unit whereas the R1M, while less crisp, has smoother and more forgiving treble. The R1M also has a small advantage in soundstage size and airiness.

VSonic GR02 Bass Edition ($36) (metallic ports)

VSonic’s enhanced-bass GR02 model finds its match in the R1M with the metallic tuning ports in place. The GR02 BE has always impressed me with its balance of bass quantity and quality, and it still beats the R1M slightly in bass control. However, while bass impact and depth are similar between the two earphones, the R1M is more balanced overall. It makes the GR02 BE sound overly v-shaped and mid-recessed. The GR02 BE is a little bit clearer, however, partly due to its greater treble energy. It makes the R1M appear a little dull at the top in comparison, but is also more harsh and sibilant. On the whole, the sound of the R1M is more natural through the midrange and treble. The R1M also has a better presentation, sounding more open and spacious than the GR02 BE.

T-Peos D200R ($35) (silver ports)

With the silver tuning ports, the NarMoo R1M is technically at its best and capable of going up against T-Peos’ limited edition D200R model. The D200R has slightly less bass quantity than even the silver ports of the R1M but, like all of the T-Peos sets I’ve tried, still maintains excellent extension and is capable of very solid punch on tracks that call for bass. The R1M is a little heavier in the mid-bass region, which makes its low end appear stronger and at times more intrusive. The bass of the D200R is tighter. The midrange of the D200R is more prominent and clear, but the T-Peos also tend to sound harsher at times. The R1M is less crisp overall, but boasts a wider presentation and more open sound next to the more forward and closed-in D200R.

Fidue A63 ($60) (silver ports)

The mid-forward Fidue A63 is opposite in signature to the R1M, making for an excellent sound contrast. Even with the silver ports in place, the R1M is bassier than the A63 and its low end is more prone to sounding boomy and bloated. The tighter bass of the A63, combined with its prominent midrange, gives vocals better clarity and intelligibility compared to the R1M. The tone of the Fidue set is warmer overall and its treble is smoother. The R1M is more v-shaped in sound signature and brighter in tone. It also has a wider presentation. However, the smaller soundstage of the A63 is actually slightly more coherent and imaging is more precise.

Value (9/10) – The NarMoo R1M is an excellent first effort, offering pretty much everything one could want from a budget earphone – a solid construction, built-in mic and remote, and the ability to select between three levels of bass ranging from “basshead” to “mild enhancement”. The tuning port idea is not new, but it is well-executed, with ports that are easy to change by hand and provide clearly audible differences in sound. At the current sub-$30 price, these features make the R1M a great value.

Pros: Good clarity; very spacious and open sound; tuning ports make a difference
Cons: Some driver flex is present; bass boomy with the black tuning ports; treble could stand to be more refined

(3B42) Xiaomi Piston 2

Added August 2014

Details: 2^nd generation of China-based Xioami’s popular Piston earphones, called the 2.0 or 2.1 depending on included accessories
MSRP: approx. $16 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $25 from Amazon.com (note: due to abundance of fakes, exercise caution when purchasing the Piston. There are legitimate eBay sellers, such as bigbargainsonline, but if a deal seems too good to be true it probably is)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: <=16Ω | Sens: 93 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug with mic & 3-button Android remote (still has limited functionality with other devices)
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: MEElec M6 single-flanges, Generic single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)

Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes); plastic box doubles as storage case with integrated cable wrap (Note: newer 2.1/IF version comes with updated eartips and adds a shirt clip)
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The finely-ridged aluminum housings of the Piston 2 are a magnet for grime but the build is solid, with ample strain relief all around. There are many design improvements compared to the original Piston – the L/R markings are easier to see, there is virtually no driver flex, and the cable is no longer cloth-sheathed above the y-split, which makes the Piston 2 less tangle-prone and reduces cable noise
Isolation (2.5/5) – Average, about the same as with the original Piston despite the addition of a large rear vent on the Piston 2
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down but much better compared to the original Piston; good with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (3/5) – The housings of the Piston are rather wide and remind me of the LG Quadbeat. They have squared-off edges at the front, which may create pressure points for those with small outer ears. The Piston can be worn both cable-down and cable-up, for which the positioning of the microphone/remote at the Y-split is perfect

Sound (8.1/10) – The Xiaomi Piston 2 makes all the right steps forward compared to the first-generation Piston, tightening up the bass response and clearing up the mids. The low end of the Piston 2 is slightly boomy, but without comparing it to a tighter-sounding earphone – which generally means one that is either much more expensive or much lighter in the bass department – it’s really not that noticeable.

The Piston 2 features enhanced bass, delivering both good extension and strong mid-bass presence. It is similar to the Sony MH1C and the pricier RHA MA750 in overall bass quantity, though both of those place a bit less weight on mid-bass. The extra mid-bass emphasis of the Piston 2 – which still pales in comparison to that of the original Piston – gives it a very visceral punch. When comparing the Piston 2 to higher-end earphones, it can be hard to get over the difference in bass control, but against similarly-priced sets it continuously impresses.

The bass of the Piston 2 grants it a warm tone and full-bodied sound. Overall, while the Piston 2 is a v-shaped earphone, the fullness prevents its midrange from sounding overly recessed. Clarity is good considering the bass quantity – even earphones with significantly more forward mids, such as the Fidue A63 and T-Peos D200R, don’t have a clarity advantage over the Piston 2. The only ones that do are brighter, thinner (and also harsher)-sounding sets with more recessed lower mids, for example the Philips TX2, MOE-SS01, and T-Peos Rich200.

The Piston 2 is not your typical v-shaped earphone in one other way – its upper midrange and treble are surprisingly smooth and refined. The top end has some sparkle, but is still sufficiently forgiving. Maybe not as much as the Sony MH1C, Fidue A63, and HiFiMan RE-400, which all have more laid-back treble, but more than a $25 earphone should be. Tonally, the Piston 2 can’t even be called “bright”, though it does have a little more treble energy than the Sony MH1C. Ditto on the T-Peos D200R – the Piston 2 has more of both sparkle and upper treble presence, which gives it an airier sound.

Thanks to its ample treble presence and generally good clarity, the Piston 2 has a wide and open presentation. It is similar in soundstage size to the brighter-sounding MOE-SS01 and superior to sets such as the SteelSeries Flux and T-Peos D200R. At the same time, the presentation has good depth and is capable of sounding quite forward when necessary. The Sony MH1C, for example, has a pretty good soundstage but sounds consistently laid-back compared to the Piston 2.

Select Comparisons

Xiaomi Piston 1.0 (discontinued)

Xiaomi responded to the popularity of the original Piston earphones with a number of improvements. In addition to fixing many of the design issues, the sound was re-tuned and a much larger port was opened up on the back of the Piston 2 in place of the small bottom-facing vent on the old Piston.

The result of the new tuning is significantly less bloated bass – the Piston 2 makes its predecessor sound boomy, and while it is not in any way bass-light, it won’t tickle bassheads’ fancy the way the original might have. Thanks to the tighter bass of the Piston 2, its midrange is nowhere near as muffled and the treble is a little more prominent, though also a touch less forgiving. The presentation is more open, too, although the original Piston already did an excellent job in that regard. All in all, with the exception of having less bass quantity, the Piston 2 is a clear step forward from the outgoing model.

VSonic VSD1S ($50)

In the world of portable Hi-Fi, the VSD1S from VSonic is a budget earphone, but it still costs twice as much as the Piston. It’s also an extremely solid set for the price, so the fact that the Piston 2 can go toe-to-toe in sound quality is a paradigm shift of sorts.

The Piston 2 is bassier and warmer than the VSD1S, thanks in large part to its greater deep bass presence. The two are pretty evenly-matched in mid-bass impact, but the VSD1S can appear punchier at times thanks to the more recessed mids. The bass quality of the Xiaomi lags behind the VSonic unit a bit – while more extended, the low end of the Piston 2 is a little bloated and can appear somewhat intrusive next to the VSD1S.

The midrange of the VSD1S is a little thinner and more recessed compared to the warmer mids of the Piston 2. It is also clearer, however, and does a better job of staying free of bass bleed, especially on complex tracks. Moving up, the VSD1S is more peaky, which makes it brighter and a touch more sibilance-prone. The Piston is smoother and more forgiving, though not by a large margin. In terms of presentation, both sound nice and airy but the VSD1, like VSonic’s higher-end models, tends towards a wider, less intimate soundstage.

RBH EP1 ($149)

Looking for a higher-end earphone to compare to the Piston 2, I came across the RBH EP1, which provides a rather different variant of warm, bassy sound. The EP1 impressed me originally with the prominence and clarity of its midrange, and that certainly hasn’t changed. Compared to the Xiaomi unit, its midrange is much more forward and quite a bit clearer. Its bass is also much more controlled in comparison.

The Piston is bassier than the EP1, but also more bloated and boomy. This makes its midrange – which is already less forward than that of the EP1 – sound veiled. The tone of the Piston is warmer and its sound is more full-bodied, making the EP1 sound thin in comparison. The EP1 also has more presence in the upper midrange and lower treble, but not in a good way – it still isn’t particularly well-balanced, and sounds rather more harsh than the Xiaomi to boot. Impressively, the Piston’s soundstage is as big as that of the EP1, though on tracks with lots of bass it tends to become congested more quickly.

Dunu DN-2000 ($315)

Just for fun, I pitted the Piston 2 against an earphone approximately 12 times more expensive, a flagship in-ear monitor with a hybrid driver setup that utilizes a dynamic driver for bass and two balanced armatures for the midrange and treble. This comparison is highly unfair, but also interesting because it is the only one I made where the Piston was clearly outclassed – an extremely impressive showing for the $25 Xiaomi.

Next to the DN-2000, with its 3-way crossover and independent subwoofer, the bass of the Pistons sounds boomy and has way too much mid-bass bloat. The DN-2000 has a focus on sub-bass rather than mid-bass and sounds much tighter and more controlled. It is also much clearer – the bass bleed of the Xiaomi makes its mids sound overly thick and muffled. This, in turn, causes it to gloss over a good bit of detail in comparison to the faultlessly resolving DN-2000.

The Piston has a more full-bodied sound, but lacks crispness. Especially in the treble, it seems like parts of the spectrum are so timidly reproduced that they are almost missing. The DN-2000, while much less forgiving, makes for a better reference earphone by far. The soundstage of the Piston seems congested while the DN-2000 has a wider, more open, more out-of-the-head sound. Tonality, however, is one area where I can see some listeners preferring the warmer Piston 2 to the brighter DN-2000.

Value (10/10) – Making sizable performance gains over its predecessor, the Xiaomi Piston 2 offers a solid construction, 3-button Android remote, and sound that’s all but flawless for the price and purpose. While higher-end in-ears can point out where the audio quality of the Piston 2 falls slightly short, in the age of internet radio this really may be all the fidelity many users need. With the dearth of choices among full-featured Android headsets at this time, the Xiaomi Piston 2 is a bargain, and a must-have for any Android user.

Pros: Fantastic sound quality for the price; 3-button Android remote; many usability improvements over Piston 1.0
Cons: Wide housings not ideal for small ears; flimsy stock tips; mediocre isolation

(3B43) Fidue A31s

Reviewed May 2015

Brief: Ultra-comfortable entry-level headset from Fidue

MSRP: approx. $40 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $30 from amazon.com; $30 from ebay.com; Canada: $39 from CTC Audio
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 19Ω | Sens: 101 dB | Freq: 18-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug w/mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Shure Olives; Stock double-flanges; Comply T-100
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and double-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, over-the-ear cable guides (1 pair), and excellent slim plastic carrying case
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The Fidue A31s features compact plastic housings and cabling identical to that of the higher-end A63 model – internally braided and covered in a smooth, glossy sheath. It’s a little stiff and lacks a cable cinch but in my experience these cables tend to be quite durable. Strain relief on the I-shaped 3.5mm plug is average, and there is no external relief on the housings. There are no external L/R markings, either, but the mic makes the right side of the earphones easy to identify
Isolation (3.5/5) – With the stock bi-flange tips or Shure Olives the isolation is very good – the tiny A31s fits in the ear canal very snugly
Microphonics (4/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; low when worn cable-up
Comfort (5/5) – It is very difficult to convey just how tiny the A31s is – its disc-shaped housings are barely large enough for a small dynamic driver, making it one of the smallest earphones in my collection. I found that the included eartips run a size small as well – normally I use mediums, but in this case only the largest tips sealed. The design of the stock single-flange tips is somewhat similar to the Westone STAR tips, which is good, but the deep-sealing bi-flange tips may take some getting used to for those not accustomed to IEMs. Aftermarket Shure “Olive” memory foam tips also fit on the A31s’ nozzles and make for one of the most comfortable listening experiences among all IEMs.

Sound (7/10) – The Fidue A31s is a warm and smooth earphone – something along the lines of a (less bassy) Beats by Dre Tour 2.0. Its sound has little in common with Fidue’s higher-end A63 and A71 models, opting instead for heavier lows, a less forward midrange, and even less prominent treble.

The bass is impactful and extended, but suffers from mild bloat, with room for improvement in both texture and control. The bass of the A31s – especially the subbass – is more powerful than that of the Soundmagic E10, but quality is about on-par due to the more pronounced mid-bass hump of the E10.

Still, the A31 is not quite a basshead IEM – its low end is not as deep and powerful as that of the UBSOUND Fighter or the ridiculously bassy JVC HA-FR301. It is warmer than both, however, due to its less prominent treble.

The midrange of the A31s is not at all forward, as the mids of the higher-end A63 and A71 models tend do be. The rolled-off treble and large bass quantity result in some veiling, but also give the sound a very warm and rich tonal character. Neutral-sounding earphones near this price range invariably sound thinner and colder. Even the Astrotec AM-90 – a smooth earphone by balanced armature standards – sounds harsh and bright in comparison to the A31s.

In its price range, the clarity of the A31s is about mid-pack, maybe a touch below average, lagging slightly behind the Soundmagic E10 and the more mid-forward Brainwavz M1. Likewise, despite having more powerful bass, the pricier UBSOUND Fighter is a little clearer too, due in large part to being less rolled-off up top than the A31.

The treble of the A31 is very smooth and laid-back, but somewhat deficient in presence and extension for my taste. It lacks the brighter, crisper character of earphones such as the E10 and even the Brainwavz M1, the latter of which is not a bright-sounding earphone by any stretch. Treble-boosted earphones such JVC’s HA-FR301 Xtreme Xplosives are enormously harsher, bordering on unpleasant when used back-to-back with the more rolled-off A31.

The presentation is adequate, but hindered somewhat in width and dynamics by the rolled-off treble, tending to sound quite soft and lacking the air and openness of many higher-end sets. Soundstage width also lags behind sets with more treble presence, such as the E10 and UBSOUND Fighter.

Select Comparisons

Nuforce NE-600X ($15)

Nuforce’s entry-level NE-600X is a budget-minded bassheads’ delight. The Fidue A31s has less bass than the NE-600X, but bass quality is similar – both earphones sound a bit boomy. The A31s is tonally warmer and its sounds much smoother overall, whereas the NE-600X has greater treble presence and is more v-shaped in response. The extra treble energy of the Nuforce makes it sound clearer, but the A31s is smoother and can appear more natural as a result.

Tekfusion Twinwoofers ($40)

While definitely bass-heavy, the A31s has nowhere near the same amount of depth and impact as the appropriately-named Twinwoofers. The bass of the Twinwoofers is a touch more boomy, but still better than could be expected considering its sizable quantity boost. Despite the more emphasized bass, the midrange of the Twinwoofers is more forward and a little clearer. The A31s is muddier, but its treble is smoother. Tonally, the A31s may actually be more natural than the Twinwoofers, but the clarity gap is not easy to look past.

Fidue A63 ($60)

Fidue’s $60 A63 model is one of my recommended sets for a warmer sound in its price range. It’s an interesting earphone, providing a slight bass boost but still keeping its mids center-stage. The A31s is significantly bassier, boasting greater bass depth and impact, but less control. The tone of the A31s is even warmer than that of the A63, but its midrange is overshadowed somewhat by the low end. The A63 has significantly more midrange presence, resulting in more upfront vocals and instruments. It sounds clearer overall and its treble presence and extension are better, too. The A63 is still not a neutral earphone by any means, but compared to the warm and bassy A31s, it is pretty balanced.

Value (8/10) – Jumping into the competitive mid- and high-end in-ear earphone markets with their first few releases, the folks at Fidue have now taken a step back with the more consumer- (and wallet-) friendly A31s. The A31s offers a well-executed consumer sound signature – bassy, warm, smooth, and very non-fatiguing, albeit lacking somewhat in clarity and treble energy. Its largest asset is its small size, which, with the right eartips, makes it one of the most comfortable IEMs available at any price. Add to that the headset functionality, decent noise isolation, and the excellent easily-pocketable carrying case (one of my favorite cases, period), and the sum value is very good.

Pros: Good noise isolation; impossibly tiny design is extremely comfortable, especially with foam eartips; warm, bassy, non-fatiguing sound
Cons: Deep-insertion tips may take some getting used to; rolled-off treble results in somewhat muddy audio

(3B44) Xiaomi Piston 3

Reviewed June 2015

Brief: Third generation of Chinese electronics giant Xiaomi’s hit in-ear

MSRP: 99 RMB (approx. $16)
Current Price: $16 from geekbuying.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 98 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.1′ I-plug w/mic & 3-button Android remote
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes); plastic box doubles as storage case with integrated cable wrap
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The Piston 3 uses more plastic in its construction than the Piston 2 but still feels very solid and boasts various small usability improvements such as easier-to-see L/R markings and lower driver flex. The cable is similar to that of the older model – rubbery above the y-split and sheathed in nylon below to provide some resistance to tangling. The new remote is nice-looking but the narrow buttons are actually bit harder to use without looking compared to the previous version’s
Isolation (2.5/5) – Isolation is average thanks to the shallow fit of the earphones
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Audible, but not bothersome when music is playing
Comfort (4.5/5) – The Piston 3 is a large step forward in ergonomics over the older model, moving to a compact angled-nozzle design with strain reliefs that fully clear the outer ear, leading to a very comfortable fit

Sound (8.2/10) – The Xiaomi Piston 2 quickly became one of my favorite budget in-ears thanks to its ability to deliver good clarity, soundstaging, and overall refinement despite its plentiful bass. Combined with an extensive feature set (especially for Android users) and a very low price, this made the previous-gen Piston an unbeatable value.

The jump in sound quality from the original Piston to the Piston 2 was sizable – the first-gen model was bassier and had significantly poorer fidelity. Though the gap in overall sound quality between the 2^nd and 3^rd-gen Pistons is not as great, the new model maintains the trend toward a more balanced, less consumer-oriented sound. You will notice that aside from the Piston 2, the sets I compare the Piston 3 with are mostly in the $50-100 range – a fact that is itself a testament to the performance of the Xiaomi in-ears.

The bass of the Piston 3, while less enhanced than that of the Piston 2, remains quite punchy. Mid-bass impact is slightly lower than with some of the other not-quite-reference-flat earphones such as the VSonic VSD3S and Ostry KC06, but enhanced compared to flatter-sounding sets like the HiFiMan RE-400 and Etymotic MC5. Bass depth is pretty good as well, though sub-bass reach and presence lag a bit behind the VSD3S and VSonic’s higher-end GR07.

Like the previous model, the 3^rd-gen Piston is tuned for a v-shaped sound. However, thanks to the tighter, less bloated bass, its mids are clearer despite not being very forward. With that said, they are still somewhat recessed and a touch muffled compared to higher-end, less v-shaped sets such as the KC06, RE-400, and GR07.

The Piston 3 picks up presence in the upper midrange and lower treble, giving it a cooler tone. It is a little less bright than the KC06, but more so than the RE-400, which tends to be very smooth and laid-back. Harshness and sibilance are generally not a problem – the Piston 3 is not as forgiving as the warmer-sounding models that preceded it, but it’s not as sibilant as any of the popular VSonic earphones, either.

The spaciousness of the Piston 2 is also preserved, though the lower bass quantity and cleaner, brighter sound of the Piston 3 makes its capable and precise presentation less surprising.

Mini Comparisons

Xiaomi Piston 2 ($20)

The Piston 3 offers a more balanced, less consumer-oriented sound than the model it supersedes. Its bass is significantly less enhanced and much tighter. In comparison, the bass of the Piston 2 is deeper and has more rumble and slam, but also sounds boomier. Cleaner bass with almost no bloat is actually the Piston 3’s biggest asset, though with the loss of bass quantity it also sacrifices some of the Piston 2’s appeal to the average listener.

On the whole, the sound of the Piston 3 is less colored than that of the older model. The upper midrange and treble are smoother. Clarity is better due to the tighter, less bloated bass, though it is still limited by the not-too-forward midrange positioning. The Piston 3 is also less sensitive than the older model, which fits with its less consumer-oriented sound because a non-audiophile listener is more prone to put value in both emphasized bass and the ability reach higher volumes more easily.

Technically, the Piston 3 is the better earphone – it is clearer, tighter, and more neutral. The Piston 2 is warmer and boasts bass that is deeper and more powerful which, admittedly, also helps it sound very dynamic and delivers a “wow” factor. As a result, it’s hard to call the Piston 3 a straight upgrade from the Piston 2 – it’s a more Hi-Fi earphone for sure, but I will still be recommending the Piston 2 in many situations and for certain genres. There are parallels here to the DUNU DN-1000 / DN-2000 situation, albeit with a greater magnitude of difference. There, the older DN-1000 model also provides a bassier sound and in many cases remains recommendable over the more expensive DN-2000.

Zipbuds PRO ($35)

The Zipbuds PRO are a surprisingly capable consumer-class earphone with a v-shaped sound profile. The main thing they do well is balance high bass quantity and good overall clarity. Indeed, the Piston 3 has significantly less bass but doesn’t gain any clarity over the Zipbuds. Its bass is tighter, however, and its highs are less bright and more smooth, making the Zipbuds appear overly harsh in comparison. On the whole, the Piston 3 is the more balanced and accurate-sounding earphone.

SteelSeries Flux In-Ear ($50)

The Flux In-Ear is the closest match I could find for the Piston 3 when balancing sound quality and sound signature. The SteelSeries unit is warmer and has smoother treble and a slightly wider presentation. It’s more sensitive, too. The Piston 3 is a bit more v-shaped and has a cooler, brighter tonal character. It sounds thinner, but also a little clearer. It’s hard to say one outperforms the other, but that in itself is a big win for the Xiaomi – only two years ago the Flux was one of the absolute best in-ears one could get for $50. Now, the Piston 3 offers the same level of performance – albeit with a slightly brighter tonal tilt – for 1/3 of that, with better build quality and a 3-button remote to boot.

Havi B3 Pro I ($60)

The dual-driver B3 Pro I is notable for having an even less consumer-friendly sound signature than the Piston 3, with lower bass impact and much lower sensitivity. The overall sound of the B3 is more balanced compared to the v-shaped Piston 3. The Piston is bassier, but the low end of the B3 is tighter and cleaner. The midrange of the Havi is clearer and more prominent while its upper midrange and treble are a bit more forgiving. The presentation is a bit more well-rounded on the B3 as well. Especially for those in search of balanced sound, the Havi is better than the Piston 3, but its low sensitivity and lack of bass enhancement limit its appeal in the mainstream.

Sennheiser Momentum In-Ear ($100)

The Sennheiser Momentum In-Ear is one the few earphones with 3-button Android remotes on the market besides the Piston line. It is also fairly similar to the Piston in how it fits in the ear, albeit with a slimmer profile and longer nozzles providing slightly better noise isolation. In terms of sound, the Momentum has a more colored, arguably more “fun” tuning than the Piston 3 but isn’t too far ahead in technical ability.

Both earphones have sound signatures on the v-shaped side of “flat” but the Momentum In-Ear unit offers up a warmer tone with better bass. Its bass delivers more depth and resolution while also making the Piston 3 seem a touch boomier in comparison. The mids of the Sennheiser unit are slightly clearer but it is a little more prone to sibilance and less forgiving on the whole. The Momentum’s presentation is slightly wider and more spacious.

Value (10/10) – The latest evolution of Xiaomi’s venerable Piston line once again succeeds in delivering outstanding sound quality with a solid construction and 3-button Android remote, all at a very low price. The biggest improvement this time around is in ergonomics – the new model is significantly more comfortable and unobtrusive than the previous Pistons.

Xiaomi has come a very long way since the original piston in terms of fidelity, too – while not a direct upgrade from the Piston 2 due to how different the tuning of the two earphones is, the Piston 3 provides a clearer, tighter, more balanced audio experience for those willing to trade away some of the previous model’s warmth and bass power. Going forward I can see myself recommending either of the two Piston variants, depending on the situation.

Pros: Very comfortable fit; fantastic sound quality for the price; 3-button Android remote
Cons: Remote is a bit less user-friendly than previous generation; mediocre noise isolation

(3B45) Popclik Evolo

Brief: The pricier of two in-ear earphones from Florida-based Popclik

MSRP: $29.99
Current Price: $30 from amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 95 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug w/mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges; Comply T400
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The first thing I noticed about the Evolo is the excellent size-to-heft ratio of the metal earpieces – they are just weighty enough to feel solid, yet still very unobtrusive in the ear, and wouldn’t be out of place on a pricier earphone. The narrow flat cable holds a single-button remote and terminated with a nice L-shaped plug. There is a bit of driver flex, however, and the cable doesn’t have a cinch
Isolation (3/5) – Good, very much usable outside and while commuting
Microphonics (4/5) – The flat cable is relatively low in microphonics and doesn’t bounce around too much. Wearing the Evolo over-the-ear makes cable noise a non-issue
Comfort (4/5) – The housings of the Evolo are lightweight, compact, and have smooth, rounded edges. For a straight-barrel, “bullet”-shaped earphone, this is about as ergonomic as it gets

Sound (7.4/10) – In the past year I’ve passed on reviewing most of the new earphones I’ve come across in the $30-and-under bracket simply because they don’t measure up in performance. I understand why, too – first, those shopping for an earphone in this price range likely won’t be audio enthusiasts. Second, every sub-$30 earphone boasts the same claims of “great bass” and/or “clear sound” regardless of actual performance. Combined with customers who simply don’t know good sound from “good” sound, this makes tuning earphones for better sound quality than the other guys a no-win proposition for manufacturers. To compete for shelf space against mainstream, high-volume products from the likes of Philips, Sony, and JVC, it makes more sense to focus on “tangible” things like packaging, features, and design, as well as various marketable gimmicks – Swarovski crystals, zipper cables, wooden housings, and so on.

The two earphones I’ve tried from Popclik, the Evolo and the String, do come in rather expensive-looking packaging and boast nice, well thought-out designs, but also don’t neglect performance, following a consumer-friendly “v-shaped” sound tuning that emphasizes the bass and treble. The Evolo is the more balanced of the two, but its bass quantity is still plentiful. It falls short of the Nuforce NE-600X, my basshead recommendation in this price range, but is greater compared to the Philips SHE3580, one of my typical recommendations for “v-shaped” sound. The bass of the Philips set is a little more linear and detailed while the Evolo has more of a conventional mid-bass emphasis. It’s a little light on texture, but not too bad, and easily recommendable as a more impactful alternative to the Philips.

The Evolo is on the whole more v-shaped than the SHE3580, as well as the warmer, more full-bodied Xiaomi Piston 2 and the newer, more balanced Piston 3. Midrange presence and clarity are not a strong suit but are sufficiently good for the price. Treble energy is good as well – similar to the SHE3580 in being energetic, but not excessive. The Evolo is not very tolerant of harshness, but I prefer this type of approach over the dull, rolled-off treble delivered by many other enhanced-bass sets in this price range. The presentation is alright as well – a little more forward and less spacious compared to the more balanced Piston 3, but pretty good compared to other in-ears with similar levels of bass boost.

Select Comparisons

Popclik String ($25)

The String and Evolo are similarly-priced and arguably differ more in form factor and design than they do in sound, with the Evolo being metal-shelled and outfitted with a flat cable and L-shaped plug, and the String being plastic with a conventional cable, angled nozzles, and an I-plug.

Both earphones follow v-shaped sound signatures, with elevated bass and treble providing a lively, energetic sort of sound. The pricier Evolo is a little more balanced on the whole, trading off some of the String’s extra bass for a flatter, marginally less v-shaped sound. The String offers stronger and slightly deeper bass, warmer tone, and more full-bodied sound. It has a bit more treble energy as well, but its highs are less forgiving and a touch more sibilance-prone. The brighter sound helps the String sound clearer than the Evolo despite the slightly more recessed mids, and the overall presentation is more dynamic and engaging. All in all, the combination of greater clarity and more bass offered by the String is very impressive, but the two Popclik earphones are close enough in performance that the design differences between them can be the deciding factor, and the Evolo certainly has the more refined design.

Brainwavz S0 ($45)

The S0 and Evolo are remarkably similar IEMs, from the size, shape, and fit of their housings to the metal construction and flat cables, right down to the flatter sound each earphone offers compared to its siblings (the S1 and S5 in the case of the S0, and the String in the case of the Evolo).

When compared to the S0, the Evolo follows a more v-shaped sound tuning with the bass quantity being the biggest difference. The Popclik unit offers significantly deeper and more powerful bass, making the Brainwavz sound a little gutless in comparison – not a huge surprise as bass really isn’t the S0’s strong suit. However, the Evolo also becomes muffled and congested more easily on bass-heavy tracks, giving the S0 a small edge in clarity.

Value (8/10) – Though based in Florida, Popclik was until recently focused largely on the Latin America market, which does not enjoy the variety of IEM options we have in the US, for marketing and sales. That may seem like a great excuse for mediocrity, but the performance and design of the Popclik IEMs are anything but.

The Evolo offers a conventionally “v-shaped” sound signature that offends with neither excessive bass emphasis nor overly bright and harsh treble. The design is quite handsome, too, and the overall package is much more refined than I expect to see at this price, from the fancy box to the compact and comfortable metal housings and two-tone flat cable. All in all, it is priced very well for a metal-shelled IEM with headset functionality and good sound.

Pros: Nice, giftable packaging; solid performance for the price; comfortable earpiece design
Cons: Mild driver flex; sound of less expensive String model has more “wow” factor

post #3 of 16444

3/19/10 at 6:20pm

Thread Starter

ljokerl
Trader Feedback: +103
Portables Reviewerus Prolificus
offline

10,212 Posts. Joined 3/2009
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Select All Posts By This User

Tier 3A ($30-60)

(3A1) RadioPaq Jazz

Reviewed Nov 2009

Details: One of the four RadioPaq IEMs ‘acoustically tuned’ for different genres
Current Price £30 from AdvancedMp3Players.co.uk (MSRP: £60.00)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 120 dB | Freq: 18-20k Hz | Cord: 3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock tips, VSonic $2 foamies
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (1/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality (4/5) – Metal housings have a very solid feel and classy looks. Metal nozzle is very sturdy although the lack of filters is pretty odd-looking. Cabling is strong but plasticky and a cable cinch is nowhere to be found
Isolation (2.5/5) – Fat housings make it difficult to get a deep seal but they can isolate well even with stock tips if a good fit is achieved
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Pretty average when worn cord-down, much better over-the-ear
Comfort (2.5/5) – Shells are quite large and weighty. Insertion is shallow and they can sometimes break seal or even fall out, requiring re-insertion. If inserted deeply enough the edges of the housings can hurt ears

Sound (6.8/10) – Sound is warm and dynamic. Definitely cannot be called analytical, but can be more fun than the proverbial barrel of monkeys. Soundstage is just a bit wider than average but instrumental separation is quite good. The high end boasts good extension and plenty of detail for a budget-oriented dynamic IEM but has some peaks. The mids also boast good detail and clarity but are somewhat recessed compared to the bass and treble. They need a very good seal for the optimal bass experience, but can be incredibly deep and smooth. Bass often feels layered over the mids rather than integrated, yielding a pretty unique sound signature. The treble can be slightly hot-tempered on some tracks but remains sibilance-free nevertheless.

Amplification – not required to enjoy the smooth, easy-going sound. However, a good neutral amp will bring out more detail and make the Jazz more accurate and balanced all-around performers.

Value (8.5/10) – The Jazz is a very interesting earphone at its price point. It provides a big, powerful, smooth, and warm sound that keeps it true to its name, and does all this at a bargain-basement price. Should be especially high on the short-list for European Head-Fiers who may have an easier time acquiring one of these than, say, a Nuforce or Maximo product. Price fluctuates wildly, so adjust accordingly. At the lowest-to-date £27 price, these are nothing short of unbeatable.

Pros: Good looking, sturdy, lots of fun, excellent bass and very smooth-sounding overall
Cons: Lacks accessories, large size can lead to fit issues

(3A2) Nuforce NE-6 / NE-7M

Reviewed Nov 2009

Details: Long-time head-fi favorite budget dynamic earphone
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $39); $49 for NE-7M with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 12 Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 20-22k Hz | Cord: 3.9’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Comply T400, Soundmagic Bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) – Pleather carrying pouch and silicone single-flange tips (three sizes)
Build Quality (3/5) – Shell is made out of plastic with a metal insert. It feels fairly solid but there are numerous reports of shell splitting at the metal/plastic interface, which happened to my set as well
Isolation (3.5/5) – Fairly deep fit for solid isolation. Comply tips help further
Microphonics (4/5) – Very low when worn over-the-ear, but still not too bad otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – Straight-barrel IEM with a fairly long body. Stemless design very conducive to over-the-ear fit

Sound (6.1/10) – Not always pitch-perfect but still lots of fun, the NE-7M is smooth, with slight treble roll-off and a voluminous bottom end. Despite the good overall balance, somewhat long decay times at the bottom end give the impression of greater bass quantity. The low end does extend quite deep, though with a noticeable mid-bass emphasis. The midrange is smooth and enjoyable, boasting good clarity and realistic tone. The highs are not too detailed but also not at all fatiguing, rolling off gently near the very top. Overall the sound is a little too colored for my liking but I am sure there are many head-fiers who will find their perfect budget earphone in the NE-6.

Value (8.5/10) – Though not in a field of its own like it was a year ago, the Nuforce NE-6 and NE-7M are still safe choices in the $50 range. They do nearly everything right and manage to retain the fun factor without significant sacrifices to SQ. And let’s not forget Nuforce’s excellent customer service.

Pros: Comfortable, low microphonics, very solid sound characteristics
Cons: May be too colored for some, not too strong in the highs, common build issues

(3A3) JVC HA-FX300 “Bi-Metals”

Reviewed Nov 2009

Details: JVC’s mid-range IEM featuring a bi-metal construction
Current Price: $50 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $99.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 8-25k Hz | Cord: 3.3’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Comply T400
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) – Egg-shaped hardcase and asymmetric silicone single-flange tips (three sizes)
Build Quality (4/5) – Very solid all-metal housing; cabling is identical to the low-end JVC models, which is a bit disappointing at this price point
Isolation (3/5) – Not designed for deep insertion but the included asymmetric tips do a good job of compensating for the shallow fit. Foamies work better still.
Microphonics (4/5) – Low due in part to forced over-the-ear design. Same cabling as other JVC models
Comfort (4/5) – Shells sit in the ear nicely, but could be too large for some. Insertion can be challenging due to the round housing and the way the nozzle is angled

Sound (4.3/10) – Medium-size soundstage with very good positioning. Sound is slightly cold and metallic, but very dimensional and can be quite fun. Unfortunately, it can also be very tiring with hard rock and metal. Good high-end extension and detail, but treble can sound artificially sharp, especially with silicone tips. I believe the proper term is ‘edgy’. The mids also boast good detail and clarity but are somewhat hollow-sounding and metallic, making the whole midrange sound recessed. The bass is punchy, but not very powerful, missing the ‘oomph’ of some other phones. Accuracy is good but extension could be better.

Value (6.5/10) – At $50, the FX300s are another solid earphone from JVC, but as with the lower-end models better options can sometimes be had for the price. Sound can be characterized as somewhat bright and aggressive, sometimes harsh. Foam tips help tone down the timbre a bit. Not recommended for hard rock and metal listeners.

Pros: Solid construction, comfortable, low microphonics, good detail and clarity
Cons: Slightly bright with odd peaks in frequency response, can be tiring

(3A4) MEElectronics M11

Reviewed Nov 2009

Details: New MEElectronics flagship. A version with a microphone is also available.
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $44.99)

pecs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cord: 4.6’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock Bi-flanges, Soundmagic PL30 Foamies
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or Straight down

Accessories (4.5/5) – Hard clamshell carrying case, cord wrap, airplane adapter, shirt clip, and single- (three sizes), bi-, and tri-flange silicone tips
Build Quality (4.5/5) – For the price, the build is sublime. Housing is all-metal and has a very solid and weighty feel while at the same time maintaining a feel of being delicately machined. The cable is the same thick and flexible design found on all Meelec IEMs. The only issue with my (silver) set is that the L/R markings printed in a tiny white font are nearly impossible to see under certain lighting.
Isolation (3.5/5) – The housing is very narrow and they lend themselves well to deep insertion. However, they sound better inserted shallowly with the bi-flanges or foam tips and still isolate quite well
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Nearly non-existent whether worn cord-up or cord-down
Comfort (4.5/5) – This is about as good as conventional straight-barrel IEMs get. The housing is tiny but easy to grip when inserting/removing

Sound (4.4/10) – A more conventional sound signature than the M6 and M9, the M11 is smooth, thick, and intimate but lacks the detail and refinement of the M6. Sound is very dependent on the tips used. Soundstage is lacking but positioning is precise. Certain tips (e.g. Comply foams) can make it sound distant and uninvolving. Good high-end extension but too laid back for my taste. The mids are a little warm, but still very pleasant. Bass is smooth and powerful with a fair amount of reach and decent definition. Overall, they are smoother, warmer, and darker compared to the M6. They would be an interesting alternative but some of the detail and all of the sparkle is lost in the differences.

Value (7.5/10) – At $36, the M11 is a competitive entry. While slightly below the older M6 SQ-wise, its extreme user-friendliness and stellar build quality make it worth a look. It is one of the most well-designed IEMs I have encountered, and we can only hope that MEElectronics can keep improving their lineup to breed even more well-rounded earphones.

Pros: Outstanding build quality, no microphonics, good bass
Cons: Not as resolving or detailed as the M6

(3A5) Soundmagic PL50

Reviewed Nov 2009

Details: Soundmagic’s flagship IEM and first Armature-based design
Current Price: $55 from Focalprice.com (MSRP: $55)
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 55.5 Ω | Sens: 109 dB | Freq: 15-22k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Hard carrying case, a set of over-the-ear cable guides and a large selection of single-flange silicone and foam tips
Build Quality (4/5) – Housings are tiny and very, very light. The cables are fairly thick, rubberized, and feature articulated strain reliefs at the y-joint and an L-plug. An early batch had problems with removing the stock foam tips, which sometimes resulted in splitting, but this has been resolved.
Isolation (2.5/5) – Not bad at all but the design does not allow a very deep fit
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent
Comfort (5/5) – With properly-fitting tips these are some of the most comfortable IEMs out there. The tiny size and low profile make it easy to forget about them

Sound (6.9/10) – The sound signature of these is a little different from most of the other IEMs I’ve tried in the price range. Instead of focusing specifically on the bass, the highs, or both, the PL50’s single balanced armature surprises with the smoothness and evenness of response across its entire (rather wide) frequency range. Extension on both ends is quite a bit better than average – on par, if not better than, the better dynamics, which is surprising for a single armature setup, especially at such a low price point. I can see some people finding them bass light, and truly they don’t have any significant humps in the low-end response, but it is very detailed and can be felt as well as heard. Same goes for the highs – just a tiny bit of sparkle, no emphasis. If I had to attribute a term to these, I would call them mid-centric just because nothing draws attention away from the silky-smooth, liquid midrange. Soundstage is above average, but not as airy as the lower-end PL30. Imaging, however, is superb – easily as good as it gets for the price. Overall, the sound they produce is very, very effortless. They are one of the least tiring earphones to listen to in my experience and also very forgiving of poor source material.

Amping: Good if it can be used as a hardware equalizer (i.e. a Fiio E5 with bass boost for those craving more bass), but these are quite efficient and don’t need one in general. They do respond very well to software equalization and can be molded to fit individual preferences quite well.

Value (8.5/10) – With their unbeatable comfort, excellent accessory set, low microphonics, good build quality, and smooth sound I find very hard to find any cons whatsoever in these for the price. The sound may not be for everyone, but for what they offer they are incredible. I do recommend using them with Sony Hybrid tips, which add about $10 on top of the price but color the sound less than stock foamies and seal better than stock silicone tips.

Pros: Astonishingly comfortable, useful accessory pack, very practical, excellent sound
Cons: Laid back, mid-centric sound signature may be boring to some

More Impressions can be found here

(3A6) Cyclone PR1 Pro

Reviewed Nov 2009

Details: Discontinued IEM from Chinese manufacturer Cyclone, succeeded by the PR100 and PR200 under their new ECCI brand
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $55)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32 Ω | Sens: 106 dB | Freq: 20-22k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ I-plug j-cord
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock Bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) – Silicone single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange tips, small clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (3/5) – Housing is made of metal and sturdy plastic. Metal filters are nice but the lack of strain reliefs is a cause for concern
Isolation (3/5) – Ported but still adequately isolating, especially with bi-flange tips; slightly susceptible to wind noise
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Nearly non-existent
Comfort (4/5) – Very typical of straight barrel IEMs. I find them light and comfortable. J-cord can be a bother

Sound (7.4/10) –These have a very natural presentation. The soundstage is very wide and airy, with good positioning and separation. They have tremendous clarity across the range and the level of detail they put out, though not on-par with the RE0, is impressive. They have very gradual roll-off at both ends, which results in well-controlled high and low notes. No harsh treble or bass bloat here. I like the bass especially – it can go down pretty deep, but it never imposes and always stays musical. Their unique, gentle signature really agrees with me and works especially well with live recordings, acoustic music, and anything else that can take advantage of the incredible soundstage.

Value (8.5/10) – The PR1 Pro is stellar value for money when it comes to audio quality. The unique sound signature alone makes them worth the price of admission = there is nothing else in their category that can match the wide open feel of these Unfortunately, the j-cord can be bothersome and many similarly-priced sets offer better build quality.

Pros: Wide, airy sound, great clarity and instrumental separation, comfortable
Cons: Lack strain reliefs on the cords, j-corded

Full review can be found here

More impressions and a comparison to several competitors can be found here

(3A7) Skullcandy TiTan

Reviewed Nov 2009

Details: Skullcandy’s latest creation hailed by HeadRoom as a 5-star value
Current Price: $30 from amazon.com (MSRP: $49.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Comply T400
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) – Mesh clamshell case, single flange silicone tips (Medium), and 2 pairs of Comply T400 foamies. I don’t understand the case since it protects from neither significant impact nor dust
Build Quality (3/5) – Housings are metal and look pretty solid but still somehow feel cheap. The biggest problem is the “strain reliefs” on housing entry – they are made out of a hard, sharp-edged plastic that’s bound to damage cables over time. The strain relief on the plug isn’t much better. Cabling is a little thin but nicely rubberized and doesn’t tangle much.
Isolation (2.5/5) – Ported; comply tips help isolation quite a bit
Microphonics (3/5) – Very microphonic when worn straight-down. Over-the-ear is fine though
Comfort (2.5/5) – The big metal bulge on the housings hurts my ears after I wear them cable down for more than an hour. Over-the-ear is much better but I still prefer straight-barrel designs

Sound (4.1/10) – The sound is tolerable. As expected, bass is their focus. I don’t mind big bass when it’s done right, but the Titans are only halfway there. While an improvement over the Ink’d, the bass is still fairly muddy, fat, and slow. The treble is harsh with the stock silicone tips but can be toned down a little with the (included) Comply T400 foamies. The mids are somewhat dry and can boast some clarity but very little detail. Though terms such as “soundstage” and “positioning” are not applicable here, these don’t sound anywhere near as flat as the Ink’d buds – in fact, they are quite full-sounding and dimensional with that massive bass impact - but they are still very confused about where and how far away things are.

Value (5/10) – They may well be the best-sounding earphone Skullcandy has ever made, but in pure sound quality they are easily beaten by other manufacturers’ similarly-priced offerings. Still, they are a step in the right direction from the Ink’d and FMJ and I am sure that like any Skullcandy product these will often receive massive markdowns, raising their relative value. Do keep in mind that they sound much better with the included Comply tips, replacing which can become costly very quickly.

Pros: Big bass, included Comply tips
Cons: Big bass, harsh treble, painful and microphonic when worn cable-down, longevity concerns

Full review can be found here

(3A8) Apple Dual-Driver IEMs (ADDIEM)

Reviewed Dec 2009

Details: Apple’s ‘premium’ earphone; one of the cheapest dual-armature IEMs on the market
Current Price: $57 from bhphotovideo.com (MSRP: $79.99)
Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 23 Ω | Sens: 109 dB | Freq: 5-21k Hz | Cable: 4.6’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:4 mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrids, Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (2.5/5) - Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes) and plastic case
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The front parts of the housings are metal while the rear parts are plastic. Earphones feel well-put together but the cabling is thin and generic. Attention to detail is impressive – Filters can be removed for cleaning, L/R markings are easier to read than most, and the three sets of tips are labeled with their sizes
Isolation (2.5/5) – Average isolation; quite reasonable for my commute
Microphonics (4/5) – Slightly present when worn straight down; very low when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The housings are very small and light. The long stem makes it a little awkward to wear them cord-up but the fit is absolutely effortless cord-down

Sound (6.5/10) – The sound is analytical and highly detailed. The dual armatures can really dissect a piece of music into fine details and still manage to maintain coherency. The clarity is outstanding for the price and the whole signature is a bit relaxed. I really like the sound these put out – the treble and upper mids are very crisp, the bass is fairly tight and doesn’t creep up, and instrumental separation is good. The mids are nowhere near as liquid as those produced by the other budget BA phone in my possession – the Soundmagic PL50 – and soundstaging is pretty average. They might sound a little “thin” to some but that’s inherent to the signature – for an analytical signature on a budget I can’t find much fault with them.

Value (8/10) – At the MSRP there are certainly other options out there. However, at the common ebay price of ~$35 these are an excellent earphone to be had. They make a lot of the competition sound muddy and congested but at the same time aren’t cold enough in tone to turn off the average listener. The well-thought-out, tiny housings make these a pleasure to use and the functionality doesn’t lag far behind the ergonomics.

Pros: Nice design touches, very comfortable, some of the crispest sound to be had, iPhone controls may be handy for apple users
Cons: Included case can be a pain to use, hard to wear over-the-ear, may be bass-light for some

(3A9) Maximo iMetal iM-390 / iP-HS3

Reviewed Dec 2009

Details: Maximo’s entry-level earphone
Current Price: $33 from amazon.com (MSRP: $39.99); $35 for iP-HS3 with mic
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 18-22k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (4/5) – Hard carrying case with cable winder, 3.5mm to 2.5mm adapter, 2’ extension cable, airline adapter, and single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality (3/5) – Housings are metal and feel pretty solid. The biggest problem is the lack of strain relief on housing entry. The cabling itself is on the plasticky side as well, but doesn’t seem too thin. A cable cinch is auspiciously missing and driver flex often rears its ugly head.
Isolation (2.5/5) – Slightly above average isolation even with stock silicone tips
Microphonics (3/5) – Present when worn straight-down but much better over-the-ear
Comfort (2.5/5) – The big metal bulge on the housings hurts my ears after I wear them cable down for more than an hour. Over-the-ear is much better but I still prefer straight-barrel designs

Sound (4.6/10) – The sound of the iM-390 is fairly run-of-the-mill as far as budget dynamic-driver IEMs go. It is lively, punchy, and warm. The warmth can sometimes cause the tonality of instruments to be a bit unrealistic and the overall lack of detail doesn’t help, but other than that I don’t find them lacking in anything. The tight, impactful bass is fun; the soundstage is about average and features decent positioning; the balance doesn’t seem biased much in any direction, though the treble is slightly recessed. An enjoyable signature overall, and one that bests the similarly-priced and similar-looking Skullcandy Titans in my book.

Value (6/10) – With a solid set of accessories, decent build quality, and good overall sound the Maximo iM-390 is a competitive earphone in its category. However, the $33 street price is too close to that of Maximo’s higher-end earphone, the iM-590, which bests the iM-390 in every way. I can’t help but feel that the iM-390 would be better off competing at a lower price point, not because it can’t run with the big dogs, but because it’s being pummeled by its own big brother.

Pros: great accessory pack, good sound
Cons: driver flex, can be uncomfortable when worn cable-down

(3A10) Maximo iMetal iM-590 / iP-HS5

Reviewed Dec 2009

Details: Maximo’s current flagship and one of my long-time favourite sub-$50 IEMs
Current Price: $42 from amazon.com (MSRP: $59.99); $55 for iP-HS5 with mic
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 18-22k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: stock fused bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (4.5/5) – Hard carrying case with cable winder, 3.5mm to 2.5mm adapter, 2’ extension cable, airline adapter, shirt clip, and fused bi-flange silicone tips (4 sizes)
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The metal housings, nylon-sheathed cable, and molded rubber strain reliefs all give the iM-590 a quality feel. There is a bit of driver flex and the rubber molding could potentially become detached from the metal, but overall the iM-590s really feel like a quality product. The cable has a tendency to kink (even more than most nylon cables) but doesn’t tangle much
Isolation (3/5) – Quite decent with the fused bi-flanges and can be improved slightly with a simple mod (all credit to ClieOS)
Microphonics (3/5) – Microphonics are present when worn straight-down but nearly unnoticeable when worn over-the-ear. The included shirt clip helps as well
Comfort (4/5) – The driver-containing bulge on the housing is smaller and farther from the nozzle than on the lower-end iM-390. It is also concealed by the unique fused bi-flange silicone tips and as a result does not cause discomfort. Aside from the bulge they are relatively thin straight-barrel IEMs and are fittingly comfy

Sound (6.6/10) – The iM-590 first impressed me many months ago when I used a set as my primary day-to-day IEMs. I am glad to say that despite my now having a much larger IEM stable and far more experience under my belt, the iM-590 still sounds just as good today. The sound is smooth, natural, and very detailed. The neutrality of the iM-590 is uncanny when compared to the majority of the competition, yet they still manage to remain fun and involving. The bass is tight, precise, and just right in quantity. It is also quite deep and will go below 40Hz rolling off only slightly. Actually, extension on both ends is quite impressive – nearly as good as the RE0 on the bottom and pretty respectable at the top. The mids are realistic and well-positioned. The entire sound is quite wide and airy, with impressive clarity and good separation. The highs are fairly crisp and as clear as the rest of the range. If there’s one bone to pick with these is that they can be a tiny bit sibilant at high volumes due to some spikes in the upper mids/lower treble, but other than that they are an excellent choice for anyone looking for a more analytical sound from an IEM.

Value (8.5/10) – With an excellent accessory pack, solid build quality, and an extremely balanced and enjoyable sound the Maximo iM-590 remains one of my favorite sub-$50 in-ears. They are a downright stellar value for money and have only small flaws – a bit of driver flex, a kink-prone cable, and slight microphonics – that keep them from beating out the Meelectronics earphones and the Soundmagic PL50s in user-friendliness. What I like most, though, is the innovation that went into the design of the iM-590s – from the unique housings to the fused biflange tips to the combined split-slider/shirt clip, the iM-590s seem anything but formulaic in the crowded land of budget earphones.

Pros: great accessory pack, great sound quality, solid build quality and comfort
Cons: some driver flex, need to be worn over-the-ear due to microphonics, cable can kink

(3A11) Zune Premium Headphones V2

Reviewed Dec 2009

Details: Microsoft’s answer to the ADDIEMs – a ‘premium’ earphone for the Zune
Current Price: $40 from Radioshack (MSRP: $49.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: stock single flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (3/5) – Velvet carrying pouch and single flange silicone tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality (2.5/5) – The housings are made of a lightweight matte plastic. While there are no technical flaws in the molding, I struggle not to call them downright cheap-feeling. The magnets in the housings are a nice touch and help keep the earphones neat. The cloth-wrapped cords are a redeeming factor but the lack of proper strain reliefs makes one wonder how long they will last
Isolation (3/5) – Surprisingly good for a low-end dynamic IEM
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Present when worn straight-down but unnoticeable when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (3/5) – The hous/iings are extremely light and can be worn either cord-up or cord-down. People with smaller ears may have trouble getting a good seal with these, but I like them just fine

Sound (4.2/10) – The most surprising thing about the sound produced by the Zune buds is just how nondescript the signature is. The sound is quite balanced and neutral – really very inoffensive. The bass is there and neither lacking nor excessive. The treble is neither shrill nor sparkly. I like the fact that these aren’t mainstream-oriented bass cannons but still manage to be fun at times. Clarity is quite good but they could certainly be more detailed. The presentation is also a bit two-dimensional (not much depth), sometimes resulting in a ‘flat’ sound, but the stereo cues are still very easy to grasp. Overall the Zune buds are good performers but lack a musical ‘personality’ that would differentiate them from the competition.

Value (5/10) – While the Zune buds are respectable performers as far as low-end aftermarket earphones go, the $50 MSRP is not justified by the mediocre build and plain sound. At $20 the Zune buds would be top competitors. At the current price, the magnets just feel like a gimmick designed to drive up the value of an otherwise mediocre product.

Pros: Inoffensive, balanced sound; magnets are handy for storage
Cons: currently overpriced, mediocre build

(3A12) Klipsch Custom 1

Reviewed Jan 2010

Details: Klipsch’s budget single-armature earphone
Current Price: $60 from amazon.com (MSRP: $129.99)
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 30 Ω | Sens: 108 dB | Freq: 12-19k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 3.5mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Silicone single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) tips, cleaning tool, and 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 cabling, however, is atrocious. It kinks and tangles endlessly and would be the bane of my existence if these were my primary earphones
Isolation (3.5/5) – The long, steeply angled nozzles allow the C1 to be inserted quite deeply with smaller tips, 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 (4.7/10) –If the frequency response rating of the Custom 1 is to be believed, the single armature is tuned slightly towards the low end to combat the usual bass-light nature of single-armature setups. Bass is indeed present and fairly extended but lacks punch and texture. It’s very tight but too cold for my liking and lacks presence. The midrange is where the strengths of the Custom 1 lie – it’s clear, articulate, smooth, and very musical. Vocals are airy, have good tonal balance, and are well-positioned in the medium-sized stage. Getting up into the high end, though, the C1s again stray away from my expectations. The treble lacks detail and sparkle, as well as dimensionality - the high end is where these quite literally fall flat for me. They can also be unpleasantly bright and edgy, bringing out harshness/sibilance in some tracks. The low impedance of these also results in high amounts of hiss with some amps and sources when running them without an adapter.

Value (6.5/10) – The current price point of the Klipsch is about right for them to be mildly competitive. The MSRP is excessive for the lackluster sound these single armatures put out. The atrocious cabling helps seal their place in earphone mediocrity but the quirky treble is the real downfall for me. While by no means bad earphones, they just don’t stack up to my many of the dynamics in the price range and can be extremely fatiguing with much of my hard rock and metal. Lovers of vocal genres may want to give these a go but the rest of us would likely do better to pass.

Pros: Comfortable, well-isolating, lush and airy midrange
Cons: Downright awful cabling, excessive microphonics, presence of hiss, lackluster bass & treble

(3A13) VSonic R02ProII

Reviewed Feb 2010

Details: The last earphone released by large Chinese OEM VSonic before the company split
Current Price: $40 from ebay.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 24 Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 12-25k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock Bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, pleather carrying pouch, and shirt clip
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The bare housings are shared with the Cyclone PR1 Pro and Lear LE01+ but with an additional rubber strain relief on cord entry. The cabling is different as well – the Teflon-coated silver cable is soft, smooth, tangle-resistant, and has just enough memory character to make it easy to manage
Isolation (3/5) – Very adequately isolating for a ported dynamic IEM, especially with bi-flange tips
Microphonics (4/5) – The silver cable doesn’t conduct much noise and the included shirt clips helps
Comfort (3.5/5) – Quite comfortable when worn straight down but the long strain reliefs prevent over-the-ear wear. Can be inserted fairly deeply with the biflange tips.

Sound (6.4/10) – The R02ProII is the last revision of VSonic’s flagship released before the company split up. Though VSonic is an OEM for quite a few earphones in this lineup, the sound signature of the R02 is unique, featuring an intimate soundstage and a decidedly in-head sound. The low end is impactful and surprisingly extended. Mid-bass is emphasized slightly but doesn’t throw off the balance. It does creep up slightly on the lower midrange, giving the sound some coloration. The mids are slightly warm and quite full. Both the midrange and treble are extremely smooth – definitely no sibilance here. Extension at the high end is better on the Cyclone PR1 and the Head-Direct RE2, but not by much. The smoothness also ends up glossing over some of the fine detail but the overall sound is very ‘likeable’, beating the far more popular Nuforce NE-6 and Head-Direct RE2 in my book.

Value (8.5/10) – The R02ProII falls in the same price category as the Cyclone PR1 but offers a very different sound – intimate, bassy, and slightly warm. It’s a very dynamic and likeable earphone and the revised build addresses the issues I had with the PR1, with proper strain reliefs all around and excellent cabling. For those in search of an all-around budget earphone with a slightly warm midrange and solid bass punch the R02ProII should be in the running.

Pros: Balanced, intimate, and slightly warm sound; excellent cabling
Cons: L/R markings hard to see, no cord cinch, susceptible to wind noise

More impressions and a comparison to several competitors can be found here

(3A14) Music Valley SP1

Reviewed Feb 2010

Details: First model from Chinese manufacturer Music Valley, promisingly dubbed ‘Silver Prologue One’
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $55)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 39 Ω | Sens: 107 dB | Freq: 10-26k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Soundmagic Single Flange, Faux Hybrids
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) – Imitation Sony Hybrid tips (3 sizes), Soundmagic-style foamies, and shirt clip
Build Quality (3/5) – Made completely out of plastic and with a cheap-feeling plasticky cable the SP1 does not impress. Lack of strain reliefs does not help
Isolation (2.5/5) – Oddly-shaped housings make isolation somewhat mediocre. Nozzle is not angled as it is on the similarly-shaped JVC HA-FXC50
Microphonics (3/5) – Can be bothersome when moving about
Comfort (3/5) – My problem with these is the same as with the JVC HA-FXC50 – when the plastic process on the side of the housing is hooked into the antitragus of my ear the plastic strain relief hurts the bottom of my ear quite badly. I find them hard to wear for more than an hour at a time unless I use longer tips and flip the housings upside down

Sound (6.6/10) – The sound of the SP1 does not disappoint - it is a very detailed and well-balanced earphone that falls just short of the Cyclone PR1 in overall clarity. Soundstaging is average but the sonic images are all where they need to be, with the vocals upfront and drums at the back. Bass is extended and tight with the right tips (fit is the limiting factor as the stock single-flange tips sound great but don’t seal for me). Low-end texturing is impressive and the quantity of bass makes low-end detail easier to distinguish than with the Cyclones. The mid-range is recessed slightly compared to the bass and on the dark side, but still quite lush and rich. Compared again to the Cyclones the midrange sounds thicker and more liquid at the expense of some of the clarity and instrumental separation, making them sound just a bit more congested. The treble is less extended and lacks sparkle. Overall, the SP1 are smooth and non-fatiguing, quite detailed, and with very punchy and well-behaved bass.

Value (6/10) – Though the MV SP1 offer a wider soundstage and a bit more detail than the VSonic R02ProII, they lack the usability factor of the R02. I would prefer a more conventional housing, which would alleviate the mediocre comfort and isolation issues. A nicer cable would do wonders as well. With rumors of a new Music Valley model on the horizon, the sound of the Silver Prologue One makes me quite anxious to hear the successor.

Pros: Smooth, dark, non-fatiguing sound
Cons: hit-or-miss comfort, tangle-prone cable, no cord cinch, may sound too dark for some

More impressions and a comparison to several competitors can be found here

(3A15) Lear Le01

Reviewed Feb 2010

Details: Entry-level earphone branded as a Lear and OEM’d by VSonic
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $35)

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 20 Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: 12-26k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock Bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (2/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips and shirt clip
Build Quality (2/5) – All-plastic version of the Cyclone PR1 Pro housing. No strain reliefs and the thin rubberized cable is quite tangle-prone
Isolation (3/5) – Very adequate for a ported dynamic IEM, especially with bi-flange tips
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Nearly non-existent when worn over-the-ear; very low otherwise
Comfort (4.5/5) – All-plastic housing is weightless and can easily be worn cord-up or cord-down

Sound (5.8/10) – The signature is quite flat and neutral but the tonal balance and texturing could be better. The Le01 are not bass-heavy earphones and lag slightly behind the Cyclones and other higher-end models in control and accuracy, sounding just a little boomy. Low-end extension isn’t quite on par with the VSonics and the Music Valleys. The midrange is forward in the average-sized soundstage and boasts good clarity, falling slightly behind the Cyclones. The treble is quite accurate and fairly extended, if somewhat grainy. All things considered I like the sound of the Le01. Considering the fact that it is a bottom-of-the-range earphone from a little-known Chinese company, the Le01 is a stellar performer.

Value (7.5/10) – Despite the low-rent plastic build, the Lear Le01 is a good all-around earphone that lacks the smoothness and refinement of higher-end models. It is one of the better-balanced earphones in the price range and a clear upgrade from the usual Soundmagic/JVC budget crop. Despite the lack of emphasis on bass and/or treble the Le01 still manages to sound fun and full, which alone makes it worthy of consideration in this price range.

Pros: Balanced and clear sound, very competent all-around
Cons: tangle-prone cabling, no cord cinch, mediocre construction

More impressions and a comparison to several competitors can be found here

(3A16) Lear Le01+

Reviewed Feb 2010

Details: ‘Pro’ version of the Le01, boasting better build quality and enhanced bass
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $50)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 40 Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: 12-26k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock Bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, Soundmagic-style black foamies, and shirt clip
Build Quality (3/5) – Same plastic/metal housing as the PR1 Pro and R02ProII but with half-length strain reliefs and the same thin, tangle-happy cord as the Le01
Isolation (3/5) – Very adequate for a ported dynamic IEM, especially with bi-flange tips
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Nearly non-existent when worn over-the-ear; very low otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – Just a bit heavier than the all-plastic Le01, the Le01+ is still a very comfortable IEM whether worn cord-up or cord-down

Sound (5.3/10) – The Le01+, besides offering a better build than the Le01, “improves” on the sound by adding a large mid-bass hump to the sound signature. Though the mid-bass is downright overpowering at times, the tuning also improves low-end extension and the Le01+ can drop below an impressive 25Hz. The boom found in the bass of the Le01 is magnified by the hump, which is also large enough to creep up on the lower midrange and makes them sound a good amount warmer and darker than the Le01. The resulting sound smoothes over some fine detail and causes a loss in the crispness of the Le01 but provides for a less grainy and ‘plasticky’ overall sound. The change from the Le01 is personally not to my liking but the signature of the Le01+ is certainly a more popular one.

Value (6/10) – The Le01+ is recommended only for die-hard bassheads. Tuned for the maximum possible mid-bass response, the resulting mountain of bass negatively affects mid-range detail, clarity, and separation. Though the sound becomes fuller and smoother, the drop in resolution is detrimental to my personal enjoyment of the earphones. I feel like the Le01 is more of an audiophile set despite its small flaws while the pricier and better-built Le01+ is geared toward the mainstream market.

Pros: Bassy, smooth, and more organic-sounding than the Le01
Cons: Mid-bass can be excessive, sound is not as clear and detailed as the Le01, tangle-prone cabling, no cord cinch

More impressions and a comparison to several competitors can be found here

(3A17) Ankit Stay True

Reviewed Mar 2010

Details: New line of fashion-conscious IEMs from Ankit
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $49.99)
Specs: Driver: N/A | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:3mm| Preferred tips: Jays Single flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (1/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality (4/5) – Weighty housings made of a thick, sturdy plastic with metal designs attached. Cable is fairly thick and rubberized to reduce tangling but lacks strain relief
Isolation (3/5) – Insertion depth is quite good due to angled nozzles, yielding reasonable isolation
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Nearly nonexistent
Comfort (4/5) – Angled-nozzle design makes them quite comfortable for prolonged stretches

Sound (5.5/10) – Ankit’s marketing mumbo-jumbo lauds something called ‘G-Bass Technology’, which is said to reduce low-end clipping and provide deep, clear bass. Unexpectedly, I found these claims to be true to a surprising extent. The bass response can occasionally be slightly boomy, but no more than certain head-fi favorites and certainly not enough to make the Ankits sound unbalanced, remaining taut and dynamic most of the time. Sub-bass extension is very reasonable although there is a mid/upper-bass emphasis that gives a small amount of coloration to the midrange. Vocals are slightly on the warm side of neutral. Clarity is good and the mids are lush and thick, though some microdetail is glossed over. Treble presentation is soft, almost timid, but at least they steer far clear of sibilance. There are some peaks in the lower treble but not enough to cause harshness. Soundstaging is average, with adequate width and depth and decent separation. Drums are sometimes brought too far forward for my liking, but for the most part everything is positioned properly in the sonic stage. Overall, the sound is natural and boasts good dynamics and a surprising amount of clarity, definitely an enjoyable signature, even if it is not one to be used for monitoring purposes.

Value (7/10) – The Ankit Stay True earphones offer an ergonomic design, above-average isolation, solid build quality, and four unique visual styles. With sound quality to match their practicality, the Ankit earphones should not be dismissed as another blingy piece of jewelry for the Skullcandy generation. Smooth, natural, and very enjoyable, the sound is refined enough for these to be among IEMs to consider in the sub-$50 range. If turning heads is a priority alongside all of the usual concerns, the Ankit earphones might just beat out the best of the rest in the crowded market.

Pros: Comfortable, reasonable isolation, almost zero microphonics, unique looks, engaging and natural sound
Cons: Meager accessories, poor strain reliefs on cable

Full review can be found here

(3A18) ECCI PR200

Reviewed Mar 2010

Details: The pricier of the two ECCI models currently on the market, the PR200 is related very closely to its lower-end PR100 sibling

Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $45)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 55 Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock (wide-tube) single flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) - Narrow-tube (3 sizes) and wide-tube (3 sizes) single-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and oversize clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – Sturdy two-piece metal shells feel solid and are finished in a handsome gunmetal color with the model name etched on the front. The dark-grey TPE (Thermoplastic Elastomer) cable is thick and sturdy, with proper strain reliefs on cable entry and a functional cord cinch. Sadly, the translucent hard plastic sheath on the 3.5mm plug is more likely to damage to the cord than protect it, tainting an otherwise excellent build
Isolation (3.5/5) – The extra long nozzles allow for deep insertion of the earphones, boosting isolation above what one would expect for a ported straight-barrel dynamic. On the downside, the bottom-facing vents make the earphones more susceptible than most to wind noise
Microphonics (3.5/5) –bothersome when worn cord-down; good otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – The extra-long sound tube allows the earphones to be inserted deeply without pressing the wearer’s ear into the housings - a good thing as the front edges of the shells are rather sharp. Short strain reliefs and elongated bodies make the earphones easy to wear cord-up as well as cord-down. Either way they are quite comfortable for prolonged listening sessions

Sound (5.9/10) – The sound of the PR200 is extremely similar to that of the lower-end PR100. It is similarly-balanced with tight bass, smooth mids, and relaxed treble. The differences between the two models are actually rather minute – the higher-impedance PR200 boasts better clarity, a smoother and more balanced frequency response, slightly better imaging, and deeper bass extension. It is also expectedly difficult to drive, requiring several more volume notches from my mp3 player and tightening up better with a portable amp than the PR100. The PR200 also exhibits no hiss with my netbook’s not-too-clean HPO while the 16Ω PR100 hisses slightly.

Value (7.5/10) – The ECCI PR200 is best summarized as a slightly-more-refined version of the cheaper PR100. Whether the price premium is justified is a personal preference. Make no mistake – the PR200 is the sonically superior earphone, but the competition is a bit stiffer at its price point than that of the PR100. If using the earphones with a not-so-clean source like a laptop or hissy DAP (e.g. Amp3), the PR200 is easily worth the extra money. But if the PR200 didn’t fit in my budget, I would not fret settling for the PR100.

Pros: Good isolation and build quality, comfortable, balanced sound
Cons: Microphonics can be bothersome

Full review can be found here.

(3A19) Audio-Technica ATH-CK6

Reviewed Apr 2010

Details: Mid-range dynamic-driver earphone from Audio-Technica
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $59.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 15-28k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:N/A (Oval)| Preferred tips: Stock Single flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), detachable ear inserts (3 styles), and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (3/5) – Housings are made of metal with oval-shaped plastic nozzles and paper filters. Though strain reliefs are excellent all-around, the cabling itself is hugely disappointing (especially coming from the excellent cables on the ATH-CK10) – thin, rubberized, and prone to kinking. The cable tangles itself into a ball of knots if you so much as think about it
Isolation (2/5) – Poor due to shallow insertion and vented design
Microphonics (3/5) – Cable is too energetic and tends to bounce around a lot. Lack of cord cinch and shirt clip means these have to be worn over-the-ear to be usable
Comfort (4/5) – Small, light housings make them very easy to wear. The rubber ear inserts can be used to further stabilize them but aren’t necessary

Sound (3.9/10) – Unfortunately the ATH-CK6 is decidedly underwhelming when it comes to sound quality. The bass lacks extension, is boomy, and becomes somewhat muddy on dense tracks. There is no definite moment of impact, which results in drums sounding too soft and at times hollow. The midrange is veiled and vocals lack both presence and smoothness. Treble is harsh and tiring. The entire signature lacks clarity and resolution. On the upside, they don’t sound closed and soundstaging is better than average. A small consolation but it made listening to them for a few days bearable.

Value (3.5/10) – I wanted to like Audio-Technica’s mid-range offering, I really did. But the ATH-CK6 suffers from mediocrity on all fronts, from isolation to sound to build quality. All things considered it’s just not a very strong competitor in an increasingly crowded field. The line is due for a refresh anyway and hopefully Audio-Technica will apply at least some of the design principles of their top-tier entries to the mid-range earphones.

Pros: Very small, light, and comfortable
Cons: Poor isolation, awful cable, no cable cinch, non-standard nozzle shape, mediocre sound

(3A20) ViSang R02 / Brainwavz ProAlpha

Reviewed May 2010

Details: ViSang’s budget-oriented model, familiar in both sound and appearance
Current Price: $40 from ebay.com (MSRP: $45)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 20 Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.2' I-plug (note: latest version carries 45°-plug)
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock biflanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Note: The mp4nation Brainwavz ProAlpha is identical to the R02 in every way except the 3.5mm plug (45-degree plug identical to that on the Beta Brainwavz is used on the ProAlpha)

Accessories (4/5) – Single- (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – Generic IEM housings used by Cyclone/Lear/VSonic but with short functional strain reliefs. Cable is identical to that of the ViSang R03 – a twisted Cu-Ag alloy cord that is tough yet flexible but lacks a cable cinch and has some long-term memory character
Isolation (3/5) – Very adequate for a ported dynamic IEM, especially with bi-flange tips
Microphonics (4/5) – Slightly noticeable when worn cord-down, negligible otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – Lighter than the R03 and very unobtrusive despite the slightly larger housings. Can easily be worn cord-up or cord-down. Work best with a relatively shallow fit

Sound (6.7/10) – Like the R03, the R02 boast a full-bodied and weighty low end with an emphasis on mid- and upper bass. The low end is very smooth and calm, completely unobtrusive until called for. The tonal balance is slightly dark, with a warmed-up midrange and treble that is devoid of sparkle. The midrange is right where it needs to be, clean and clear and with no lack of emphasis. Detail is very good for the price, though the R02 is certainly no RE0, especially in the treble. Soundstage width is quite good and seems to be one of the areas in which the R02 has the R03 beat by a very narrow margin. Depth is similarly average, though instruments are very well-separated and imaged.

The midrange transitions effortlessly into the treble becoming a bit more laid-back along the way. Treble smoothness is very impressive and extension is perfectly tolerable, though not class leading. The treble is never fatiguing – harshness and sibilance are terms the R02 is not familiar with. Overall, the treble of both ViSang earphones takes a backseat to the bass and mids, though I wouldn’t go so far as to call them recessed at the top. Like the R03, the R02 also surprise with their speed, which is very close to the much more expensive and very fast Monster Turbines, and natural timbre, which really puts most of the other sub-$50 earphones to shame.

As for the differences between the two ViSang models, they are minute and most likely resulting from the different acoustic properties of their respective housings. The R03 sounds a little bit thicker and more ‘concentrated’ in tone, with the R02 sounding slightly more diffuse in comparison, with less immediate bass punch and more ethereal positioning. The R03 seems to place instruments with slightly more precision than the R02 but again the differences are extremely minute. I am sure there are head-fiers out there who would be able to tell the two apart without a direct comparison but I am not among them and the average consumer probably isn’t either.

Value (9/10) – The ViSang R02 is more than just another high bang/buck contender for the best sub-$50 IEM title. With the release of the R02, ViSang has nearly undercut their own higher-end R03 model and really taken the sub-$50 bang/buck crown from the defunct Cyclone PR1 Pro. The sonic differences between the two ViSang models are small. What it comes down to is the generic housings used on the R02 versus the excellent metal shells of the R03. The R02 housings are slightly larger in volume and look a bit bigger in the ear. There are other small differences – such as the R02 being slightly susceptible to wind noise – but for many users I would expect the R02 to be the better deal.

Pros: Time-tested design, solid build quality, bi-flange tips included (unlike R03), solid sound quality
Cons: Cord has a bit of memory character

(3A21) Woodees IESW101B

Reviewed May 2010

Details: Budget wooden earphone from Canadian car audio firm iConnects
Current Price: $42 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $69.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 105 dB | 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 black velour drawstring pouch
Build Quality (3/5) – The light housings don’t feel particularly solid next to other wooden earphones. The painted-on logos and L/R markings tend to rub off and the metal mesh filters are too small to cover the entire nozzle opening. The cable is thick and decently relieved but has a tendency to tangle
Isolation (3/5) – Fairly average due to shallow fit
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Present when worn cord-down, very low when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (3.5/5) – While very light, the housings of the Woodees are actually rather large. Those with smaller ears may have trouble getting a good fit. Despite the long strain reliefs they can be worn comfortably over-the-ear

Sound (6.6/10) – The sound of the IESW101B is quite similar to the Thinksound TS01. Compared head-to-head, the IESW101B are the more analytical earphone of the two. The bass is accented slightly but remains tight and punchy, with less extension but better linearity than the TS01. A slight bit of warmth is added to the midrange but bass bleed is kept to a minimum. Overall the mids are lush and smooth, not forward but not recessed, either. Detail and clarity are both on par with other sub-$50 IEMs and a bit more apparent on the Woodees than the Thinksounds. Towards the upper midrange/lower treble, the Woodees exhibit mild harshness/sibilance, accented by the brightness of the treble. Comply foam tips can help attenuate some of the treble peaks and bring a bit more balance to the sound. The upper-end extension of the Woodees is quite decent and the bright sound gives the illusion of even greater clarity and air. Soundstage width is quite good and instruments are evenly distributed, as opposed the competing Thinksounds, which boast better depth but a more intimate overall presentation.

Value (7.5/10) – The IESW101B are excellent earphones in their price bracket. Though the build could be better, they still feel like a quality product and compete well against other sub-$50 earphones. The lively sound signature is a good compromise between the more analytical sound of earphones like the ADDIEM and Head-Direct RE2 and the ‘fun’ signatures of the Thinksound TS01, Nuforce NE-6, and Meelec M6. Best of all, the sound qualities ascribed to the Woodees by the iConnects marketing team are not fluff – wooden housings or not, these earphones deliver.

Pros: Solid performance
Cons: Sloppy build quality, large housings, slightly harsh-sounding

For a more in-depth review and comparisons to the Thinksound TS01 see here.

(3A22) Thinksound TS01 / Thunder

Reviewed May 2010

Details: The cheaper of Thinksound’s two wooden IEMs, the TS01 boasts enhanced bass response over the higher-end Rain
Current Price: $45 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $74.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | 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, doesn’t tangle much. The 3.5mm I-plug is well-relieved and sturdy. Mild driver flex is present
Isolation (3/5) – Fairly 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 TS01 are very small and taper towards the rear, cradling snugly in the ear. The TS01 is one of the few straight-barrel IEMs I can actually sleep in, which says quite a lot. The short strain reliefs are conducive to cord-up fitment

Sound (6.5/10) – Like the slightly cheaper Woodees IESW101B, the sound of the Thinksound TS01 is lush and full, with accented bass and warmed-up mids. The TS01 have better low-end extension, more convincing timbre, and better texturing than the Woodees, resulting in an even more full-bodied low end response. The hefty low end imparts a bit of coloration and warmth on the midrange, making it sound lush and sweet. The midrange is a bit veiled compared directly to the flatter and more even-sounding Woodees but in the context of the Thinksounds sound it is nothing to complain about. Like the Woodees, the Thinksounds exhibit some unevenness in the upper midrange and lower treble, leading to mild sibilance and a tiny bit of harshness. Occasionally the crack of a drum is really jarring with the TS01, more so due to the contrast with the extremely smooth and liquid nature of the bass and lower mids. Using foam tips helps soak up some of the roughness in the upper reaches. The treble is fairly prominent on the Thinksounds but not as bright as with the Woodees. The Thinksounds also boast impressive soundstage depth, resulting in a more ‘layered’ sound and greater dimensionality, but overall the TS01 is definitely an intimate-sounding earphone, which actually works rather well with the sound signature.

Value (8/10) – Though retailing for full MSRP at their inception, the Thinksounds have since fallen to a much more reasonable price. With their enhanced bass response, warm midrange, and intimate presentation the TS01 present a very coherent sonic picture that’s sure to appeal not only to audiophiles but to casual music listeners as well. Very comfortable and surprisingly well-built, the TS01 also compete well on the functionality front. Thinksound’s environmental angle adds value to the proposition but even those who don’t care are still getting a great set of earphones at a reasonable price.

Pros: Great aesthetics and attention to detail, solid performance, environmentally-friendly design & packaging
Cons: Mild driver flex, can be slightly sibilant with silicone tips

For a more in-depth review and comparisons to the Woodees IESW101B see here.

(3A23) Brainwavz M1

Reviewed May 2010

Details: Latest budget offering from mp4nation’s house brand
Current Price: $40 from mp4nation.net (MSRP: $40)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32 Ω | Sens: 110 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Generic biflanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (4/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, and hard clamshell case
Build Quality (3.5/5) - Housings are identical to those used by the Cyclone PR1 Pro – light and sturdy but lacking strain relief. The cable is identical to that of the ViSang R02/R03 – a twisted Cu-Ag alloy cord that is tough yet flexible. Unlike the ViSang earphones, however, the Brainwavz are terminated with a sturdy 45-degree plug
Isolation (3/5) – Very adequate for a ported dynamic IEM, especially with bi-flange tips
Microphonics (4/5) - Slightly noticeable when worn cord-down but wearing them over-the-ear is easy and a shirt clip is included
Comfort (4/5) – Lighter than the R03/M2 and very unobtrusive despite the slightly larger housings. Can easily be worn cord-up or cord-down. Work best with a relatively shallow fit

Sound (7/10) – The sound of the Brainwavz M1 builds on the shared sound signature of the ViSang R03 and R02, which I’ve already reviewed at length. The 32Ω impedance of the M1 seems to be the major change from the R03/R02 specs. Aside from needing a bit of extra volume to achieve the same SPL as the R02/R03, the most noticeable thing about the sound of the M1 is that the bass is rather underemphasized compared to the ViSang earphones. They are by no means bass-light but the lack of as great of an artificial boost means that the M1 lacks the bass impact and extension of the R02/R03. The nature of the low end is more punchy and less boomy than with the R03/R02, though the difference is small. The R03/R02 are simply a little more powerful and immediate when it comes to reproducing bass, especially hard bass on rap and D&B tracks. The M1 is more laid back, more balanced. Vocals are placed a bit farther back and so are the drums, which is good in a way – drums tend to step out of line with the R03/R02. However, the treble is also slightly less sparkly despite the fact that the R03/R02 are nearly devoid of sparkle to start with. Still, the more laid-back presentation at the bottom does make the M1 sound more balanced.

The midrange is similar between the three. Smooth and non-fatiguing, it allows for a mellow but engaging listening experience. The R03 sounds a bit thicker than the R02/M1 and both ViSang earphones are warmer than the M1. In terms off presentation, the M1 has a wider left-right soundstage but a smaller range of depth (meaning it doesn't convey intimacy quite as well as the R02/R03). Distance is conveyed properly but I don't think the imaging is as good as the R03 – closer to the more ethereal positioning of the R02 but less intimate and a bit less accurate.

Value (9.5/10) – The Brainwavz M1 are another very strong contender for the bang/buck crown. Like the ViSang R02, the M1s are a steal at the $40 mp4nation plans to ask for them. They are neither better nor worse than the similarly-priced ViSang R02 – simply different. The slightly more balanced signature is not as heavy-hitting as the ViSang earphones and Brainwavz M2 tend to be. The warmth of the earphones is reduced and some of the thickness is gone but the soundstage is more evenly spaced and distance is relayed quite well. The lack of a strain relief is slightly disheartening but the cable is extremely solid and the new 45-degree plug is excellent. Comfort, isolation, and microphonics are all what I’ve come to expect from earphones of this caliber. Listening to the M1 makes it perfectly clear to me that we are moving in the right direction – and any earphone that makes me feel this way is well-worth my hard-earned money.

Pros: Class-leading sound quality, great all-around usability
Cons: Cord has a bit of memory character, no strain reliefs on cable entry

Full review can be found here.

(3A24) Klipsch Image S2 / X1

Reviewed May 2010

Details: Entry-level dynamic IEM from Klipsch
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $49.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 18 Ω | Sens: 106 dB | Freq: 12-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 3mm | Preferred tips: Klipsch oval gels
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (2.5/5) - Single-flange Klipsch oval gels (3 sizes) and cloth carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) - The tubular plastic housings feel sturdy. The strain reliefs feel a bit too hard to be protective but the plastic cabling is thicker than that found on the S4 and the 3.5mm L-plug is well-relieved
Isolation (3.5/5) - Tubular housings can be inserted rather deeply and the Klipsch ovals provide a good seal
Microphonics (3/5) - Annoying when worn cord-down; fine otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5) - Quite light and comfortable but fairly long and not entirely trivial to wear over-the-ear for those with smaller ears

Sound (5.4/10) – Like that of their big brother, the Image S4, the sound of the S2 is very impressive at the outset; the flaws of the signature set in only with prolonged exposure. At their core the S2 are bottom-heavy earphones. They extend quite deep at the low end and provide gobs of impact with a proper seal. The impact has a softer character than that of the S4, making it sound slightly wooly and imprecise. Sub-bass is present but mid-bass is the dominant range and tends to cut into other frequencies when aggravated. The low end lacks the speed of something like the ViSang R02 but for the price it is quite lively and informative. The midrange is slightly warm and very smooth, positioned a bit too far back for an earphone with such a hefty low end but still boasting good presence. Midrange detail is impressive and clarity is quite competitive at the price point. The lower treble seems boosted for balance but is still slightly laid-back overall, lacking the sparkle and brightness of some of the competitors. As a result the S2 can’t quite keep up with the crispness and top-end detail present in earphones such as the Head-Direct RE2 and ADDIEM. For those bothered by hot treble, though, the S2 is a perfect match.

In terms of presentation the S2 come across as slightly confused and confusing. The soundstage is large in width but feels lacking in depth. The somewhat laid-back midrange results in a lack of intimacy so the presentation is hardly linear. Positioning precision could be better and instrumental separation is sub-par next to the ADDIEMs and Maximo iM-590. The S2 still do a good job of conveying a sense of space but never sound particularly airy. There are certainly genres they excel at – soft rock and jazz, for example, sound excellent. But when things start getting busy, the flaws of the sonic signature start to shine through the smooth veneer. A point to note is that despite boasting similar specs to Klipsch’s Custom line, the S2 are actually a bit harder to drive not nearly as prone to hissing.

Value (7.5/10) – The Klipsch S2 are capable IEMs, no doubt about that, but the competition is stern at the $50 price point. Not all music genres benefit from their peculiar presentation and treble junkies in general will probably be left wanting a little more balance out of them. Purely in terms of sound quality, they are hardly disappointing but in my opinion not particularly noteworthy at regular price. As a total package, however, the S2 might be the ticket for those in search of a well-built IEM with impressive isolation and a smooth, dynamic sound signature.

Pros: Solid build quality, impressive isolation, smooth and impactful sound
Cons: Slightly prone to wind noise, can be microphonic

(3A25) Arctic Sound E361

Reviewed Jun 2010

Details:Flagship IEM from Swedish PC components manufacturer Arctic Cooling
MSRP: $32 from amazon.com; $35 for E361-WM/BM with microphone (E361-BM shown)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32 Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 18-26k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (4.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), hard clamshell carrying case, shirt clip, Arctic Cooling sticker, and PC headset/microphone adapter
Build Quality (3/5) The front part of the earpiece is encapsulated in an aluminum shell while the rear part, nozzle, and strain relief are plastic. Sadly, the cable is quite thin and the hard strain reliefs are unlikely to relieve any strain
Isolation (3/5) - Quite impressive for a ported dynamic-driver IEM. The angled nozzles help with insertion depth and the thick stock tips seem to isolate more than most
Microphonics (4/5) - Very low when worn cord-down and absent when worn cord-up
Comfort (4.5/5) - The ergonomic angled-nozzle design and light housings make them very comfortable for prolonged use and easy to wear cable-up or cable-down. The included silicone ear cushions are smaller than average, making the E361 quite friendly toward those with smaller ears

Sound (4.4/10) – The arbitrary 10-point ratings on the Arctic Sound website give the E361 a 9/10 rating in bass, a 10/10 in the treble, and a 9/10 for clarity. Though it is unclear what scaling factor is used for these ratings, on a universal scale the E361 clearly falls short of such lofty claims. The E361 are bass-heavy IEMs, extending quite far down when the music calls for it. The bass tends to be boomy rather than punchy and occasionally intrudes on the lower midrange. This is a small detriment for rap, pop, soft rock, and similar genres but for music that benefits from balance and control, such as instrument-heavy rock and jazz tracks, the bass bloat is bad news. On the upside, the midrange is very smooth and not at all fatiguing, though it does gloss over a good amount of detail and clarity is slightly sub-par for the price. Treble extension is impressive and the upper end is quite natural-sounding. The E361 are neither warm nor cold in tonality and have a fairly natural timbre with most instruments. The soundstage is lacking in width but has decent depth, resulting in a fairly dimensional but not overly spacious sound. Overall these are definitely a stomp-your-foot kind of earphone – they manage to be bassy and impactful without sounding contrived or artificial. There is an added bonus to the relatively high impedance and low sensitivity of the E361 – they do a great job of cutting out hiss with noise-prone sources.

Value (6/10) – Light, comfortable, and well-isolating, the E361 provides reasonable sound quality when used for music. The earphones crank out plenty of bass at the expense of clarity and overall resolution but still manage to be enjoyable nearly all of the time. Though they won’t win any awards for absolute fidelity, the E361 are easily on-par with most earphones put out by mainstream manufactures such as Sony and Skullcandy. Plus, they play nice with 128kbps mp3 files and sources that don’t normally jive with sensitive in-ear earphones. If you like your music heavy-handed and need an iPhone headset with a VOIP adapter, by all means give the iPhone versions of the E361 a second look. Purely for music, they aren’t quite up to snuff.

Pros: Headset version includes Skype adapter for use with PC, very light and comfortable, low microphonics, bass-heavy sound with impressive extension on either end
Cons: Mediocre build quality, sound lacks clarity and detail

(3A26) RadioPaq Classical

Reviewed Jun 2010

Details: One of RadioPaq’s four acoustically-tuned IEMs
Current Price: £30 from AdvancedMp3Players.co.uk (MSRP: £60.00)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 120 dB | Freq: 18-20k Hz | Cord: 3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrid
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (1/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The small metal housings are very sturdy in feel. As with the Jazz, the off-size nozzles lack filters and the cabling is plasticky and kink-prone. Unfortunately, no cord cinch is present and the strain relief on the 3.5mm plug is all but completely useless
Isolation (3.5/5) – The smaller housings of the Classicals make deeper insertion possible, raising isolation significantly over the Jazz
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Slightly bothersome when worn cord-down, almost non-existent when worn cord-up
Comfort (3.5/5) – The smaller housings of the Classical make them friendlier in fit than the Jazz. Deep insertion is still recommended, however, which compromises long-term comfort somewhat

Sound (6.5/10) – Compared to the warm and lush Jazz, the Classical are noticeably more neutral and balanced. The low end is tight and accurate. When inserted shallowly they can sound somewhat anemic. With a deep seal, however, the bass is very impressive, providing more impact than note but maintaining smoothness. Because of the high-impact, low-texture nature of the bass, it can feel layered over the sound rather than integrated, which is a very unique and engaging way to present music. Impact drops off and texturing picks up towards the upper bass regions, transitioning smoothly and neatly to the midrange. As with the Jazz, the midrange of the Classical is not the focus of the presentation - it is clear, detailed, controlled, and has a very neutral tone but the treble is the most exciting aspect of the Classical’s signature, boasting a great amount of sparkle and clarity, coupled with impressive extension. The high end can be a little hot-tempered, as with the Jazz, but the added treble emphasis pushes the Classical over the line on occasion, especially on sibilant recordings. The soundstage of the Classical is wider than average and instrumental separation is quite good. However, despite not being particularly thick-sounding earphones, the Radiopaqs don’t sound airy and have a decidedly in-your-head feel. Still, they do a decent job of conveying both distance and direction; just don’t expect them to emulate full-size cans in presentation.

Value (8.5/10) – The RadioPaq Classical provides a colder, more treble-happy alternative to the warm and deep sound of the Jazz. With average-sized housings that are slightly more friendly towards those with smaller ears than the monstrous shells of the Jazz and surprisingly impressive isolation, the Classical performs admirably as a day-to-day all-rounder. Those with treble sensitivities will really want to give these a pass but for the rest, the Classicals offer an interesting sound signature and a great all-around performance for the price.

Pros: Impressive isolation, excellent and rather unique sound
Cons: No accessories, plastic cabling, deep insertion crucial for proper sound

(3A27) JVC HA-FXC80 “Black Series”

Reviewed Jul 2010

Details: Mid-range earphone from JVC’s new ‘Black Series’ utilizing a high-definition micro driver
Current Price: $43 from amazon.com (MSRP: $59.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 103 dB | Freq: 8-25k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 6mm | Preferred tips: Stock single flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Single flange silicone tips (3 sizes), over-the-ear cable guides, and oval hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The carbon housings feature the usual touch of solidity higher-end JVC products share. The metal accents and mesh-covered vents look quite good and the nozzle holds the carbon microdriver. Cabling is typical JVC as well – average in thickness but very soft and flexible and terminated with the usual straight plug
Isolation (3/5) – Quite good despite large rear vents
Microphonics (4/5) – Low when worn cord-down, nonexistent with the cord worn over-the-ear
Comfort (3/5) – As with the other earphones containing JVC’s dynamic microdriver, the transducer of the FXC80 sits in the nozzle of the earphone. The housing shape is therefore not dictated by driver size or design. Though the odd pyramidal housings JVC chose are rather lightweight and can easily be worn cord-up or cord-down, the shape rules them out for smaller ears, at least with the stock tips. A conventional straight-barrel design would’ve actually been more ear-friendly

Sound (6.5/10) – The sound of the HA-FXC80 is an evolutionary step up from the signature of the older FXC50. The 5.8mm “Micro HD” transducer is capable of extraordinary clarity and detail, which seem to be the driving forces behind the FXC80’s signature. The bass is very tight but surprisingly well-layered and full. The FXC80s are definitely not bass-heavy earphones but they have solid impact and a surprising amount of air at the low end. There is no mid-range bleed and the mids, while slightly underemphasized, are very smooth, clear, and detailed. They could stand to be a bit thicker next to the forward treble but remain very enjoyable nonetheless. Overall balance, while treble-leaning, is definitely impressive. The treble is crisp, bright, and carries an immense amount of sparkle. Despite this, the JVCs are mostly free of harshness or sibilance and lack the top-end extension of some of the pricier treble-focused earphones.

In terms of presentation, the JVCs are far from spacious – the soundstage is average in size – bigger than that of the FXC50 but not up there with the ViSang R03 or even Meelec M6. Instrumental separation is decent but the vast amount of treble detail, aggressive nature of the top end, and relative lack of air up top make them somewhat congested nonetheless. I really can’t think of a better way to describe the treble of the FXC80 than to call it ‘concentrated’ – the JVC HA-FXC80 has very concentrated treble. Combined with the class-leading clarity and detail afforded by the micro HD drivers, this makes listening to the FXC80 is a remarkably intense experience. I can’t say that the FXC80 is necessarily hotter up top than something like the ATH-CK10 but the much pricier Audio-Technicas are so much more spacious and resolving that the experience is richer for it. The JVCs have a stronger tendency to fatigue, though earphones with the opposite skew (monster bass, average treble) tire me out even quicker.

Value (7.5/10) – The JVC HA-FXC80 is to the older HA-FXC50 what the Meelectronics M6 is to the M9 – a more refined sound with the same general signature and better all-around usability. The FXC80 really is quite good for the money – it is well-built, isolating, and not particularly microphonic – but the bell-like clarity and brightness will not appeal to everyone. This is an earphone for those who truly like their treble – a good upgrade to the FXC50 or Head-Direct RE2 without dropping the $80 on an RE0 or importing a RadioPaq Classical. Taken as such, the FXC80 is another competitive product from JVC’s audio division but one potentially limited to a niche target audience in the hi-fi crowd.

Pros: Amazing detail and clarity, solid but controlled bass, well-built, low microphonics
Cons: Housing design will not suit everyone, bright, can sound slightly congested

(3A28) H2O Audio Surge

Reviewed Aug 2010

Details: Workout-oriented waterproof earphones with enhanced bass
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $59.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 106 dB | Freq: 18-20k Hz | Cord: 3.7’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 6mm | Preferred tips: Stock Single Flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single flange rubber tips (5 sizes), foamhybrid tips (2 sizes), and zippered carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The housings are made out of a tough plastic and feel solid but the dark blue L/R markings can be hard to see on the glossy black shells. Filters are absent from the nozzles as they would likely be ruined by water contact anyway. The cable is medium in thickness and sheathed in blue plastic. Small rubber sleeves take the place of strain reliefs on cord entry and a 2” long strain relief, designed to work with waterproof mp3 player cases, protects the 3.5mm plug. And yes, they will survive prolonged exposure to sweat and/or water as evidenced by perfect functionality after weeks of me bathing them in both (sorry!)
Isolation (3/5) – The supplied thick rubber tips provide excellent isolation despite being rather shallow-sealing
Microphonics (4/5) – Quite low when worn cable-down due to smooth plastic cabling; nearly nonexistent in over-the-ear configuration
Comfort (4/5) – The Surge comes with five sizes of u Comfort nusually thick rubber tips which require some getting used to for those of us accustomed to silicone. Getting a good seal with them takes careful selection of the right size as well as a bit of fidgeting but once sealed the earphones will stay in surprisingly well even during intense physical activity. They may not be as comfortable as a similarly-shaped earphone with silicone tips (e.g. Sennheiser CX300) but the stable fit is hugely welcome in a ‘sports’ earphone. Several days may be required for the cables to break in for over-the-ear wear

Sound (5.5/10) – The sound of the Surge is what surprised me most about the earphones – marketing phrases such as ‘bass amplified sound’ are usually the harbinger of doom when it comes to mainstream earphones. The bass of the H2O Surge, however, despite not being ruler-flat, is quite controlled and not at all intrusive. On bass-light tracks it stays completely out of the way and even with extremely bassy music it is still not particularly muddy or bloated. Low-end extension is average and the bass is not terribly impactful, meaning that it is heard more than felt. On the upside, the bass rarely intrudes on the midrange, which is slightly forward in nature, reminding me of the ViSang R02/R03. Vocals come across powerfully and smoothly. The 8mm drivers produce sound with surprising clarity though detail lags behind competitors like the Meelec M6 and Yamaha EPH-50. A few extra volume notches are enough to fix this – the waterproof drivers seem to require a bit more juice for optimum travel and speed.

The treble is equally smooth but slightly de-emphasized in comparison to the midrange. Harshness and sibilance are absent completely and the high end does roll off as expected from an in-ear in this price range, resulting in an unfatiguing sound. The general presentation is slightly distant, with vocals generally appearing more intimate and instruments placed farther back. Positioning is a bit vague but the earphones do at the very least give a sense of space. No, the Surge will not win any hi-fi awards this year, but keeping in mind the intended application both the sound signature and presentation are more impressive than I expected and compete easily with similarly-priced mainstream-sounding earphones such as the Sennheiser CX300 and UE MetroFi 220.

Value (8/10) – The H2O Audio Surge follows its intended application through and through. A variety of rubber and foam tips are included so that the perfect fit - which is crucial for stability, isolation, and sound quality – is easy to attain after the first few trials. The build quality is quite good and the crown jewel of the earphones – the ability to survive underwater – is in fact not a marketing trick of any sort. Being able to come home from the gym and simply rinse off my earphones under running water is an extremely liberating experience and one that I am likely to repeat over and over because the Surge really doesn’t sound bad at all. The mid-forward presentation works especially well for low-volume listening as the vocals remain plenty coherent without being distracting but the entire signature is competent and pleasant. The surge can be considered a good all-around earphone that just happens to be waterproof or a waterproof earphone that just happens to be a good all-rounder. Either way, it’s pretty darn good value for money for anyone who may run the risk of ruining their IEMs with moisture of any sort.

Pros: Waterproof, reasonably well-built, secure fit, smooth and competent sound
Cons: 2” strain relief may not work well with tiny players such as the Shuffle/Clip, rubber tips can take some getting used to

(3A29) ViSang R01

Reviewed Aug 2010

Details: Entry-level model from ViSang
Current Price: $32 from ebay.com (MSRP: $32)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 20 Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cord: 4.2' I-plug (note: latest version carries 45°-plug)
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock biflanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single- (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, foamhybrid tips, and shirt clip
Build Quality (3.5/5) – Same generic IEM housings as the higher-end R02 and a handful of other earphones. However, the twisted Cu-Ag alloy cable used by the R02/R03 is replaced with a more conventional rubbery cord, which is thinner and more tangle-prone. Cable cinch is missing as with all other ViSang models
Isolation (3/5) – Very adequate for a ported dynamic IEM, especially with bi-flange tips
Microphonics (3/5) – Slightly noisy when worn cord-down, almost nonexistent otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – Same as with the R02 model – light and unobtrusive. Can easily be worn cord-up or cord-down. Work best with a relatively shallow fit

Sound (6.3/10) – The general sound signature of the R01 is similar to the two higher-end ViSang models, which should not come as a surprise since it shares most of the hardware (with the obvious exception of the Cu-Ag alloy cable) with them. The bass is smooth and full-bodied, with a mid/upper-bass hump and a tendency to warm up the rest of the sound signature. Bass depth, texture, and detail are certainly not on level with heavyweights such as the FA Eterna but beat most budget in-ears quite easily. The midrange is smooth and clear, slightly forward in positioning but still very well-separated and yet extremely coherent. The treble transition happens with no harshness or sibilance and the treble is laid-back and extremely smooth. The very top is rolled off and treble ‘sparkle’ is nowhere to be found but the highs of the R01 are certainly extremely competent, if not particularly aggressive or exciting, for an earphone of its caliber. Soundstage width is quite good and depth is adequate, though once again the R01 performs far better than the asking price would indicate. Compared to most budget in-ears, even great ones like the Meelectronics M9 and Fischer Audio TS-9002, the R01 is effortlessly spacious and presents music in a believable way.

But the sound of the ViSang R01 is not identical to that of the higher-end R02. In terms of signature the two earphones are extremely similar but the R02 is just that little bit better all-around, putting it head and shoulders above the competition. The R01 sounds like a softened and more relaxed version of the R02, but it is hard to imagine anyone finding the R02 too aggressive in the first place. The overall sound of the R02 is slightly crisper and clearer, with marginally better bass control and a bit more treble presence. As a result of the superior clarity, the R02 also seems to have more air and a more separated sound. The soundstage of the R02 is not huge but manages to be very believable while the R01 sounds a tad more constrained. The R02 also carries a bit more detail and I found myself pushing the volume of the R01 up a few notches to get the same level of detail out of it. Again, the differences are not great by any means but they are enough to make the R02 one of the best earphones in the <$100 range and the R01 merely above-average in the same category (though do keep in mind that the R01 costs a measly $30). Having both, I found myself reaching for the R02 every time without hesitation, but I would be far from unhappy if 'stuck' with just the R01.

Value (8.5/10) – The ViSang R01 promises the sound of the higher-end ViSang R02 in an even more reasonably-priced package. The ~$10 difference between the two accounts for the exclusion of the hard clamshell carrying case and Sony Hybrid knockoff tips from the accessory pack of the R01 as well as for the replacement of the Cu-Ag alloy cord with a more standard one. There are also minor sonic differences between the two which leave the pricier R02 a step above the R01 in overall sound quality. If you absolutely must only spend $30 on an earphone, the R01 is still the best way to do so. However, if tossing in the extra $10 to make the jump to the R02 won’t put you in the red for next month’s rent, I would recommend the upgrade. With the nicer cable and carrying case the earphones will last longer and the sonic differences, though probably not noticeable except in a direct comparison, are present nevertheless. At the end of the day either earphone provides great value for money but a few minor quibbles prevent the R01 from out-pacing its older brothers in bang/buck.

Pros: Time-tested design, class-leading sound quality
Cons: Not quite as stellar of an all-rounder as the R02 and only $10 cheaper

Full review can be found here.

(3A30) ECCI PR300

Reviewed Aug 2010

Details: Flagship earphone from ECCI, the earphone division of Chinese amp manufacturer Storm
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $52)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32 Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-22k Hz | Cord: 4.2' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Narrow-tube stock single flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Narrow-tube (3 sizes) and wide-tube (3 sizes) single-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and large clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The gray metal shells are smaller and much lighter than those of the lower-end PR100/PR200 and feel a bit less solid. The sound tubes are protected by the same fine mesh filters as on the older earphones but the cable is a definite downgrade from the excellent silver cord used by the PR100/PR200. It is thinner, more rubbery, and far more prone to tangling. In addition, the sliding cord cinch is missing completely. The PR300 does feature larger and more flexible strain reliefs on either end of the cable but just doesn’t have the same ‘wow’ effect as the rock-solid construction of the ECCI’s two cheaper models
Isolation (3/5) – Average at best as the PR300s are shallow-fitting and vented at the rear for increased airflow. Wind noise can be an issue in extremely windy conditions
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Not bothersome when worn over-the-ear but quite annoying otherwise. The included shirt clip helps
Comfort (4/5) – The housings of the PR300 are extremely light. They are also quite small and tapered towards the rear. Wearing them either cord-up or cord-down is very comfortable and the soft and thin cord conforms easily in either configuration

Sound (6.5/10) – The two previous models released by ECCI – the PR100 and PR200 – were balanced and capable all-rounders – mid-centric if anything. As such, they were a bit bland and boring despite the slight bass boost and strong midrange presence. In a nutshell, the PR300 is a slightly V-Shaped version of the PR100/PR200 sound with a bit more clarity and air thrown in. As such, the new model reminds me of the company’s former glory, finally delivering some of the spark that made the PR1 Pro so endearing to me.

The bass of the PR300 is tight and punchy – not particularly powerful but very accurate and quite impactful. Extension is good and bass is tight and controlled. The midrange is free of bass bleed and quite smooth and pleasant overall. The older ECCI earphones had mids that were thick and somewhat buttery. The PR300 sounds much more airy and resolved without becoming thin or dry a-la RE0/Hippo VB. The treble of the new ECCI earphones is quite accurate and sounds much livelier than that of the PR100/PR200. Top-end roll-off is reduced and the listener is faced with plenty of sparkle. Those who find treble tiring in large quantities may want to give these a pass but for the average listener the PR300 provides a good alternative to the similarly-sparkly Brainwavz M1, which is slightly more mid-forward and boasts better extension on either end but has even more vigorous bass and treble response. In terms of presentation, the PR300 mimics the reasonably-sized soundstages of the PR100/PR200 models. The improved sense of air, however, helps the PR300 image better than the older models do. The presentation isn’t perfect and doesn’t quite give the same overall sense of space as the similarly-priced Brainwavz M1 and ViSang R02 but it is very good for the asking price.

Value (8/10) – The ECCI PR300 is the company’s latest and most convincing attempt at offering hi-fi sound for lo-fi money. Those who have heard the PR100 or PR200 will find the general signature of the PR300 quite familiar but should note improved treble response and better all-around clarity and resolution. While the new housings are not quite as impressive to the touch and the eye as the shiny shells of the older ECCI models, they are smaller, lighter, and tapered towards the rear, offering a more compliant and unobtrusive fit. All things considered, the PR300 is a noteworthy entry in the increasingly crowded and amazingly competitive <$100 price bracket. Highly recommended for those in search of a balanced IEM with a bit of bass punch and energetic treble.

Pros: Small and comfortable, lively but accurate and controlled sound
Cons: Cabling is a step down from the PR100/PR200, presentation not as spacious as some of the competitors

Full review can be found here.

(3A31) Xears TD100

Reviewed Aug 2010

Details: Current flagship of the Xears earphone line from Playaz
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: est $60)

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: 124 dB | Freq: 6-28k Hz | Cord: 4.2’ I-plug j-cord

Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Sennheiser short bi-flanges, generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and tri-flange silicone tips, foamhybrid tips (2 pairs), and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The metal shells are quite obviously modeled after the Monster Turbines. The construction is quite good but the Xears don’t feel quite as solid as the Monsters. Mild driver flex is present as well
Isolation (3.5/5) – For some reason Turbine-style housings just work well for me when it comes to isolation, the TD100 being no exception. Aside from the mediocre stock tips, the isolation is nearly on par with the Turbine Pros
Microphonics (4/5) – Quite low but the j-cord is a two-edged sword – it reduces cable travel and therefore microphonics but at the same time makes the earphones more difficult to wear over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – Very similar to Monster Turbines. The straight-barrel housings are average in size and rounded at the front. Unfortunately the stock tips are rather poor. In addition, the j-cord may be annoying for some

Sound (7.5/10) – The TD100, along with several other Xears/Playaz earphones, has a cult following here at Head-Fi, and after several weeks with it I can see why. It is an extremely lush and sweet-sounding earphone. Those in search of analytical sound should quite clearly look elsewhere but as an alternative to the similarly-colored Fischer Audio Eterna or ViSang R03, the TD100 holds its own very well. Its bass is deep and full-bodied and plentifully impactful. The low end can match the ViSang R03 in quantity but runs closer to the subbass-heavy Hippo VB in extension. Despite the copious grunt, however, the low end of the TD100 carries lots of detail and very good resolution. Individual notes never run together and bass bloat/bleed are almost completely absent. The bass heft of the TD100 will surely be excessive for some, but from a technical standpoint it is very well-done.

The midrange is warmed up by the weighty low end and sounds lush and full. It is slightly forward but not as forward as the mids of the ViSang R03. Detail is quite good but the TD100 has a certain thickness to it that causes clarity to lag slightly behind the R03 and Hippo VB. It still sounds a bit less veiled than my rev2 Eterna; however, the Eterna is ‘handicapped’ by a larger soundstage and is generally a more distant-sounding earphone than the somewhat intimate TD100. The treble of the TD100 is smooth but relatively clear and detailed, though it won’t keep up with the Hippo VB, Brainwavz M1, or ECCI PR300 in crispness. It is laid back but not quite enough so to be called recessed. Like the midrange, the treble is a bit thick and lacks the air of some of the more analytical earphones. It is far from dull, however, and manages to keep my attention quite easily when necessary. All in all, for an earphone with the bass power of the TD100, the overall sound is surprisingly well-balanced and enjoyable. It is colored and exciting and I rather like it despite all of my analytical biases.

When it comes to presentation, the TD100 again performs above expectations. The soundstage has good width and depth and instrumental separation is quite decent for a mid-range dynamic. The earphone is also capable of delivering an excellent sense of distance but leans slightly towards intimacy. The fact that the notes it produces are usually a little thick makes it more musical and satisfying but reduces air. Tonally, the TD100 is not a dark earphone, nor does it sound ‘stuffy’ like certain bass-heavy competitors, but I wouldn’t call it bright, either. As far as fun-sounding earphones go, the presentation of the TD100 is just right.

Value (8.5/10) – At its usual ~$60 retail price point, the TD100 is a stellar deal. The earphone is rather handsome and well-designed, though the budget-oriented nature shows through in the j-cord setup, driver flex, and poor quality of stock tips. More important, however, is that the sound quality of the Xears earphones far exceeds the asking price, putting them on-level with some of the absolute best IEMs I’ve heard in the <$100 bracket – the ViSang R03, Fischer Audio Eterna, and Hippo VB. The sound signature of the TD100 sounds like a cross of the VB and R03 – deep and powerful bass, smooth and slightly forward mids, and competent but neither overly edgy not completely sunk treble. It is true that the R03, Eterna, and VB feel like higher-tier products all things considered, but in terms of absolute audio enjoyment the TD100 holds its own very easily.

Pros: Very capable performance, comfortable with aftermarket tips
Cons: J-cord may be bothersome, mild driver flex, stock tips are rather poor

(3A32) Hippo Shroom

Reviewed Sep 2010

Details: Micro-driver earphone from Jaben’s house brand, Hippo
Current Price: $57 from unclewilsons.com (MSRP: $57.00)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 95 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 6mm | Preferred tips: Stock single flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) – Black (3 sizes) and color-coded (3 sizes) single flange silicone tips and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The slim housings of the Shrooms are mostly made of metal and the micro-driver is positioned at the tip of the nozzle. The cable is rubberized and resists tangling well but feels a bit cheap. The low-profile L-plug is quite nice, however
Isolation (3.5/5) – Quite good due to the slim housings and forward driver placement
Microphonics (2.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; not too bad otherwise. The omission of a shirt clip doesn’t help
Comfort (4/5) – The tiny housings of the Hippos are light and fit quite well but are let down by the huge 6mm nozzle, which holds the driver. Those with smaller ear canals might have trouble getting the Shroom to fit comfortably

Sound (6.4/10) – The Hippo Shroom is my third micro-driver earphone, the other two being the budget-oriented JVC HA-FXC50 and the slightly more upmarket HA-FXC80. The Shroom, like the two JVCs, is a light on the bass, heavy on the treble earphone with a few aces up its sleeve. In general, the sound of the Hippos amazes most with its quickness and transparency. The bass is tight and accurate but low on impact. Extension is good but the miniscule quantity of sub-bass put out by the drivers results in a lack of low-end rumble, which some may find disconcerting. The midrange is slightly forward and boasts great clarity. Transparency is excellent and the tonal character is quite realistic. Though a small amount of sibilance is present on certain tracks, for the most part the Shroom’s midrange is silky-smooth and extremely pleasant. As with the older Head-Direct RE2, the smooth, clear, and detailed mids are the real strength of the Shroom despite the treble being most gripping and vociferous element of the signature. The detail carried by the microdriver won’t quite compete with the Head-Direct RE0 but gets far closer than a $60 dynamic-driver earphone should.

The treble itself is sparkly, crisp, and extended. There is some unevenness lower down which results in mild sibilance with certain tracks and can make the treble somewhat piercing at times - those who are sensitive to treble artifacts will probably want to give the Shroom a pass as it can be a bit fatiguing. In terms of presentation, the overall brightness of the Shroom makes it sound airy and lightweight. The soundstage boasts surprisingly good width but lacks slightly in depth, which results in a wide but not particularly well-spaced sonic image. All in all, while the Shroom certainly won’t be a perfect match for every listener and music genre, it is a very impressive implementation of the typical microdriver sound signature and comes highly recommended as an upgrade for earphones such as the JVC HA-FXC50 and Head-Direct RE2.

Value (7.5/10) – Yet another impressive midrange entry from Jaben’s house brand, the Hippo Shroom is a small-and-slim earphone that should be comfortable and well-isolating enough for most users. Its top-heavy sound signature and capacity for clarity and detail put it on-level with the likes of the JVC HA-FXC80 and RadioPaq Classical. In a nutshell, the Shroom is all about combining strong and smooth vocals with crisp and sparkly treble. The usual caveats are, of course, in full effect and those sensitive to strong treble need not apply. Taken for what it is, however, the Shroom is an impressive earphone and a good budget buy.

Pros: Impressive clarity and detail, small and comfortable, good isolation
Cons: Microphonics can be bothersome, distinctive sound signature not for everyone

(3A33) Yamaha EPH-50

Reviewed Sep 2010

Details: Top-of-the-line IEM from electronics giant Yamaha, boasting large 14mm drivers in an half in-ear form factor
Current Price: $38 from amazon.com (MSRP: $99.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 104 dB | Freq: 20-21k Hz | Cable: 4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (1.5/5) – Single flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and ¼” adapter
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The housings are made completely out of plastic and, except for the nozzles, look like conventional earbuds. The rubberized cabling is fairly sturdy and well-relieved but prone to tangling
Isolation (2.5/5) – Like the cheaper EPH-20, the EPH-50 is a shallow-insertion earphone and is also vented. However, the EPH-50 is larger and seems to isolate slightly better, especially with aftermarket dual-flange tips
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Cable noise is present and the EPH-50 cannot be worn over-the-ear, exacerbating the problem
Comfort (4.5/5) – Unlike the miniscule EPH-20, the EPH-50, built around gigantic 14mm drivers, is a large but equally ergonomic earphone. Due to its greater size it doesn’t have a tendency to disappear when donned but remains very comfortable for those with ears large enough to accommodate the 15mm housings

Sound (5.9/10) – The first question I usually ask myself when faced with two differently-priced IEMs from the same model line is whether the higher-end set is worth the price premium over the cheaper offering. With the two Yamaha IEMs, it’s a no-contest “yes” for the EPH-50. While the EPH-20 is a decent earphone for what it costs, it is by no means hi-fi and loses both clarity and detail to the out-of-control bass. The EPH-50 is by no means bass shy, but it manages to impress in other areas as well. A familial resemblance between the two phones is most notable in the way the low end is presented – it is deep and full, boasting plentiful impact and a pleasant warmth. The EP-50 are still bass monsters but the 14-mm drivers seem to be more precise than the tiny transducers used by the EPH-20 and the bass is generally cleaner and better-controlled on the larger earphones.

Midrange bleed is also reduced, though not eliminated completely. The big bass can still make detail harder to hear but the midrange itself is more forward, more neutral, and far more clear than it is on the EPH-20. The clarity is actually quite impressive, especially on bass-light tracks, beating out the Apple dual-drivers and Sleek SA1. The earphones also lack the upper midrange dip of the EPH-20s, giving them slightly more pronounced treble at the expense of slight harshness and a bit of graininess. Treble extension is quite reasonable and the high end sounds surprisingly realistic. Though sparkle is still nearly nonexistent, the EPH-50s generally sound more crisp and energetic than the EPH-20s do. The presentation of the earphones is surprisingly wide and airy. Compared to the similarly-priced Sleek SA1 and TDK EB900, the EPH-50s sound well-separated and quite spacious, though they don’t have particular accuracy in imaging or positioning. Overall, the sound is well-layered and avoids congestion, which is a must for the bottom-skewed balance of these earphones.

Value (7.5/10) – Sound-wise, the EPH-50 is a competitive mid-range entry. Like the lower-end EPH-20, it boasts a large amount of very visceral bass but adds to it a fairly clear midrange and crisp, natural-sounding treble. Yes, the bass is excessive at times, but as a general rule it manages to be fun yet controlled – a tough order as far as budget-oriented in-ears go. The earphone is also quite pleasing aesthetically and very comfortable to wear for those with large enough ears. Sadly, the build quality, isolation, and microphonics are merely average for the price, but the sound should be enough to justify a purchase for those in search of moderately-isolating in-ears with hugely impactful bass. Of note, a set of bi-flange silicone tips off of eBay may be worth picking up along with these.

Pros: Very lightweight and comfortable, fun and dynamic sound
Cons: Bass can be excessive and negatively affects the rest of the spectrum

(3A34) Pioneer SE-CLX50

Reviewed Sep 2010

Details: Half in-ear IEM from Pioneer boasting a ‘flex nozzle’ design
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: 89.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 5-24k Hz | Cable: 3.3’ I-plug + 1.6’ L-plug extension
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), 1.6’ extension cable, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The metal inner housings of the CLX50s are similar to conventional earbuds. A rigid silicone sleeve with a plastic nozzle makes them into IEMs with some success. The silicone part can be rotated and reshaped slightly for a more comfortable fit but has some limitations - angling it too much can cause it to slip off the earphone and there’s a vent hole that can be obscured, leading to muffled bass response and high end roll-off. In addition, changing tips can sometimes forcibly remove the entire silicone sleeve from the earphones. On the upside, the thick cable is rubberized to reduce tangling and terminated with a standard 3.5mm I-plug, though it does carry some annoying memory character
Isolation (2/5) – Not bad for a half in-ear design when a proper seal is achieved
Microphonics (4/5) – Quite low in the thick and rubbery cable but hard to avoid completely as the CLX50 cannot be worn over-the-ear
Comfort (2.5/5) – Though the CLX50 boasts a ‘flex-nozzle’ design, getting a good seal with it can be unreasonably difficult, especially with the stock tips. The odd disk-shaped silicone bulge near the nozzle is angled incorrectly for my ears and the housings themselves are far too large and heavy. The Phiaton PS210, which is similar in size and weight, is far more ergonomic and the Yamaha EPH-50 is a featherweight in comparison

Sound (6.7/10) – Pioneer claims that the 13mm dynamic driver and silicone in-ear adapter of the CLX50 were designed to provide the type of bass response that isn’t usually attributed to conventional earbuds. The biggest iss Microphonics ue with basimg alt=s, however, is that a proper seal is required to hear it and for the life of me I couldn’t make the CLX50 work with the stock tips. Large Sony hybrids, large bi-flanges, or foam tips were required for me to get any sort of bass out of them. With a proper seal, bass quantity was somewhere between the heavy-handed Yamaha EPH50 and light and agile Phiaton PS210s – deep and rumbly, yet controlled and accurate. I wouldn’t call the CLX50s bass monsters but they do have a very nice full-bodied punch to them – quite enough to please the moderate basshead. Nonetheless, it is a realistic sort of bass that doesn’t draw too much attention to itself, which is how I like it.

The midrange is quite clean and almost completely free of interference from the low end. It lacks a bit of emphasis but is generally smooth and competent. The 13mm drivers are quick and detail is surprisingly good, as is the clarity. Tonally the Pioneers are slightly bright despite the deep and powerful low end. The mids are sweet and work especially well for female vocals, which are given just the right amount of edginess and polish by the CLX50. The treble, too, is clear and very detailed. There’s plenty of sparkle but I doubt anyone would find the CLX50 fatiguing – there’s just so much clarity and resolution that the sparkle sounds well-appropriated. With a mediocre seal they can be a bit piercing but not using stock tips fixes that for me. Top-end extension is good – a bit better than the laid-back ViSang R03 but not quite up there with the Hippo VB or Head-Direct RE0.

Perhaps some psychology is in play here but I really hear a resemblance in presentation between the CLX50 and the Phiaton PS210, which shares the half in-ear form factor. Both are quite wide-sounding and have decent soundstage depth. Both position instruments surprisingly well and sound quite airy. The CLX50 even seems to separate instruments out a bit better than the PS210 does, though the Phiatons still present performances I’m familiar with in a more convincing way. On the whole, the CLX50 really is a competitive earphone for the asking price - all it is missing compared to the much pricier PS210 is a bit of ambience and a chunk of refinement.

Value (6/10) – Though the sound quality of the CLX50 is well above average for the current asking price, I simply cannot recommend them due to the design. Plain and simple, the ergonomics of the CLX50 will either be a complete hit or complete miss, based on the individual. My ears, which are usually quite compliant when it comes to new and unfamiliar earphones, rebelled unequivocally against the CLX50. Aside from the fit, the CLX50 is a very usable earphone – well built and not very microphonic. For those who have the ability to return the earphones and are willing to take a chance on the fit, the CLX50 may be worth a shot but my pair is definitely going back to Pioneer.

Pros: Full-bodied bass, sparkly and atmospheric sound, decent build
Cons: Hit-or-miss fit, odd cable lengths

(3A35) Sennheiser CX280

Reviewed Sep 2010

Details: Latest addition to Sennheiser’s long-running CX in-ear earphone line
Current Price: $50 from amazon.com (MSRP: $69.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 120 dB | Freq: 19-20.5k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and leather carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – At first glance, the CX280 is an enlarged version of the older CX150/200/250 housing but it isn’t quite so – the construction consists of two types of plastic and feels a bit sturdier overall. Cabling is average in thickness, well-relieved at either end, and terminated with a sturdy 3.5mm L-plug
Isolation (3/5) – About average for conventional in-ears due to large vent slit
Microphonics (3/5) – Somewhat bothersome when worn cord-down, good when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The housings are larger than those of the older CX250 but rounded at the front for an agreeable fit. The earphones are quite lightweight and the stock tips work well with the medium insertion depth

Sound (5.8/10) – As with many of the other CX-series Sennheisers, the 280 is claimed to have ‘bass-driven sound’. Quite often a phrase like that would scare me but having heard the CX250 and CX300 in the past, I had a decent idea of what to expect. The CX280 does appear to be a step in the right direction from the CX250, which itself was a more enjoyable earphone than the ever-popular CX300. The bass of the CX280 falls between the CX250 and CX300 – there is a bit of mid-bass emphasis but not much bloat. Compared to the Meelec M9 the CX280 seriously lacks sub-bass weight and sounds slightly tamer overall. The low end of the CX280 is not thin by any means but it just doesn’t have the same well-rounded fullness as the rumbly and visceral bass of the M9.

The mids are smooth and in good balance with the bass and treble. As with the older CX-series earphones, the CX280 is a bit laid-back in the midrange. Clarity and detail are good though on the whole the CX280 lags behind the Meelec M9 on both counts. There is a bit of unevenness towards the upper midrange and the CX280 has much more prominent treble than the CX300 and slightly more sparkle and detail than the CX250 (though still not as much as the M9). At higher volumes the treble can be a bit fatiguing but during normal listening I found it perfectly pleasant – less harsh than that of the M9 but not rolled-off as with the CX300.

In terms of presentation, the CX280 is quite wide-sounding and airy. Depth is average in comparison to the width, resulting in a sound that’s well-distanced but relatively flat in the soundstage. Positioning is good and the CX280 has a somewhat harder time portraying intimacy than distance, though its soundstage has clear outer limits as well, not unlike that of the far-pricier IE7. Those who like a more intimate sound would probably find a better match with the similarly-priced CX281, which doesn’t sound as big as the CX280 does but is also more cohesive in its intimacy. Nearly everyone else will be impressed by the spacious presentation.

Value (7/10) – Sennheiser’s latest foray into the ranks of entry-level in-ears takes us one step further from the bloated and boomy sound of low-end Sennhaiers of years past. The sound is fairly balanced and competent all-around. I don’t expect the CX280 to be as polarizing as the Meelec M9 – it lacks the amazing detail and clarity of the Meelecs but doesn’t sound as harsh or boomy, either. With good comfort and isolation as well as build quality that, while not as impressive as that of the CX281, puts the old CX300 to shame, the CX280 is a very agreeable earphone that manages to appeal both to the consumer and the (budget-minded) audiophile. Though the retail price is, as usual, excessive, the street value fluctuates quite a bit and any dips below $30 have the potential to make the CX280 a very competitive earphone.

Pros: Comfortable, rather wide-sounding and all-around competent
Cons: Can be microphonic

Special thanks to kjk1281 for offering to lend me the CX280 upon hearing that I had the CX281 on-hand

(3A36) Sennheiser CX281

Reviewed Sep 2010

Details: Budget in-ear from Sennheiser’s “designed for women” line
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $69.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 120 dB | Freq: 19-20.5k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), 3.5mm splitter, and leather carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – The asymmetrical housings are made of solid plastics and feel fairly sturdy. Strain reliefs are short but the silver cable is identical to that used on the MX/OMX471 earbuds – thick, soft, and very flexible. A fairly large volume pot hangs not far below the y-split and the 3.5mm L-plug has a long and soft strain relief
Isolation (3/5) – Good enough for daily use though the fit of the CX281 is rather shallow
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Merely alright when worn cord-down, good when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The housings are curved in an attempt at ergonomic design but really just aren’t small enough for the target market. The front edges are squared off and facilitate shallower insertion unlike the rounded housings of the older CX200/250 earphones. Comfortable, but not game-changing

Sound (5.6/10) – Following hot on the heels of the new CX280, the designed-for-women CX281 follows pretty much the same formula. Like the CX280, the CX281 is advertised as having ‘bass-driven sound’ and like the CX280 it is rather controlled and delicate in nature. The CX281 is just a touch warmer and bassier than the CX280 but still falls squarely between the older CX300 and CX250 models in bass quantity. Mid-bass is expectedly emphasized but the extension of earphones such as the Meelec M9 is lacking in the CX281.

The midrange is probably the most agreeable aspect of the CX281, being almost identical to that of the CX280. Clarity and detail are quite good though the CX281 does sound just a touch more grainy than the CX280. The treble is prominent and can be fatiguing at high volumes but rolls off later than that of the CX300 and carries more detail throughout. In presentation the CX281 once again follows in the footsteps of the CX280 but lacks the soundstage width, opting instead for a slightly more intimate sound to match the slightly warmer tone of the earphones. Personally I find the presentation of the CX280 to be slightly more realistic despite the tone and timbre of the two earphones being nearly identical.

Value (7/10) – Though not quite as impressive as the ‘mainline’ CX280, the CX281 is a competent budget IEM with an agreeable signature and great all-around usability. Sennheiser did source the excellent silver cable, including the notched-wheel volume control, for the CX281 from the MX471, giving it a leg up over the CX280 in microphonics and overall feel. Comfort and isolation are also quite reasonable for a budget-minded set. The sound signature is a bit less realistic than that of the CX280 but arguably more enjoyable, especially for the average listener. Like most of the CX-series earphones, the CX281 fluctuates wildly in street price but anything under $30 would make them a pretty good deal in my book.

Pros: Well-built and comfortable, low microphonics, all-around competent sound
Cons: No ‘wow’ factor, overpriced at MSRP

Special thanks to jant71 for lending me the CX281

(3A37) TDK EB900

Reviewed Sep 2010

Details: Mid-range earphone from Japanese electronics giant TDK
Current Price: $50 from bestbuy.com (MSRP: $69.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 101.5 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply T400 foam tips (1 set), and soft synthetic carrying pouch
Build Quality (3/5) – The curved shells are made out of a matte plastic with a glossy finish over the TDK logo. Both the nozzles and rear vents of the earphones are protected by metal grilles. The cable exit points on the underside of the shells feature short rubber strain reliefs and the cable is sheathed in black-and-white striped nylon. The cord is extremely light and terminates in a straight 3.5mm plug with a hard rubber strain relief. Mild driver flex is present
Isolation (2.5/5) – Average for a dynamic-driver in-ear
Microphonics (3/5) – Cable noise is bothersome when worn cable-down and the weight of the cable is not sufficient to keep it planted behind the ear during physical activity. Not recommended for jogging or exercise
Comfort (4/5) – The light weight of the earphones, combined with the tapered housing shape, makes the EB900 completely unobtrusive. Unfortunately, despite the short strain reliefs, wearing the EB900 over-the-ear is not as easy as I would like due to the weightless cord

Sound (4.9/10) – The sound signature of the EB900 is decidedly bass-heavy, with enough low-end grunt to rattle loose teeth and a small dip in the upper midrange that results in a loss of the artificial clarity usually brought about by bright treble. The response curve of the EB900 sounds ‘enhanced’ by a wholesome 12-15 decibels in the 50-100Hz range, resulting in a large mid-bass hump and minimal roll-off all the way down to 25Hz. The low-end resolution of the EB900 is negatively affected by the gargantuan bass and the lower midrange is heavily veiled. When the bass is dropped by 10-12 dB on the equalizer, the veil lifts and midrange clarity quite reasonable for a $70 dynamic earphone shines through. As it stands, the bass, imparts a fairly dark character on the sound. Luckily, the midrange isn’t particularly recessed and generally sounds full and pleasant, if a bit dry. The pleasantness extends in to the upper midrange, which exhibits a small dip in response, likely meant to reduce harshness and/or sibilance, which gives the EB900 a very smooth sound all the way up. Compared to the voluminous bass, the treble of the EB900 is notably deemphasized but boasts decent, though not class-leading, extension and detail.

Despite the lack of treble emphasis and narrow soundstage, the earphones sound rather airy, possibly due in part to the massive rear vents. The fullness of the midrange and heavy bass notes give the earphones a sense of dimensionality that is often lacking in low-end products. They don’t position sonic cues with particular precision but have a certain evenness and consistency to the imaging. There are earphones out there that have a wide soundstage but never seem to take advantage of it. The TDK EB900 has a relatively narrow stage but manages to fill in every nook and cranny with sound, making them quite enveloping and well-suited for music that benefits from the intimate but dimensional presentation.

Value (6/10) – The EB900 sounds as if TDK started with a fairly balanced and natural-sounding mid-range earphone and cranked up the bass. It remains a nice option for lovers of deep and impactful bass but is more difficult to recommend as an all-rounder. The sound is dark and a bit dry but quite full and conveys a nice, if slightly undersized, sonic image. From a usability standpoint, too, the EB900 are competent but not outstanding. Isolation, build quality, and microphonics are all average, with extra comfort points earned for the light weight of the earpieces and included Comply eartips. For those in search of a light and comfortable in-ear with lots of bass, the TDK EB900 is a solid option. Otherwise, the market is chock-full of better options.

Pros: Light and comfortable, ships with Comply foam eartips, very bass-heavy but generally competent sound
Cons: Loses out in balance, clarity, and detail to much of the competition, carries a good amount of cable noise, mild driver flex

(3A38) Sony MDR-XB40EX

Reviewed Dec 2010

Details: Mid-range in-ear from Sony’s Extra Bass line
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $59.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 4-24k Hz | Cable: 4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) Sony Hybrid silicone tips and hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The housings are made of plastic with metal Sony badges running along the spine of the earphones. The flat cable has average strain relief at the stems and no cable cinch but is terminated with a flexible 3.5mm L-plug. Cable quality is quite good – soft, sturdy, and with no memory character
Isolation (2.5/5) – Average for a dynamic-driver canalphone
Microphonics (4/5) – Very low in the flat, tangle-free cable but it can be tricky to route over-the-ear to eliminate cord noise completely
Comfort (2.5/5) – The XB40EX has vertically-mounted drivers and is not meant to be inserted very deeply. However, the earphones are a bit too large and heavy for shallow-insertion canalphones and often stay in only by virtue of the eartip seal while still putting pressure on the outer ear. In addition, the extra-large metal Sony badge running along the height of the earphones can get in the way of wearing them over-the-ear

Sound (4.8/10) – Being part of Sony’s Extra Bass (XB) series, the XB40EX was bound to be a bass-heavy earphone; the question was – how bass-heavy? Answer: very. I’ve owned one of the full-size headphones from the XB line – the MDR-XB500 – until very recently and thought they were surprisingly decent with the exception of the frequency balance, which put bass up front and recessed the mids and treble quite severely. However, if the balance of the XB500 is (+2 bass, -1 mids, -1 treble), the XB40EX is more like (+3,-2,-2). It really is very biased in favor of the low end. The result is that the XB40EX warrants lower listening levels as equating the output levels of the midrange and treble of the XB40 with those of a more balanced earphone makes the bass nauseating. Unfortunately, the 13.5mm drivers really aren’t resolving enough to maintain reasonable levels of detail and texturing at lower volumes. Balance aside, the drivers put on a good show for an earphone tuned the way the XB40EX is. Bass impact is enormous in quantity but still slightly more controlled than something like the Sennheiser CX300. Most of the bass comes in fairly high but sub-bass is not missing altogether, though it can be hard to distinguish from the ever-present blanket of mid/upper-bass.

Expectedly, some of the bass bloat affects the midrange, which is generally warm and smooth. Truth be told, there’s simply not much to be said about the midrange until the bass hump is equalized away since it is recessed to the point of being irrelevant. Even with the bass dropped to what I consider near-flat level with a parametric EQ, the mids are nothing special – the clarity doesn’t quite match the Meelec M9 detail trails (distantly) the ViSang R01 and the Brainwavz models. Still, I’ve definitely heard worse – at least the XB40EX is not as tiring to listen to as the metallic-sounding Skullcandy Titans or as muddy as the Earsquake FISH at reasonable volumes.

The treble is competent but far from outstanding. It reminds me of the high end of the Sennheiser CX250, which I rather like. Trouble is – the CX250 doesn’t have bass that crowds out everything else and costs about 2x less than the Sonys. There is a bit of hard-edginess to the treble and a spot of vocal sibilance is present on some tracks but such nuances are usually swallowed up by the bass and therefore don’t detract from the overall experience. The presentation, too, is quite decent – especially compared to the similarly-priced and similarly consumer-friendly Skullcandy FMJ – but not quite competitive with earphones such as the Brainwavz M1 and Meelectronics M6. The soundstage has good depth and ok width but for the most part stays concentrated in the center. The omnipresent bass can once again detract greatly from the realism of the experience, especially with live recordings.

Value (5.5/10) – Head-Fi is quite clearly not the target audience of the Sony XB40EX – to say that these earphones are bass-heavy is a major understatement. In terms of overall frequency balance, the only earphones that even come close to offering the sort of bass dominance exemplified by the XB40EX are the TDK ‘Extra Bass’ EB900s. The EB900s are admittedly grainier and edgier but at the same time they are more manageable with a bit of equalization and have a more easy-going fit. Those interested in spending $40 on nothing but bass should concentrate on these two. For everyone else, better choices abound, though of course certain genre preferences may make the XB40EX a more appealing option. Personally I’d rather be listening to the MDR-EX082 (aka EX85), which comes as a stock earphone with many Sony players.

Pros: User-friendly cable, generally smooth sound, decent sense of space
Cons: Large; will be uncomfortable for some; bass dominates mids & treble

(3A39) Skullcandy FMJ

Reviewed Dec 2010

Details: One of Skullcandy’s pricier – and more popular - models
Current Price: $36 from amazon.com (MSRP: $69.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq: 16-20k Hz | Cable: 3.3’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) silicone tips, Comply foam tips, and soft carrying pouch (note: 2010 version ships with clamshell case instead)
Build Quality (2.5/5) – The shells are metal but feel very light and a little cheap. Strain relief is nonexistent on housing entry and at the y-split. The clear cable resembles Meelec cables externally but is thinner and has a tendency to kink. In addition, the 3.3’ cable length is far too short for the average adult
Isolation (2.5/5) – Low since the earphones are ported and the driver bulges prevent deep insertion. The included Comply tips help a bit
Microphonics (4/5) – Very low
Comfort (2.5/5) – Though the FMJs are straight-barrel earphones, the big metal bulge housing the drivers can get in the way of wearing them comfortably for more than an hour or two. Wearing them over-the-ear is more comfortable but made needlessly difficult by the short cable

Sound (3.6/10) – The FMJ is my third experience with Skullcandy earphones, following the entry-level Ink’d buds and the mid-range TiTans, which had somewhat similar sound signatures – powerful and forward bass, thin and dry mids, and prominent but harsh treble. The FMJ surprised me, not only by being so **** dreadful that I considered giving up on this review but also by taking on a different sound signature than the other Skullcandy IEMs. The FMJs are generally mid-forward but the bass certainly makes its presence known. Unlike the TiTans, which have fairly good, if overdone, low end extension, the FMJs carry a massive amount of mid- and upper- bass and little sub-bass. The extremely forward midrange makes the FMJ sound more balanced than the other Skullcandy earphones but at higher volumes the bass still reveals itself to be fat and muddy – certainly not as accurate or controlled as on the JVC Marshmallows or Sony MDR-EX082. In addition, drum crackle can be unpleasantly sharp, sometimes startlingly so – an issue of tuning rather than technical capability as the higher-end Grado iGi exhibits this as well.

One upside of the forward midrange is that the bass fails to overpower it at reasonable listening volumes. There is also an illusion of clarity brought about by the peculiar balance of the midrange – vocals come across powerfully and intelligibly. The natural clarity of the FMJs, however, is at best on par with the much-cheaper Earsquake SHA or Meelec M2. Detail is similarly underwhelming, though again the forward mids act to force what little detail there is on the listener. Those who have never before owned good earphones will be tricked into thinking that the FMJs are reproducing parts of the music stock earphones do not while in reality they are simply terrible at differentiating between a track’s background and foreground (more on this later).

The treble is admittedly better than the slightly harsh highs of the Ink’d buds and the metallic high end of the TiTans. The FMJs are slightly smoother and roll off later than the Ink’d buds. They are also warmer in tone and more natural-sounding than the TiTans. That’s where the good new ends, however – the presentation of the FMJs is one of the most congested I have ever heard from a >$20 pair of earphones. The biggest problem is that they have no soundstage – zip, zilch, nada. I’ve heard some narrow-sounding earphones before but the FMJ has the sonic space of a Porta Potty. Expectedly, most tracks sound at least slightly congested (just imagine cramming a four-piece band into said Porta Potty). Instrumental separation, imaging, and positioning are all quite poor – everything just sounds in-your-face forward. There are certainly listeners who like a more forward presentation but I can’t help but think that the FMJs are better suited for audiobooks and voice calls than music or movies.

Value (4/10) – Let’s face it - Skullcandy products are not very well-regarded around Head-Fi for reasons beyond simple audiophile snobbishness. Still, the entry-level Ink’d buds prove that even Skullcandy products can be good value for money when priced low enough. The FMJ, however, is undoubtedly one of the least enjoyable listening experiences I’ve had in the history of this thread. It is not the lowest-scoring earphone in this review because frankly, it isn’t that bad from a technical standpoint, but even those in search of an extremely forward sound heavy on both the lows and mids can do better for the money. Unless, of course, a nonexistent soundstage and mediocre fit, build quality, and isolation are the other requirements.

Pros: Not bass monsters, come with Comply tips, low cable noise
Cons: Short cable; will be uncomfortable for some; poor clarity, no soundstage

(3A40) Hippo Boom

Reviewed Jan 2011

Details: Budget basshead-oriented earphone from Jaben’s in-house brand
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $43)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 20-22k Hz | Cable: 4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock triple-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – Like the other Hippo earphones, the Boom feels rather sturdy with its metal shells, rubbery cables, and low profile 3.5mm L-plug. Mild driver flex is present but not problematic
Isolation (3/5) – Fairly typical of sealed-back straight-barrel dynamics
Microphonics (3/5) – Can be quite annoying when worn cable-down; fine otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5) – The Boom is a little tubby in shape but is tapered in the front and quite comfortable to insert. The weighty housings may be an issue for some and the non-removable shirt clip is very annoying but the fit is good overall

Sound (4.8/10) – The sound signature of the Hippo Boom is a far cry from the treble-heavy Hippo Shroom and subbass-heavy VB, both pricier models in the company’s lineup. There is no mistaking the Boom for a high-end earphone but for a budget set it does quite a few things properly. True to the name, the Boom is an impactful earphone with a full-bodied low end. Unlike the VB, the Boom has its bass come in mostly above 40Hz but extension is still good for a budget set. The bass is a bit boomy and slightly muddy but a step tighter than that of the cheaper Meelec M9. There is a bit of resonance within the housings and the tone is quite dark overall but for lovers of bass the low end of the Boom will fall in that happy range beween ‘added kick’ and ‘bass monster’.

The midrange of the Boom is clear and detailed but a bit dry and slightly recessed in comparison to the low end. There is very little warmth carried over from the bass and the liquidity of the smoother Hippo Pearl just isn’t there. The treble is not recessed but not quite as prominent as the low end and can be a bit harsh and overbearing at times. It’s a little grainy and somewhat sharp/edgy, not unlike that of the Hippo VB. Extension is good – the smoother Pearl seems to roll off a bit earlier than the Boom. The presentation is decent but the Boom is neither open-sounding nor very spacious. The bass and treble are both fairly aggressive and the sonic space never quite feels three-dimensional or out-of-the-head – just the usual three-blob (left, right, center) soundstage. Layering is decent, however, and things never really sound congested but the similarly-priced Pearl sounds both larger and more enveloping.

Value (7/10) – The Hippo Boom is a well-built and comfortable budget earphone designed to provide ample bass for all but the most die-hard bassheads without sacrificing midrange clarity or treble energy. To an extent it is successful, exhibiting plentiful bass impact, a clear - if somewhat recessed – midrange, and edgy treble. At the same time, the balance and refinement of the higher-end Hippo VB just isn’t there and the Boom lacks the spaciousness and musicality of the similarly-priced Hippo Pearl as well as the Brainwavz M1 and ProAlpha. Unless the Boom’s signature is exactly what is sought, it isn’t difficult to do better for the money on the whole.

Pros: Solid construction, impactful bass, good clarity
Cons: Shirt clip not removable, edgy treble

(3A41) Hippo Pearl

Reviewed Jan 2011

Details: Hippo Boom alternative from Jaben’s in-house brand
Current Price: $43 from unclewilsons.com (MSRP: $43)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 106 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock triple-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – Like the other Hippo earphones, the Pearl feels rather sturdy with its metal shells, rubbery cables, and well-relieved 3.5mm L-plug. Driver flex is a bit worse than with the Boom but not too bad
Isolation (3/5) – Fairly typical of sealed-back straight-barrel dynamics
Microphonics (3/5) – Can be quite annoying when worn cable-down; fine otherwise
Comfort (4.5/5) – The Pearl is smaller than the Boom and can be inserted more deeply without discomfort. The housings are lighter and rounded at the rear – very unobtrusive on the whole

Sound (6.4/10) – If the hippo Boom is the budget-oriented equivalent of the higher-end Hippo VB, the Pearl is the budget version of the Brainwavz M3. Its bass is softer and rounder than that of the Boom but equally impactful. It’s not the deepest or tightest but very pleasant on the whole – warm, full, rumbly, and engaging. The low end of the Pearl can creep up a bit on the midrange but generally isn’t as forward as that of the Boom. The overall balance is better with the Pearl and as a result and the midrange, despite being no more forward than that of the Boom, carries more emphasis. The mids are a bit thicker and not as clear as those of the Boom but sound more full-bodied as a result. The Pearl is unquestionably the warmer and smoother of the two earphones but it’s so much more than that – compared to dry and dark Boom, the Pearl sounds natural and organic – a sidestep from the signatures of the Boom, Shroom, and VB.

The high end retains the smoothness of the midrange, giving up the edginess of the Boom for a softer, more easy-going sound. The treble is still fairly lively but not nearly as harsh or aggressive. Detailing is surprisingly good and the timbre is quite natural for a budget earphone. The presentation, too, steps away from the confined feel of the Boom in favor of a more spacious sound. The Pearl has good presence across a larger sonic area and a fairly spherical presentation. Being slightly less dark than the Boom, it also seems to have more air, which does wonders for the overall experience. Interestingly, it is also quite a bit less efficient than Boom, requiring a half-dozen more volume notches from my Cowon J3, and doesn’t perform at its best at low output volumes.

Value (8.5/10) – Despite its modest price and austere appearance, the Hippo Pearl packs quite a sonic punch, beating out its siblings – the Boom and Shroom – in balance and musicality. The Pearl isn’t the most proficient earphone from a technical standpoint but it is surprisingly balanced, musical, and easy-going. As with the other Hippo earphones, microphonics can be a problem with cable-down wear but in all other aspects the Pearl is an extremely competent product, picking up a few extra points along the way for the diminutive size and comfortable fit. As a practical and pleasant all-rounder, the Pearl is a very impressive entry in its price category.

Pros: Solid build quality, comfortable fit, musical & well-balanced sound
Cons: Mild driver flex

(3A42) MEElectronics CX21

Reviewed Jan 2011

Details: Entry-level model from Meelec’s new ‘clarity’ series of IEMs
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $39.99; $44.99 for CX21P with mic)

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 101 dB | Freq: 15-20k Hz | Cable: 4.4’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, Stock bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes), bi-flange, and triple-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and zippered carrying case
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The housings of the CX21 are made completely out of plastic and feel a bit cheap next to the older M-series models. The cable is quite nice and completely identical to the one used on the higher-end CW31, down to the low-profile 45°-plug
Isolation (3/5) – Isolation is good with an over-the-ear fit and longer tips
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Nearly absent with over-the-ear wear, low otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – The angled housings of the CX21 resemble old Shure models (of the E3/E4 generation) and fit similarly. With an over-the-ear fit and longer tips the housings actually clear my ears completely and remain comfortable for hours

Sound (6.6/10) – While the consumer-oriented ‘M’-series of Meelec’s lineup is moving closer and closer to basshead heaven with the latest releases, the CX21 represents a move in a different direction. As a part of the new clarity series, the CX21 pursues a brighter, more balanced sound, competing with the likes of the Maximo iM-590 and Brainwavz M1. The CX21 has less bass than any of Meelec’s other dynamics but still narrowly beats the armature-based A151 in impact and depth and delivers more punch than the similarly-priced Brainwavz M1. When it comes to texture and detail the Brainwavz, unburdened by the need to deliver sizeable impact, still win out but the CX21 doesn’t lag far behind.

Expectedly, there is no midrange bleed, which allows the CX21 to stay true to its name and provide impressive clarity across the range. The mids are in good balance with the bass - neither as forward as those of the Brainwavz M1 nor as recessed as those of the Meelec M9 or M6 – and can be characterized as crisp and detailed. The CX21 does sound thinner in the mids than the Brainwavz M1, sacrificing the lush smoothness of the Brainwavz mids for a dryer sound with slightly more upper midrange emphasis. Despite this, the treble of the CX21 is neither harsh nor sibilant unless the track calls for it. It lacks the sparkle of the Maximo iM-590 and the softness of the Brainwavz M1, appearing a bit hard-edged and, at times, lacking fine detail. Top-end extension is good for the asking price – about on-par with the Brainwavz M1 and lagging just a tad behind the iM-590.

In terms of presentation, the CX21 is merely competent – the average-sized soundstage has plenty of air and good separation and positioning, partly due to the excellent clarity, but it doesn’t portray distance as well as the higher-end A151. The timbre is a touch less natural than that of the higher-end CW31 and the Brainwavz M1/M2 and the dynamic range is also a bit poorer than that of the Brainwavz earphones. Tonally, the CX21 is quite neutral, sounding more like the RE-ZERO or Etymotic MC5 than the brighter Maximo iM-590 or darker Meelec A151. Such neutrality is rare among budget IEMs, which makes the CX21 arguably more unique in sound signature than the higher-end CW31 and puts it in good company with sets such as the Apple Dual-Driver in-ears and ECCI PR200.

Value (8/10) – The CX21 is Meelec’s first attempt at a neutral sound signature and, for the money, it hits the nail square on the head. With a slight bit of added bass kick and good presence throughout, the CX21 accompanies the pricier CW31 in filling out the middle third of Meelec’s model range and competes well with the other entry-level all-rounders. The angled housings make the CX21 comfortable for over-the-ear use and microphonics are impressively low, making up for the plasticky construction of the earphones. Those looking for warmth or powerful bass will vastly favor the CW31 (or one of the M-series models) but I quite like the slightly analytical tilt of the lower-end earphone.

Pros: Low microphonics, comfortable, balanced and neutral sound
Cons: Least impressive build quality of all Meelec products

(3A43) MEElectronics CW31

Reviewed Jan 2011

Details: Wooden ergonomically-shaped earphone from Meelec
Current Price: $50 from meelec.com (MSRP: $49.99); $55 for CW31P with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 99 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.4’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size: 7mm oval | Preferred tips: Stock bi-flanges, Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes), bi-flange, and triple-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The housings of the CW31 are lightweight and quite small, made partly out of a light-colored wood and partly out of plastic. The nozzles are oval in shape (which I’ve only seen once before on the ATH-CK6) and protected by a fine mesh filter. The cable is well-relieved, smooth, flexible and terminated with a new lower-profile 45°-plug
Isolation (2.5/5) – The design of the CW31 allows only the nozzle to be inserted into the ear canal but the included bi-flange tips provide reasonable isolation
Microphonics (4/5) – Typically low but the CW31 cannot be worn over-the-ear so cable noise is difficult to eliminate completely
Comfort (4.5/5) – The fit of the CW31 is fairly similar to the other half in-ear earphones but it is smaller and lighter than most. In addition, the tapered housings prevent the CW31 from putting pressure on the outer ear, making it very easy to wear for prolonged periods

Sound (6.7/10) – As the middle earphone in Meelectronics’ clarity series, the CW31 really doesn’t differ a whole lot from the lower-end CX21. In a nutshell, the CW31 adds extra bass and a noticeable bit of warmth to the balance of the lower-end model. The bass is still quite controlled but the CW31 has better depth and power at the low end. The bass is more full-bodied and the notes are given a pleasant warmth and roundness compared to the cooler-sounding CX21. In terms of impact, the CW31 still lags behind Meelec’s M-series models but falls closer to the Brainwavz M2 than it does to the M1. As with the CX21, there is a bit of bass detail and texture missing compared to the higher-end A151 and CC51 models but for the price the bass performance is quite competitive.

The small increase in bass quantity over the CX21 results in some warm overtones being added to the midrange of the CW31. Clarity is still very good, however, and the midrange is no more recessed than that of the CX21. Detail and texture are similar as well – just a tad below what the Maximo iM-590 and Brainwavz M1 are capable of but a bit better than with the Meelec M6 or Dr Dre Beats Tour. On the whole, the warmer CW31 sounds a little thicker and more fluid than the CX21 but the difference likely won’t be noticeable unless the two are compared head-to-head. The treble of the CW31 is neither harsh nor sibilant unless the track calls for it and appears to be just a tad softer than that of the CX21. Fine detail is still missing at times but top-end extension is quite good.

In terms of presentation, the CW31 is slightly more well-rounded compared to the lower-end model. While the CX21 has better separation and a bit more width, the CW31 seems a touch more spherical and enveloping. Neither earphone has the positioning accuracy of the A151 but the CW31 does seem to have a little more depth to it, partly as a result of the fuller, more powerful low end. The timbre and tone of the CW31 seem a little more natural as well though the earphones really aren’t radically different on that count.

Value (8.5/10) – The CW31 is yet another solid entrant in the sub-$60 market segment, offering a minimalistic design, comfortable form factor, decent build quality, and a microphone option all for not very much money. For those who don’t mind sacrificing some isolation and like a bit of warmth and bass boost to their sound, the CW31 is likely worth the price premium over the lower-end CX21 but both earphones deliver clear, accurate sound and the kind of real-world usability we’ve come to expect from Meelectronics products.

Pros: Small & comfortable, low microphonics, all-around solid sound quality
Cons: Mediocre isolation

(3A44) MEElectronics M21

Reviewed Feb 2011

Details: Entry-level earphone from Meelec’s M-series available in a variety of colors
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $34.99); $40 for M21P with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 92 dB | Freq: 20-20k 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, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The build is similar to the older M11/M11+ models although the M21 is a bit larger. The housings are all-metal, the cabling is sturdy and well-relieved, and paper filters protect the nozzles. The low-profile L-plug is a welcome change from the 45-degree plug of the M11
Isolation (3/5) – Fairly average due to large rear-facing vent
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low when worn cord-down; nonexistent otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – The M21 is a bit larger than the older M11+ and the fit kit isn’t as extensive but it’s still a very comfortable straight-barrel earphone. With deep-sealing tips I even managed to sleep in them, which I can’t say for the larger M31 model

Sound (5.9/10) – The sound of the M21 carries a slight emphasis on bass consistent with the other models in Meelec’s M-series but the overall balance of the earphones wouldn’t put them out of place in the clarity series, either. In terms of quantity, the bass of the M21 falls closer to the balance-oriented CX21 and CW31 models and lags noticeably behind the significant amounts of bass boost offered by the M6, M11+, and M31. There is some sub-bass roll-off and most of the emphasis is on the mid- and upper bass regions. The bass is rumbly and a bit soft in character – much like that of the M31 but not nearly as voluminous and less ‘boomy’ as a result. The M6 and M11+ sound quite a bit more aggressive in comparison. Overall, I would say that bass control is decent-to-good and mid-range bleed is not significant enough to be distracting.

There is no significant drop in emphasis when moving from the bass to the midrange, which gives the M21 a leg up in balance on the bass-monster M11+ and the v-shaped M6. If the M6 is recessed in the mids, the M21 is recessed (or, to put it in more positive terms, laid-back) across the range. The mids are similar in quality to the M11+ - a bit dry and thick in character and not as clear or detailed as those of the CX21 but still quite adequate in the context of the sound signature. To be fair, the CX21 does emphasize its midrange more than the M21 does and needs the extra bit of detail and clarity to avoid appearing muffled.

As is the case with the M11+, the treble of the M21 is not notably harsh or sibilant but doesn’t ooze smoothness, either, especially at high volumes. On some tracks the earphones appear a bit edgy but much of the time the treble is a bit laid-back, which provides a nice contrast to the more aggressive treble of the M6 and M11+. Compared to the M6 there’s a drop in sparkle and airiness as a result of the slightly more relaxed treble presentation but extension is still decent. The overall presentation falls somewhere between the M6 and M11+ - the M21 can be quite wide and airy-sounding but still doesn’t quite keep up with the large headstage and immersive 3D feel of my M6. On a couple of tracks the M21’s ability to portray distance threw me off guard but in general its presentation is best described as ‘well-rounded’. In fact, I think ‘well-rounded’ describes the whole earphone rather well. It should be noted that as with all of the M-series earphones I have heard, the M21 sounds best at lower volumes. It’s also, as far as I can tell, less sensitive than any of the other M-series earphones.

Value (8.5/10) – The Meelectronics M21 took me by surprise as a bit of a sidestep from the generally more bass-heavy M6, M11+, and M31 models. While the bass is definitely above baseline on the M21, the earphone still possesses decent balance and really doesn’t do a whole lot wrong for a set aimed at the mainstream market. Though it doesn’t have the wide headstage of the M6 or the midrange clarity and detail of the M11+, the more well-rounded M21 may just be my favourite M-series model regardless.

Pros: Well-built and easy-to-use; sound signature is solid all around
Cons: Yields to other Meelec models in specific sonic traits

(3A45) MEElectronics M31

Reviewed Feb 2011

Details: Bass-heavy earphone from Meelec’s M-series available in a variety of colors
Current Price: $45 from meelec.com (MSRP: $44.99); $50 for M21P with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 96 dB | Freq: 20-20k 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, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The build is similar to the older M11/M11+ models although the M31 is quite large in comparison. The housings are all-metal, the cabling is sturdy and well-relieved, and paper filters protect the nozzles. The low-profile L-plug is a welcome change from the 45-degree plug of the M11
Isolation (3/5) – Fairly average due to large rear-facing vent
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low when worn cord-down; nonexistent otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5) – The M31 is a large earphone and is best worn with a shallower seal despite being tapered at the front for deeper insertion. It’s fairly light and the fit is quite inoffensive but doesn’t quite disappear the way the smaller M11 and M21 models do

Sound (5.7/10) – If the M21 is the most balanced M-series earphone I’ve heard so far, the M31 is the bassiest. It delivers gobs of head-pounding impact at the slightest indication of bass on a track. As one might guess, the bass boost does bring with it great sub-bass extension. However, that’s a bit of a hollow victory as the drivers don’t do a great job of texturing sub-bass response. More often than not, the bass is felt rather than heard. As with the M21, the low end of the M31 tends towards ‘boomy’. Expectedly, there’s a fair bit of midrange bleed and the mids of the M31 are slightly warmer than those of the M21 as a result. Aside from the differences brought about by the bass balance, however, the two earphones are fairly similar – the midrange of the M31 is not as clear or detailed as that of the CX21 and not as recessed as that of the M6. The heavy bass does make the mids sound a bit less emphasized than with the M21 but those seeking perfect balance probably won’t be looking a the M31 in the first place.

The treble transition seems a touch smoother with the M31, mostly because the bass is far more dominant, but the clarity, detail, and extension are all fairly similar to the M21. One major difference is in the presentation – while the M21 sounds spacious, well-rounded, and sometimes downright open, the boomier nature and more bass-heavy balance of the M31 reduces the airiness of the earphones. The presentation of the M31 is by no means offensive but it’s definitely closer in size to the M11+ than the M21 or M6. The peculiar balance of the earphones also gives them a darker overall tonality compared to the (fairly neutral) M21. Though none of these differences are particularly noticeable individually, they do add up to a different sort of sound en masse. It should be noted that at lower volumes the bass of the M31 isn’t as intrusive and they sound more balanced and natural. However, I still think that those who are not bass-obsessed need not apply as the M31 really isn’t better than the M21 from a technical standpoint – just bassier.

Value (7.5/10) – Yet another well-built and user-friendly design from Meelectronics, the M31 is an earphone with many strengths. At the same time, it is an unrelentingly bass-heavy take on the M-series sound signature and will not appeal to those looking for balance or accuracy. Its mainstream sound signature is competition for the likes of the Sony XB40EX and TDK EB900, and that’s how it should be viewed. For those looking for the most bass to be had under $50 with minimal sacrifices elsewhere, the M31 is a good option. For overall sound quality, I just don’t see myself picking it over the M21.

Pros: Huge bass response; solid build quality
Cons: Huge bass response; physically larger than M21 and M11+

(3A46) Xears TD-III v2

Reviewed Mar 2011 / updated Aug 2011

Details: Latest revision of one of Xears’ flagship in-ears
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: 42€)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: 124 dB | Freq: 6-28k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock bi-flanges, stock foamies, generic single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, foamhybrid tips, and padded carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The TD-III is a wooden take on the Xears’ Turbine-inspired TD100/TD100-II design. As with the other Xears models the nozzles are made of metal and the black finish on the wooden part has a hand-painted feel to it. The strain relief is a bit too hard for my liking but should do the job. The current TD-III revision (v2) comes with a nylon-sheathed j-cord, much like the pricier N3i model. It feels sturdier and carries less noise than the old plastic cord but tends to tangle more. One thing that bothers me about the TD-III is the driver flex, which is similar or perhaps a bit greater than that of the old TD100 (The discontinued TD-III v1 came with a smooth, memory-free plastic-sheathed cable in a standard y-cord configuration)

Isolation (3.5/5) – Quite good, especially with the included bi-flange tips
Microphonics (4/5) – Surprisingly low for a cloth cable and helped further by the j-cord configuration

Comfort (4/5) – The fit is similar to that of the Monster Turbine earphones with straight-barrel housings rounded at the front for comfort. The TD-III shells have a weight advantage while Turbines come with nicer eartips. The j-cord may be annoying for some users and tends to make over-the-ear wear a bit of a hassle

Sound (7.6/10) – From memory, the new TD-III sounds quite similar to the Xears TD100 – the now-discontinued metal model I fell in love with back in August of 2010. Like the TD100, the TD-III has deep, full-bodied, and very impactful bass. The overall bass quantity of the TD-III is just a touch ahead of the Thinksound TS02 and Skullcandy Holua. Texture and detail are on-par with the (noticeably dryer-sounding) TS02 – an impressive feat for an earphone that sounds as smooth as the TD-III does. The attack and decay times are on-par with the Thinksounds as well - enjoyable even on fast-paced electronic tracks but still conducive to a slight thickness of note and faintly ‘lingering’ bass. Like the TD100, the TD-III will be a bit too bass-heavy for some but, as with the Monster Turbine, I really don’t find the quality of its bass offensive in the least.

There is a touch of bass bleed but nothing too bad – the Skullcandy Holua fares far worse and even the significantly leaner-sounding Woodees Blues don’t exactly shame the TD-III when it comes to resolution and control. The mids are warm, slightly forward, and extremely lush and sweet. Detail is good but the thickness does reduce the clarity ever so slightly compared to more analytical sets such as the RE0. The treble is, for the most part, very smooth and easily competes with the Woodees Blues in clarity and detail. Compared to the Woodees, the TD-III is a tiny bit less sparkly but still has very good treble presence. Like the midrange, the treble is a bit thick and lacks the air of some of the more analytical earphones. It is far from dull, however, and manages to keep my attention quite easily when necessary.

When it comes to presentation, the TD-III, like the TD100, manages to impress yet again. Soundstage width and depth are very good – easily the best among all of the reasonably-priced woodies I’ve heard - and instrumental separation is quite decent for a mid-range dynamic. The earphone is capable of delivering an excellent sense of distance but leans slightly towards intimacy. As a result, the musical experience provided by the TD-III is spacious but cohesive. The characteristic note thickness of the TD-III makes it more musical and satisfying but reduces air slightly. Imaging is still good, however, and the overall tone of the earphone is not made darker because of it. All in all, for an earphone with the bass power of the TD-III, the overall sound is surprisingly well-balanced and enjoyable. It is colored and exciting and I quite like it despite all of my analytical biases.

Value (9/10) – Right out of the box the TD-III annoys with moderate driver flex and perhaps offers up more bass power than I would like. Its accessory pack and general build quality don’t shame the competition, either, but it has one ace up its sleeve – the sound. A year or so ago, the sound quality of the TD-III would have been so completely out of place in its price bracket that the competition would be rendered irrelevant. Even today, the TD-III sets itself apart from the competing Woodees and Thinksound models by offering better top-to-bottom extension, a more spacious soundstage, and seductively liquid mids. For those who prioritize sound quality by a large margin as I do, the TD-III is easily the reasonably-priced wooden IEM to buy.

Pros: Very capable all-rounder with a bass-happy sound sig
Cons: J-cord may be an issue for some; moderate driver flex, not gift-able for lack of packaging

For a longer review of the Xears TD-III, complete with comparisons to the Thinksound TS02, Woodees Blues, Skullcandy Holua, and Fischer Audio Daleth, see here

(3A47) PADACS Aksent

Reviewed Mar 2011

Details: Unique-looking metal earphone from iPad accessory manufacturer PADACS

Current Price: $50 from padacs.com (MSRP: $49.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 98 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock foamhybrids, generic single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) – Foamhybrid tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, and drawstring carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – The gigantic metal housings are finished in glossy gunmetal paint and feel very sturdy. Paper filters protect the nozzles from earwax. At the other end, a rear vent provides increased airflow to the large dynamic driver and beefy strain reliefs protect the rubbery cable. The cable is of average thickness and terminates in a 3.5mm I-plug. A large unit holding the integrated microphone, 1-button remote, and sliding analogue volume control is positioned at the y-split
Isolation (3/5) – The foam tips provide a good seal and isolate well but the earphones are still vented dynamics and isolate accordingly
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Noise made by the rubberized cable is slightly below average and the included shirt clip helps lower it further. In addition, because the mic is integrated into the y-split, the Aksent can be worn over-the-ear much more easily than headsets with cable-mounted microphones
Comfort (3/5) – Though the housings are quite large, they weigh no more than those of the average metal-shelled earphone. The oversize foam tips are soft and compress quite easily, expanding to provide a stable seal even with shallower fitment. I do wish that the spacing between the tip set sizes were smaller, with maybe a fourth pair included to bridge the gap between the current ‘Medium’ and ‘Large’

Sound (6.6/10) – The Aksent is a decidedly bass-heavy earphone, with the powerful sound signature befitting the enormous housings of the earphones. The bass is about as impactful but slightly more rumble-prone than that of the Fischer Audio Eterna. Low-end extension is very good – again on-par with the Eterna – and the balance of the Aksent very nearly matches its bass quantity to the true bass-monster earphones in the <$50 range – sets such as the TDK EB900, Sony XB40EX, and MEElectronics M31. The bass is full-bodied and has a bit more impact than texture. In a way, the character and quantity of the bass actually work for the Aksent since its foam tips require a bit more fiddling to form an airtight seal than the silicone tips commonly used by most other manufacturers. Even with a poor seal, the Aksent is highly unlikely to elicit any complaints of insufficient bass. With a good seal, on the other hand, the Aksent may elicit complaints of excessive bass from those who prefer a more analytical sound. However, unlike the bass-heavy sets from Sony and TDK, the bass quality of the Aksent doesn’t suffer much in favor of quantity, though it isn’t quite as textured, controlled, or detailed as that of the pricier Eterna.

Expectedly, the huge bass boost of the Aksent does bleed slightly into the midrange, warming it up and coloring the sound signature. However, the midrange is not nearly as recessed as that of the Eterna, making the Aksent sound more balanced and allowing the volume to be kept lower without sacrificing midrange articulation. Generally, the mids are smooth, rich, and a little thick. Clarity and detail are decent for a bass-heavy earphone but the leaner-sounding midrange and treble of the Eterna are more technically proficient. Still, the Aksent performs very well considering its price and bass-heavy inclinations. The treble transition is extremely smooth and emphasis doesn’t drop off until well into the treble region, providing solid presence across the range. Top-end extension is decent as well, especially considering that the Aksent’s closest competitors in the headset realm are the MEElec M31P and Nuforce NE-700M, neither of which has a significant advantage in balance.

The presentation, similarly, is well-rounded and competent. The soundstage is average in size but layering is good. The huge bass has a tendency to be omnipresent in the sonic stage but that’s true of most reasonably-priced bassy earphones. The slight thickness of note also detracts slightly from instrumental separation though it is still easily as good as with Meelec’s similarly-priced M31 and M11+ models. On the whole, the Aksent doesn’t so much wow with anything in particular but impresses more with how little of a hit it takes in overall sound quality despite producing a copious amount of bass.

Value (8/10) – The Padacs Aksent in-ear earphones offer a unique blend of style, sound, and functionality at their (very popular) price point. The Aksent is the only reasonably-priced set I can think of to provide a smartphone mic and remote as well as a built-in analogue volume control. The large gunmetal housings are similarly unique and, while probably not ideal for those with small ears, remain quite comfortable with the provided foamhybrid eartips. The sound signature of the Aksent puts it closest to truly bass-heavy mid-level IEMs without sacrificing a whole lot in the mids and highs. While not at all revolutionary, the sound is sure to appeal to the mainstream consumer and, combined with the generally good build quality and isolation, makes for a solid mid-range headset.

Pros: Well-built and attractive; integrated microphone and analogue volume control; bass-heavy but still competent sound
Cons: Only foam tips included; large spacing between stock tip sizes; very large housings

For a full review of the PADACS Aksent please see here.

(3A48) Denon AH-C360

Reviewed Apr 2011

Details: Entry-level angled-nozzle earphone from Denon
Current Price: $49 from amazon.com (MSRP: $49.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 99 dB | Freq: 5-24k Hz | Cable: 2’ I-plug + 2.5’ L-plug extension
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), 2.5’ extension cable, shirt clip, and zippered clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The housings are plastic and the thin cable does not inspire a whole lot of confidence but the nozzles use mesh filters and the integrated strain reliefs work well
Isolation (2.5/5) – The housings are vented but the angled nozzles still allow for decent isolation
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Not too high in the smooth, plastic-sheathed cable but some may have difficulty wearing the C360 over-the-ear to eliminate cable noise completely
Comfort (4.5/5) – The angled-nozzle housings are extremely light and fit beautifully. The off-center cable exit point and rubbery housings further illustrate Denon’s attention to detail when it comes to ergonomics and convenience

Sound (4.7/10) – While the tuning of the AH-C360 is very indicative of their consumer-oriented nature, the somewhat v-shaped overall balance does stay true to the signature of the flagship AH-C710. The bass of the AH-C360 is big and somewhat bloated, though not quite as offensive as that of the Sennheiser CX300. Bass impact is fairly good and the low end is quite tactile and well-extended. Speed, texture, and detail, however, are all somewhat lacking, as one might expect from a budget-level earphone with this much bass. ‘Tight’ simply isn’t a word I would use to describe the low end of the C360.

The midrange is slightly warm and tends to be overshadowed by the bass. The upper midrange, while clear of bass bleed, is noticeably recessed. The resulting sound is slightly dull and lacks the fullness of sets such as the Meelec M21 and Brainwavz M1. Detail and clarity are, on the whole, decent but don’t break any barriers in the price tier. The similarly-priced Klipsch S3, despite similarly enhanced bass, has noticeably cleaner and crisper sound. Even the cheaper H2O Audio Flex walks all over the C360 when it comes to clarity and articulation.

The treble of the AH-C360 is hyped up in an attempt to balance out the sound signature. It does not, however, as the earphones still sound slightly dark on the whole. The top end of the AH-C360, instead of being laid-back and smooth as it is with most other budget bass monsters, is quite prominent at times and definitely runs the risk of listening fatigue for those sensitive to it. Surprisingly, the treble emphasis of the C360 manages to add edginess to the top end without any sparkle or air. Indeed, the entire sound is slightly stuffy despite the average-sized soundstage and decent imaging. If not for the strained and bloated bass, the AH-C360 could be a very good entry-level earphone, but it simply doesn’t offer enough refinement over other mainstream offerings to stand out from the crowd.

Value (6/10) – The Denon AH-C360 is one of the many bass-heavy entry-level earphones offered by mainstream manufacturers. While it is less bloated than the ever-popular Sennheiser CX300 and Skullcandy TiTans, the overall sound quality of the C360 is really nothing to write home about. Neither are the isolation or build quality – both are merely adequate – and, while the angled-nozzle housings are extremely comfortable, the modular cable and low y-split may annoy some users. Further price cuts may bring the AH-C360 down into ‘must buy’ territory but as it stands, Denon’s budget model really doesn’t have a leg up on the competition.

Pros: Superb comfort
Cons: Modular cable can be frustrating; sub-par frequency balance

(3A49) H2O Audio Surge Pro Mini

Reviewed Apr 2011

Details: BA-based waterproof earphone from H2O Audio
Current Price: $51 from jr.com (MSRP: $99.99)
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 56Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq: 18-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 6mm | Preferred tips: Stock single flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (2/5) – Single-flange conical silicone tips (5 sizes) & foamhybrid tips (2 sizes)
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The housings are made out of a tough plastic and feel solid. The cable is medium in thickness and sheathed in blue plastic. Small rubber sleeves take the place of strain reliefs on cord entry and a 2” long strain relief, designed to work with waterproof mp3 player cases, protects the 3.5mm plug. And yes, they will survive prolonged exposure to sweat and/or water
Isolation (3/5) – Quite good, especially with longer tips
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cord-down; tolerable with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) – The Surge comes with five sizes of unusually thick elastomer tips, which require some getting used to for those of us accustomed to silicone. Getting a good seal with them takes careful selection of the right size but once sealed the earphones will stay in surprisingly well even during intense physical activity. The housings are also very small and light – on par with the entry-level Flex model. Several days may be required for the cables to break in for over-the-ear wear

Sound (6.2/10) – H2O Audio’s dynamic-driver Surge and Flex models both managed to impress me with the competency of their sound despite the waterproof coating applied to the drivers. The single balanced armature transducer used by the Pro Mini is a bit less fortunate, losing speed, clarity, and articulation compared to all but the cheapest armature-based competitors, but still performs very well next to the other waterproof earphones I’ve had the pleasure of hearing. At the bottom end the Pro Mini lacks a bit of extension – those looking for sub-bass rumble and slam will probably want to stay away. On the whole, however, the bass is quite tight and punchy. Impact is decent for a single BA, falling just a hair behind the pricier Meelec A151 and Westone 1. Don’t expect Ety-like control out of these but they fare about as well as a consumer-oriented sub-$100 BA should.

Expectedly, the midrange is completely free of bass bleed. Detail and texture are decent but the clarity seems to drop a notch compared to my armature-based Apple Dual-Drivers and Meelec A151s as well as some of the more analytical dynamics in the price range. As a result, the mids of the Surge Pro Mini sound just a tad muffled. Balance-wise I would call the earphones slightly mid-centric in that no part of the frequency spectrum takes attention away from the midrange and the treble and bass both roll off gently at the very top/bottom. Both the midrange and treble are quite smooth even next to the darker-sounding Meelec A151. There is just a bit of sparkle at the top end but nothing that would make them harsh or sibilant except at the highest of volumes (which itself are impractical for reasons outlined below). Top-end extension isn’t the greatest either but quite reasonable for a single-armature design.

The presentation of the earphones is competent but far from outstanding. The soundstage is slightly below-average in width and depth. Arguably, soundstage size benefits from a shallower seal although using the earphones in their waterproof capacity rules out shallow fitment. Separation is generally good but the drivers seem to run out of steam on very fast and busy tracks. They are still quicker and more resolving than the dynamic drivers used in the Surge and Flex models but the spread in favor of the Pro Mini is smaller than I expected. Tonally, the earphones are fairly neutral – more so than the dark-ish A151s or the brighter Apple Dual-Drivers. There is one more thing worth mentioning – the Surge Pro Mini exhibits some sort of driver flex when inserted. Since it is an armature-based earphone, the effect cannot be driver flex in the traditional sense but the sound put out by the earphones does change dramatically if a lot of pressure is applied on them while maintaining an airtight seal. In their normal, non-pressurized configuration, the Minis are also extremely difficult to drive to high volumes. While they don’t benefit from a dedicated amp from an SQ perspective, they really are very quiet at my normal listening volumes. With the Cowon J3 – a relatively powerful device as far as portable players go – I often found myself cranking the volume to 25/40 or higher just to get reasonable volume out of these.

Value (8/10) – The H2O Audio Surge Pro Mini is a purpose-built underwater listening device that, like H2O’s lower-end models, sacrifices surprisingly little in the way of functionality and sound quality for the sake of shrugging off moisture. The single balanced armature produces balanced and neutral sound and performs remarkably well on all but the busiest tracks. The earphones do require a lot of power to get up to listening volume and the accessory pack is more modest than that of the cheaper Surge model but other than that I have no real complaints about the Pro Mini. For those in search of earphones that can withstand a large amount of moisture and still maintain a focus on accuracy and realism over thumping bass and tonal coloration, these are the ones to get.

Pros: Waterproof, reasonably well-built, secure fit, balanced and competent sound
Cons: 2” strain relief may not work well with tiny players, elastomer tips can take some getting used to, likes power

Big thanks to Marcus_C for loaning me the Surge Pro Mini

(3A50) Xears Resonance Black

Reviewed May 2011

Details: Angled-nozzle earphone from Xears slotting in below the TD-III in the product line
Current Price: est $45 (30€) from xears.com with coupon code KLANGFUZZIS (MSRP: 35€)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: 6-28k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrid
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and padded carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The Resonance features tubby angled-nozzle housings with an aluminum rear chamber and plastic at the front. The slightly stiff rubbery cable is shared with TD-III and other Xears models and lacks a sliding cinch
Isolation (3/5) – The design of the resonance prohibits deep insertion but the isolation is still quite good with well-sealing tips
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Tolerable but the Resonance is difficult to wear cable-up so the cable noise cannot be eliminated completely
Comfort (4.5/5) – The angled-nozzle housings of the resonance are wider at the front than the rear, preventing deep insertion. The form factor is reminiscent of the Denon C710 - over-the-ear fitment can be difficult and larger-than-usual tips may be required for a good seal

Sound (7.2/10) – The sound signature of the Resonance falls fairly close to that of the now-defunct Xears TD100 and the higher-end Xears TD-III – emphasized mid-bass, smooth mids, and competent treble with some sparkle. The bass of the Resonance is powerful but controlled and sounds cleaner and crisper than that of the TD-III on sparse tracks. However, the TD-III is generally quicker and maintains composure better as things get busy. The bass of the TD-III also carries slightly more emphasis overall compared to the Resonance, though low-end extension is similarly impressive on both.

Not surprisingly, the Resonance is not quite as warm, full-bodied, or forward in the midrange as the TD-III. Its midrange is leaner and a bit crisper, with similar clarity and slightly more aggressive detailing. The upper midrange and treble are less laid-back with the Resonance, making it a touch less forgiving of sibilant recordings. On the whole it is still a very smooth and non-fatiguing earphone. Treble sparkle is low-to-moderate in quantity and top-end extension is decent – similar to the Brainwavz M2 with its gently rolled-off treble. The balance of the Resonance is undoubtedly better, however, with the slightly recessed midrange being far less distracting compared to the powerful, forward mids of the M2.

The presentation of the Resonance is solid as well – the soundstage is smaller than that of the TD-III but the feel of the earphone is, in general, less intimate, putting a greater amount of space between listener and music. Sonic cues are laid out in a convincing manner and the superior treble presence of the Resonance adds a bit of air as well. Separation lags slightly behind the higher-end model but isn’t too bad on the whole. An interesting note – the Resonance is generally a touch less sensitive than the TD-III, achieving lower volumes at the same output level, but still works far better with ‘clean’ sources such as portable amps and players.

Value (8/10) – Giving up a couple of points here and there to the higher-end TD-III model, the Xears Resonance nevertheless holds up quite well in its price range. Though the TD-III stays cleaner when things get busy and provides more of a ‘wow’ factor in casual listening, I actually prefer the slightly less bottom-heavy signature of the Resonance and its more distancing presentation. In terms of usability, the angled-nozzle housings give up a bit of isolation for a comfortable, shallow-insertion form factor and allow the Resonance to exhibit less driver flex than any of the other Xears models. In conjunction with the lower price tag, that makes it worth a look in my book.

Pros: Solid sound quality with a popular signature; ergonomic form factor
Cons: Difficult to wear over-the-ear

(3A51) Xears Power Systems PS120PRO

Reviewed May 2011

Details: Bass-oriented IEM from Xears
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: 38€)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and padded carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The PS120PRO features black-and-blue metal housings with a filtered rear vent. Metal mesh screens protect the nozzles and an inch-long piece of flexible tubing acts as a strain relief. The cord is rubbery and a bit stiff. Mild driver flex is present
Isolation (3/5) – Slightly below that of the TD-III but quite passable overall
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Not too bad but the PS120PRO is difficult to wear cable-up due to the long rubber strain relief
Comfort (4/5) – The housing shape of the PS120PRO is not all that different from that of the TD-III and the fit is quite similar overall. One major difference is the clear tubing that acts as a strain relief on the PS120PRO, which is actually detrimental to over-the-ear fitment, causing the cable to pop out from behind the ear on occasion. The lack of a cable cinch does not help

Sound (6.7/10) – The PS120PRO is yet another Xears earphone following the heavy-bass, laid-back treble approach to audio. The balance of the PS120 combines the powerful low end of the higher-end TD-III with the slightly recessed midrange of the similarly-priced Resonance to create an even more bottom-heavy sound than the other two earphones. Bass depth and impact are impressive, keeping up with the TD-III, but the bass hump of the PS120 actually reaches higher up the frequency spectrum. Both the Resonance and TD-III are quicker, cleaner, and more detailed when it comes to bass presentation, though the difference is not night-and-day. The PS120 carries slower attack and decay times, resulting in the illusion of even greater bass quantity.

Expectedly, the PS120PRO is warmer and fuller-sounding than the Resonance. The midrange lacks a little bit of focus as a result of the bass dominance and can sound a touch muddy on tracks with lots of bass. The note presentation of the PS120 is soft and slightly thick, leaning away from the more crisp-sounding Resonance towards a fuller, weightier sound. The midrange of the PS120 is very smooth, as is the treble. Overall treble emphasis is similar to the TD-III – laid-back but not really lacking. That said, the TD-III has a bit more sparkle and extension. Presentation-wise, the PS120 leans towards intimacy, like the TD-III, but is a bit less airy and not as spacious. Indeed, soundstage size is about average for an earphone in the price range although layering is still good. On the point of general usability, the sensitivity of the PS120 is similar to that of the TD-III and the earphone is not particularly tolerant of poorly matched sources.

Value (7.5/10) – The Xears PS120PRO offers a competent, fairly inoffensive take on the warm and bass-heavy sound so popular with the mainstream consumer. It can be thought of as a natural all-around upgrade to something like the Sennheiser CX300 – a commendable earphone with few flaws and an overall ‘likable’ sound signature. However, those looking for a quicker earphone with above-average detail and resolution will probably want to shell out the extra 12€ for the TD-III.

Pros: Competent take on a bass-heavy sound signature; user-friendly overall
Cons: A bit difficult to wear over-the-ear; mild driver flex

(3A52) Xears XR120PRO II

Reviewed June 2011

Details: Deep-insertion dynamic-driver IEM from Xears
Current Price: est $45 (30€) from xears.com with coupon code KLANGFUZZIS (MSRP: 40€)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq: 10-25k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug J-cord
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, sony hybrids
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) silicone tips, bi-flange silicone tips, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The XR120PRO II features black-and-silver metal housings with metal mesh nozzle screens and adequate strain relief on housing entry. The j-cord is rubbery and a bit stiff. Moderate driver flex is present
Isolation (3.5/5) – Slightly above that of the TD-III and quite good overall
Microphonics (4/5) – Not bad due to the j-cord setup
Comfort (3.5/5) – The XR120 is a straight-barrel earphone with elongated nozzles and tapered housings. It likes smaller tips and deep insertion but is generally quite comfortable. The j-cord may be annoying for some

Sound (7.7/10) – The XR120 is the first Xears earphone I’ve heard that places no emphasis on the lower half of the frequency spectrum. Instead, its bass is tight, quick, and controlled. There is no mid-bass hump and the low end rolls off gently below 50Hz - those in search of bass depth and rumble will definitely be better off with one of the other Xears earphones. Mediocre extension aside, the accuracy and detail of the XR120’s low end are very difficult to fault. The note presentation is leaner than with the other Xears earphones but on the whole the bass is still more visceral than that of higher-end analytical earphones such as the RE-ZERO or Etymotic MC5. There really is a bit of a two-faced nature to the XR120’s bass – it is able to alternate between powerful and subdued depending on the track, balancing fun and accuracy in a single earphone.

The midrange is crisp and clear, beating out the similarly-priced Maximo iM-590 and all of the other Xears models I’ve tried. The mids are balanced well with the rest of the spectrum and exhibit rather neutral tonality – the XR120 is warmer than the new Sunrise Xcited but cooler than the HiFiMan RE-ZERO. Microdetail and resolution lag very slightly behind models like the RE-ZERO, Xcited, and CC51 but for a cheaper earphone the XR120 is extremely competitive on both counts. One thing it does well is discriminate between background and foreground detail – many of the cheaper analytical earphones can push detail on the listener indiscriminately but only a few have the ability to create nuanced and convincing sound approaching the level of higher-end sets like the RE0 and Brainwavz M3.

The treble of the XR120 is clear and sparkly. While not as effortless or extended as the RE0, the XR120 lacks neither treble quantity nor quality and is clearly more extended at the top than the other Xears models. Again breaking from the mold set by its siblings, the XR120 is quite unforgiving of harshness and sibilance on tracks but stops short of being overly edgy. Transparency and refinement are not top-tier but they are impressive considering the price and contribute to the XR120’s lively yet accurate sound. The presentation, similarly, is well-rounded and convincing. While there is definitely more width than height or depth to the presentation of the XR120, the tubular nature of the soundstage is not nearly as pronounced as it is with the Sunrise Xcited. Instrument separation is quite good but the XR120 doesn’t keep up with the layering and imaging of something like the RE-ZERO. Clearly the more three-dimensional earphone, the RE-ZERO has the upper hand when it comes to soundstaging but the XR120 still fares better in width and airiness.

Value (8.5/10) – Great sound at the expense of packaging, accessories, and sometimes build quality is what I’ve come to expect from Xears earphones. With the XR120PRO II, however, the disparity between performance and presentation is greater than ever. The host of potential caveats this time around is fairly long – the earphones are j-corded, prone to driver flex, and require a deep seal – but the sonic performance is on par with the very best I’ve heard at the price point. I wouldn’t gift the XR120 to a non-audiophile but those who are willing to live with the minor quirks may just be very, very pleasantly surprised with the sound quality.

Pros: Clear, detailed, and enjoyable sound; balanced without sounding dull
Cons: J-cord may be bothersome; moderate driver flex; deep bass roll-off; likes deep insertion

(3A53) Skullcandy Holua

Reviewed Jun 2011

Details: Wooden in-ear from Skullcandy

Current Price: $46 from amazon.com (MSRP: $99.95); $49 for mic-and-remote version

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq: 18-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug

Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply foam tips, and hemp clamshell carrying case with mesh lid

Build Quality (2.5/5) – Skullcandy clearly took the wood theme close to heart with the Holua – not only is the driver chamber made of wood, but so are the nozzles and stems. The housings feel reasonably solid but the nylon-sheathed cable tends to kink. In addition, the hideous plastic mic/remote unit looks like it came out of a cereal box and there are no strain reliefs anywhere on the earphone. Left/right markings are missing as well and moderate driver flex is present

Isolation (3/5) – The rounded housings contribute to fairly decent isolation and the included Comply tips are always a plus for isolation

Microphonics (3/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; fine otherwise

Comfort (4/5) – The housings of the Holua are very lightweight and rounded at the front for comfortable fitment. Stock tips are of good quality and a set of Comply foamies is included. One slight issue with over-the-ear wear is the nylon cable popping out from behind the ear due to a lack of shirt clip and cable cinch/p>

Sound (4.5/10) – The Holua feels right at home competing against bass-heavy wooden earphones from Thinksound and Xears. Quantitatively, the Holua has a bit less bass than the Xears TD-III but its low end is slower and more boomy in character. Next to the competition the Holua suffers from a relative lack of bass control, which causes it to sound slightly muddy and lacking in resolution. Expectedly, the bass does bleed into the midrange, which otherwise has good presence and decent clarity. The Holua is a warm earphone but usually manages to keep up with the cheaper Fischer Audio Daleth in clarity, if only just. In terms of balance, the mids are a touch forward but still manage to be somewhat veiled at all times. On the upside, the midrange and treble are very smooth – more so than with the metallic-sounding Skullcandy TiTans or the entry-level Ink’d buds. The lower treble is balanced well with the mids, mostly by virtue of several flattened peaks, but upper treble is slightly recessed. Treble extension and resolution are average.

The presentation of the Holua is good for a Skullcandy product but really doesn’t keep up with the other earphones in its price bracket. The soundstage is below average in width and depth and fails to escape the mild congestion that plagues most mainstream entry-level earphones. Instrumental separation is mediocre as well, especially when a track is muddied up by the bass though, to be fair, the cheaper FMJ model fares far worse. The Holua is still the best Skullcandy earphone I’ve heard and puts up a decent, if uninspired, performance. It is not quite the shift towards sound quality that I was hoping for from one of Skullcandy’s priciest in-ears but, at the very least, I can easily listen to the Holua for any length of time without losing the will to live (which can’t be said for the FMJ).

Value (5.5/10) – The Skullcandy Holua is not a bad product per se – the accessory pack, fit, isolation, and even build quality (with Skullcandy’s lifetime warranty factored in) are on-par with the most of the big-brand IEMs in its price range. However, similar sound quality can easily be had for less money and even those looking specifically for a wooden in-ear with mic should be able to pick up a Woodees IESW100B for less. What it comes down to, then, is the looks and the warranty – the only two factors making the Holua stand in a very busy market segment.

Pros: Lightweight and comfortable; Comply tips included; lifetime warranty

Cons: Moderate driver flex; frustrating nylon cable; sub-par sound quality

A longer review with comparisons against the Fischer Audio Daleth, Thinksound TS02, Woodees Blues, and Xears TD-III can be found here

(3A54) Soundmagic E30

Reviewed Jul 2011

Details: Soundmagic’s follow-up to one of Head-Fi’s favourite budget IEMs
Current Price: $40 from miccastore.com.com (MSRP: $40)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 12Ω | Sens: 94 dB | Freq: 15-22k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, cable guides, shirt clip, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – My old PL30 is still going strong after 2.5 years of near-constant use so I expected nothing less from the E30. However, the construction of the E30 is more similar to the PL50 with its glossy finish and short plastic strain reliefs. The cable seems identical to the old PL30 cord, being rubbery and a little thin, but Soundmagic have added a strain relief to the y-split and a metal shell to the 3.5mm I-plug. The bass switch, which was of no real use on the PL30, is gone
Isolation (2/5) – better nozzle angle means slightly more isolation than with the PL30
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Pretty much non-existent, especially with cable guides or shirt clip in place
Comfort (5/5) – The E30 is slimmer and smaller than the PL30 and boasts a more ergonomic nozzle angle. I do miss the foam tips that came with the PL30 but otherwise the E30 is about as comfortable as any in-ear

Sound (7.1/10) – The old Soundmagic PL30 was one of my favourite budget earphones due to a uniquely spacious and balanced sound with a slight mid-range emphasis – not a signature commonly found in the lower price brackets. With the new E30, the dynamic-driver monitor has been bumped to a higher price category. Fortunately, the sound quality seems to have kept up with the price increase, and then some.

The low end of the E30 has been emboldened, receiving a more prominent role in the overall soundscape compared to the old PL30. Next to the midrange, the bass is emphasized only mildly but compared to the laid-back bottom end of the PL30, the difference is quite large. Extension has been improved and the low end now sounds fuller and more impactful. Bass notes have more realistic weight and more drawn-out attack and decay times. Though I don’t mind the balance of the PL30 in the least, I’ll be the first to admit that the low end of the E30 sounds more natural in comparison. Still, the new earphone is by no means a bass monster and those who were previously in the PL30 camp will enjoy it much more than adherents of bass-heavy budget sets such as the MEElec M9.

The midrange of the E30 is just a touch less forward than that of the PL30 but seems more laid-back due to the greater bass emphasis of the new earphone. Despite its balance, the E30 actually manages to sound a little cooler in tone, and closer to what I would consider neutral. As with the PL30, the clarity will be enviable for the vast majority of similarly-priced IEMs, but the E30 also makes gains in detail and texture compared to its predecessor, sounding smooth and refined without major sacrifices in resolution.

The treble of the E30 is balanced well with the midrange, taking at most a half-step back in emphasis. It sounds clean and clear but not overly crisp as with the similarly-priced MEElec CX21. Top-end extension is sufficient – on par with the CX21 and Brainwavz M1. Music, as presented by the E30, generally sounds airy and open, helped along by better dynamics compared to the PL30 and a similarly large soundstage. Though it may not sound quite as wide as the PL30 in absolute terms, imaging and positioning are slightly improved and the whole presentation is more convincing and refined. Lastly, Soundmagic has managed to drop the sensitivity of the earphone a bit, which makes it far less likely to hiss heavily with a poorly matched source.

Value (8.5/10) – As well-liked as the old PL30 was in its price bracket, it is no competition for the modern sub-$50 heavyweights from the likes of MEElec and Brianwavz. The new E30, however, is a different matter. Making far fewer sacrifices to obtain the clarity and spaciousness many found so impressive about its predecessor, the E30 sounds more natural and refined. I see very few people preferring the old model to the new one in signature and even fewer arguing that they are similar in technical performance. I do have a couple of reservations worth voicing – the accessory pack, for one, has taken a dip into mediocrity with the new soft pouch and exclusion of foam tips, and the glossy plastic housings look slightly cheap next to the rubberized finish of my PL30. Barring these small complaints, the E30 is clearly one of the better overall performers at its price point.

Pros: Lightweight and extremely comfortable, spacious sound with slight bass emphasis
Cons: Mediocre isolation

(3A55) Blue Ever Blue 886B

Reviewed Jul 2011

Details: HDSS earphone from Blue Ever Blue, the new earphone division of the BioLinks brand
Current Price: $40 from amazon.com (MSRP: $40)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 92 dB | Freq: 22-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Sony hybrids, stock single flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (3/5) – The machined aluminum housings are lightweight, sturdy, and not bad to look at. The nozzles are protected by metal mesh filters and the housings generally feel well-made. Sadly, things go downhill from there as the generic, rubbery cable and minimal strain reliefs inspire little confidence
Isolation (2.5/5) – About average for vented, straight-barrel earphone
Microphonics (3/5) – Slightly worse than average and not helped by the lack of a cable cinch and shirt clip; tolerable with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4.5/5) – The tapered housings of the 886B are lightweight and comfortable. The earphone does not require a deep seal to sound good and the cables are soft and flexible. The stock tips are quite decent as well

Sound (6.1/10) – The 886B, like all Blue Ever Blue earphones, utilizes ETL technology to absorb the energy of reflected waves in the driver chamber, preventing resonance and distortion. Or at least, that’s what theory dictates. The technology was originally used in speaker cabinets and its application to portable audio is fairly new. It is difficult to say, therefore, what the exact effect of ETL implementation is on the Blue Ever Blue earphones – much as with manufacturer claims of resonance being affected by choice of housing materials, the effect of ETL would need to be tested against a proper control to verify the manufacturer’s lofty claims.

Regardless of the technology’s mode of action and end goals, there is little doubt that for an entry-level product, the 866B sounds quite good. I don’t know about the claims of “smooth, layered sound” and “pure tone”, but the earphone is fairly neutral and quite enjoyable, if not technically flawless. The bass is probably its weakest point for me – it’s got good depth and impact but lacks a bit of definition and can overpower the rest of the range. The ability of the bass to step forward and crowd out the (prominent) midrange of the earphones despite the 866B not being a bass monster can be slightly off-putting at first but the balance works most of the time. It really is only in direct comparisons with some of the better earphones in the price range that the 866B starts losing ground in low-end clarity and control.

The 866B performs more consistently in the midrange, which is prominent and slightly full. There is a mild thickness of note and the clarity and detail still lag behind competing sets such as the Soundmagic E30 but one the whole the mids are quite realistic for the price. The tone of the earphones is very slightly on the dark side of neutral and doesn’t seem to suffer from the bass boost. The treble is, for the most part, inoffensive, with a very slight bit of roughness and a small amount of presence missing at the very top. It’s not as crisp as that of the MEElec CX21, but it’s not wooly or overly soft, either.

The presentation is a bit less impressive than the midrange and treble performance but still quite good. The slight thickness of the 866B causes it sound a little congested and the earphone lacks the wide-open feel of the Soundmagic E30. Layering is good but the size of the stage is average, with the presentation leaning towards intimacy. The dynamics of the earphone lagging behind the competition from Soundmagic and Brainwavz don’t help matters much. With a leaner-sounding earphone, the presentation of the 866B would likely work much better. As is, it just comes across sounding slightly ‘concentrated’ and lacking a bit of refinement compared to the real heavy-hitters in the price range.

Value (7/10) – The Blue Ever Blue 866B performs well enough for the asking price and offers a very user-friendly, if basic, design. Several years ago the 866B would have scored very highly as an overall package but lovers of budget IEMs have been spoiled not just by the ridiculous performance offered by some of today’s earphones, but also by the build quality and overall attention to detail, which are being taken further still by the likes of Dunu. The entire earphone seems to be as much a proof of concept as a finished product and while I do appreciate the claims made by the HDSS standard, for the purposes of this review the technology is only worth as much as the end result. The sound of the earphone is cohesive and enjoyable for an entry-level product but there are options that sound just as good without the generic construction and barebones accessory pack.

Pros: Lightweight and comfortable; nice midrange and treble
Cons: Mediocre cabling; could be tighter at the low end

(3A56) Soundmagic E10

Reviewed Jul 2011

Details: Straight-barrel Soundmagic IEM slotted just below the E30 in the lineup
Current Price: $35 from miccastore.com (MSRP: $34.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 15-22k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and soft carrying bag
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The E10 is available in a variety of color options and features two-tone metal shells with metal nozzle filters and Soundmagic’s usual color-coded strain reliefs. The materials of the strain reliefs and cable look a bit cheap but do the job. The rubbery cabling and well-relieved y-split and I-plug are similar to those on the E30 model
Isolation (2.5/5) – Being a more conventional straight-barrel design, the E10 isolates slightly more than the E30 does
Microphonics (4/5) – Surprisingly low when worn cable-down considering how rubbery the cord is. Nearly nonexistent when worn cord-up
Comfort (3.5/5) – The E10 uses a conventional straight-barrel design. The housings are a bit wide at the front and have short nozzles, preventing deep insertion. The stock tips aren’t particularly great, either, but switching to softer single-flanges allowed for good long-term wearing comfort

Sound (7/10) – If Soundmagic’s new E30 is the long-awaited upgrade to the balanced and neutral PL30 model, the E10 is a spiritual successor to Soundmagic’s bass-heavy entry-level sets of old. More forward and aggressive than the E30 on the whole, the E10 offers up gobs of bass power and impact on cue. The low end of the E10 is well-extended, reaching deep and hitting hard. It stops just short of the impact offered up by the MEElec M9 but boasts greater clarity, control, and resolution. The nature of the bass is slightly soft and the punch is diminished by the rounded note presentation but, as with the E30, the notes have good weight. The low end of the pricier E30 is a bit leaner and bleeds a touch less but on the whole the E10 does a good job of preserving the quality despite much greater bass quantity.

The midrange of the E10 is slightly less prominent than the low end but it is still more forward than that of the E30. The bassier nature of the E10 brings on a slightly warmer tonality but on the whole the two earphones share more similarities than differences in the mids and treble. Despite the bass emphasis, midrange clarity of the E10 is good and resolution nearly matches that of the E30. Treble extension is again highly reminiscent of the higher-end model, as is the nature of the treble – clean and clear but not hard or edgy. The top end is not entirely smooth but nothing offends which, with rare exceptions, seems to be the norm for the better earphones in the price range.

The E10 is a fairly forward earphone but that doesn’t stop it from possessing a surprisingly spacious soundstage. Compared to the E30, it sounds a touch narrower and less airy but still manages to impress. Though leaning towards a more intimate presentation on the whole, the E10 retains the ability to throw sonic cues a good distance and sounds more convincingly layered than almost all of my other reasonably-priced bass-heavy IEMs. The Blue Ever Blue 866B, for example, seems very small and congested compared to the E10. Lastly, it is worth noting that the E10 is more sensitive than the higher-end E30 and will reach louder output volumes. At extreme listening levels the bass does begin to distort very slightly, but one would have to either be deaf or highly interested in becoming deaf to turn them up that loud. Background hiss is slightly more noticeable than with the E30 but still nowhere near as much of an issue as it was with the old PL30.

Value (8.5/10) – Soundmagic has been in the business long enough to know what works and what doesn’t. It is no surprise, then, that the E10 complements the pricier E30 model perfectly, pairing a more consumer-friendly form factor with a more consumer-friendly sound signature. The bass grunt of the E10 is impressive and yet has little negative effect on the overall performance. Likewise the aggressive presentation does not completely sacrifice the spaciousness that has made certain Soundmagic IEMs so popular in the past. There are earphones that offer a bit more for your money in the way of accessories, build quality, and isolation but few can compete with the E10 when it comes to providing impactful and enjoyable sound at a very reasonable price.

Pros: Low cable noise; pleasant, bass-heavy sound
Cons: Tubby housings may be difficult to fit for some; stock eartips could be better

(3A57) Xears Nature N3i

Reviewed Aug 2011

Details: In-ear headset from Xears
Current Price: est $45 (30€) from xears.com with coupon code KLANGFUZZIS (MSRP: 89,90€)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: 6-28k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug j-cord
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: generic single-flange; stock foam
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) –Single-flange (3 sizes), bi-flange, and tri-flange silicone tips, foamhybrid tips, and padded carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – Like the other high-end Xears models, the N3i uses painted wood and metal housings and metal nozzle filters. The sturdy nylon-sheathed cord does not kink the way some of the thinner ones do but can tangle a bit compared to the old Xears cables. Some driver flex is present
Isolation (2.5/5) – Moderate with silicone tips and a bit better with the foamies. The large housings prevent deep insertion
Microphonics (4/5) – Surprisingly low for a cloth cable and helped further by the j-cord configuration
Comfort (3/5) – The housings are lightweight but quite large in diameter and clearly designed for a shallow fit. Unfortunately, the combination of j-cord and inline mic integrated into the y-split makes the N3i impractical to wear over-the-ear and the stock silicone tips leave a bit to be desired

Sound (7.8/10) – The sound of the Xears Nature N3i bears a resemblance to that of Xears’ previous higher-end woody, the TD-III Blackwood, with the major differences being a slightly larger soundstage and less mid-forward balance. The bass of the N3i is the most powerful and prominent of Xears in-ears I’ve heard, narrowly beating out the PS120 and TD-III. The sub-bass is more powerful than with the XE200 and the entire low end is boomier and more full-bodied. Part of the reason is longer note sustainment – the N3i tends to have longer decay times than the other Xears in-ears. Impact is very sizeable and will probably be excessive for some but the N3i still manages to sound clean and resolving compared to the majority of bass-heavy mid-range earphones.

The mids are very smooth, as with the TD-III, but the N3i is slightly less forward in the midrange, which is partly responsible for the greater prominence of its bass. The midrange is by no means recessed but bass bleed is slightly more noticeable and the whole sound signature is richer, warmer, and thicker compared to the TD-III. Texture lags slightly behind the XE200PRO and is about on par with the TD-III, as are detail and clarity. For an earphone with a sound signature that places so much emphasis on the low end, the overall cleanliness of the N3i is enviable but unfortunately the clarity can be difficult to appreciate with all of that bass drawing attention to itself. In direct comparisons to other bass-heavy sets, however the clarity of the N3i shines and even the far more balanced Spider Realvoice could not beat the clarity or detail of the Xears on tracks where the bass did not overwhelm.

The treble of the N3i is low on sparkle but has good clarity and detail. It is not the sort of crisp, clinical treble found on some of my favourite analytical earphones but it works well to compliment the bass and midrange. It extends well enough upward and easily matches the other Xears models in overall proficiency. Presentation, on the other hand, is what most certainly sets the N3i apart from the already-spacious TD-III and lesser Xears models. The TD-III is already well above average in terms of the space it produces but the N3i sounds bigger still. The soundstage extends farther in all directions and whereas the TD-III leans very slightly towards intimacy, the N3i images more evenly across the sonic space. It can be fairly intimate when necessary but is also capable producing very good ambience. Instrumental separation is moderate, as with the TD-III, and airiness lags slightly behind the XE200 and XR120 models. On the whole it is a very solid presentation with a headphone-like feel and even well-tuned competitors like the Spider Realvoice sound a bit small next to the N3i.

Value (9/10) – The suggested retail price for the N3i is quite high but the current sale price drops it right in the midst of the overpopulated mid-range bracket. For that price the build quality of the N3i is quite good and the day-to-day usability passable for those who can live with the j-cord and gargantuan housings. Signature-wise, the N3i is the most impactful of the three high-end wooden Xears models but still retains impressive technical ability and a large, engrossing presentation. It gives a sense of limitless power and makes no compromises and no attempts at civility with its signature. Quite simply, if you really like bass and can live with the form factor, the current price makes the N3i one of the best deals in portable audio.

Pros: Great overall sound quality; low cable noise
Cons: Large housings; moderate driver flex; not giftable for lack of packaging; j-cord may be an issue for some; bass can be too prominent

(3A58) Xears XE200PRO

Reviewed Aug 2011

Details: Flagship in-ear from Germany-based Xears
Current Price: est $45 (30€) from xears.com with coupon code KLANGFUZZIS (MSRP: 89,90€)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: 6-28k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: generic single-flange; stock foam
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes), bi-flange, and tri-flange silicone tips, foamhybrid tips, and padded carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – Like the other high-end Xears models, the XE200PRO uses painted wood and metal housings and metal nozzle filters. The sturdy nylon-sheathed cord does not kink the way some of the thinner ones do but can tangle a bit compared to the old Xears cords. The strain reliefs are ample and driver flex is low compared to the other Xears earphones
Isolation (2.5/5) – Moderate with silicone tips and a bit better with the foamies. The large housings prevent deep insertion
Microphonics (4/5) – Surprisingly low for a cloth cord and even better with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (3.5/5) – The housings are lightweight but quite large in diameter and clearly designed for a shallow fit. The stock silicone tips still leave a bit to be desired

Sound (7.8/10) – Whereas the similarly-priced N3i model pulls out all the stops in the pursuit of visceral bass and head-turning ambience, the XE200PRO is a slightly more level-headed take on the consumer-friendly sound common to the Xears earphones. Its bass is lower in impact and flatter than that of the N3i, with a punchier, crisper sound and slightly quicker note presentation. Sub-bass power and rumble are also reduced and the bass doesn’t bleed into the midrange as much as with the N3i or TD-III. In typical Xears fashion the low end is still anything but lacking but on tracks with plenty of bass the XE200PRO edges ahead of the N3i in resolution and clarity.

The midrange is smooth and detailed. It is similar in both emphasis and technical proficiency to the N3i model but there is not as much bass to get in the way with the XE200PRO. As a result, while the XE200 is not as warm and rich as the N3i, it textures notes slightly better and sounds more level overall. The overall clarity competes with the far more analytical XR120PRO and the timbre is quite good, as with the other higher-end Xears models.

The top end appears to be slightly more prominent than with the N3i and TD-III but still is not a focus of the sound signature. It sounds a tiny bit edgy next to the softer and slower N3i but doesn’t have any major adverse effects on the sound. Top-end extension is decent as with the other Xears models. Soundstage size is similar to the N3i but, while the N3i has the ambience of a large but enclosed space, the XE200PRO sounds a bit more open. It is not the most well-separated presentation but the layering is good and the positioning yields no surprises. It’s a well-rounded presentation to match a well-rounded sound signature.

Value (9/10) – Completing the triumvirate of higher-end Xears wooden IEMs, the XE200PRO provides a slightly more balanced alternative with all of the technical capability of the N3i. Above all else, the XE200PRO is a well-rounded, relaxing listen that sacrifices a bit less fidelity compared to the N3i and TD-III models. It is much the same story with usability – the fit is less fidgety than with the N3i and the driver flex is less noticeable. The housings are still very large at the front but for this level of performance at the current asking price, I’m willing to live with far greater discomfort than that.

Pros: Great sound quality with a consumer-friendly signature
Cons: Large housings; not giftable for lack of packaging

(3A59) Dunu DN-12 Trident

Reviewed Aug 2011

Details: Entry-level dynamic-driver model from DUNU
Current Price: $35 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: $40)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 95 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flange
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange narrow-channel (3 sizes) and wide-channel (2 sizes) silicone tips, bi-flange silicone tips, soft carrying pouch, and integrated cable wrap
Build Quality (4.5/5) – Like the sturdy metal shells of the Hephaes, the flared housings of the DN-12 feel like they’ve been machined from a solid piece of metal. Attention to detail throughout the construction is superb as usual although Dunu did attempt to give the pricier models a leg up by using plastic and rubber hardware in place of aluminum on the cheaper DN-12. While this makes the DN-12 less fancy in appearance, the overall build quality is no worse for it. As before, the cable is the only part that could stand some improvement as it’s a bit stiff and rubbery
Isolation (3.5/5) – Surprisingly good, as with the other Dunu earphones
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; not an issue otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5) – The flared housings of the DN-12 are skinny at the front so insertion is not an issue. However, the large diameter at the rear can be a problem for those with smaller outer ears as the outside edge can become uncomfortable after resting on the ear for a while. The earphones being a bit on the heavy side doesn’t help matters

Sound (6.7/10) – The dynamic-driver Trident conforms to the mold set by Dunu’s armature-based Ares and Crius models, offering up a bass- and midrange-heavy sound that impresses with its smoothness and power. The bass of the Trident certainly is punchier and deeper than that of the armature models but it’s not a bass monster in the way the MEElec M31 and Sony XB-series earphones are. There is still plenty of impact but it doesn’t overwhelm. The note presentation is a touch on the soft side but the bass generally comes off rather well-controlled and pleasant.

The midrange is warm and rich. Bass bleed is minimal and the notes are very slightly on the thick side. Detail retrieval is good but the Trident lacks a bit of clarity next to the similarly-priced Soundmagic E10 and E30. As with the pricier Ares and Crius, the clarity of the Trident oscillates between reasonably good and somewhat disappointing, depending on track. At its worst it is still a bit better than with the Blue Ever Blue 886B and UE 350 but not by as a large a margin as one would hope. Aside from clarity, the midrange is good – smooth, level, and slightly ahead of the treble for a fatigue-free sound. Even next to the consumer-oriented Sony EX300 the treble of the Trident sound relaxed and forgiving. Top-end extension is good despite the lack of treble emphasis.

The Trident’s soundstage is average in size but the presentation leans towards intimacy despite the slightly laid-back nature of the sound. The relaxed top end results in a mild lack of air compared to sets like the Soundmagic E10 and the overall sense of space is not nearly as impressive. The Trident also sounds just a touch dark compared to my other favourite sets in the price range. The layering, however, is surprisingly good and the DN-12 generally sounds less congested than the Blue Ever Blue 866B and similarly-priced brand-name sets like the Klipsch S3 and UE 350. Intimate or not, you certainly won’t get performance this good grabbing a similarly-priced product off the shelf in a retail store.

Value (9/10) – More so than the pricier Ares and Crius models, the Dunu DN-12 Trident aims straight for the segment leaders in its price bracket and - in most ways – scores a direct hit. It is well-packaged, well-designed, and well-built, showcasing great attention to detail, functionality, and performance on the part of Dunu’s development team. Priced below $40, the Trident offers more sound quality per dollar than the other Dunu models I’ve heard and one-ups just about all of its competition when it comes to build quality. It is both a great earphone and a great product – not a so-called ‘giant killer’, but well worth the money in my book.

Pros: Very well-built, great attention to detail, great sound quality for the asking price
Cons: Cable can be noisy when worn straight down; flared housings may be uncomfortable for some

(3A60) Xears Communicate CP100iP

Reviewed Aug 2011

Details: Entry-level single-button headset from Xears
Current Price: est $35 (24€) from ebay.de (MSRP: 39,95€)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock foamies, stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, foamhybrid tips, and padded carrying pouch
Build Quality (3/5) – The build quality of the aluminum CP100iP is similar to the older XR120 model with its long strain reliefs and somewhat stiff rubbery cable but the housings seem to come apart more readily and the appearance is let down by the somewhat cheap-looking paper filters. Driver flex is mild
Isolation (3/5) – Good with silicone tips and a bit better with the foamies
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Tolerable when worn cable-down, good when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The CP100iP is very lightweight and has longer nozzles and a smaller housing diameter than most of the other Xears earphones, resulting in good long-term comfort

Sound (7.1/10) – The sound of the CP100iP follows the usual Xears mold – plentiful bass, smooth mids, and competent treble. The low end is powerful but not quite as deep and hard-hitting as that of the similarly-priced Dunu Trident. There is a larger mid-bass hump than with the Trident and more bass body but the CP100iP is still not as much of a bass beast as Xears’ boomier-sounding PS120, TD-III, or N3i models, reminding me more of the Xears Resonance. The low-end detail retrieval lags slightly behind the Dunu sets but the CP100iP is quicker and cleaner overall.

The midrange of the CP100iP is crisp and fairly open-sounding. It’s a bit less warm and full-bodied compared to the pricier N3i and XE200 models and also lacks some of the detail but still has good presence, beating out the Resonance in emphasis. The treble, as usual, is smooth and a bit laid-back. Top-end extension is decent and overall sparkle quantity is low-to-moderate.

The soundstage is above average in size - not as large as that of the XE200PRO or Resonance but still quite spacious for an entry-level in-ear. The XE200 also images more consistently across its stage whereas the CP100iP seems to have more of a left-right-center presentation. Instrumental separation is good, however, and the overall sound is airy and open without sacrificing cohesiveness. A point worth noting – the sensitivity of the CP100iP is relatively high and may hiss or buzz a bit with poorly-matched sources.

Value (8/10) – The CP100iP entry-level headset model delivers more of the Xears goodness in a reasonably-priced, smartphone-compatible package. As usual, the audio quality is well above average, the build quality is mediocre, and the nonexistent packaging leaves much to be desired. That said, the smooth and bass-heavy sound signature is not too different from that of the pricier Resonance model and those looking specifically for a stereo headset will be hard-pressed to find anything that sounds better for the money.

Pros: Lightweight and comfortable; solid sound quality with a popular signature
Cons: Mediocre build quality

(3A61) Ultimate Ears 350 / 350vi

Reviewed Oct 2011

Details: consumer-oriented dynamic-driver IEM from UE
Current Price: $40 from bhphotovideo.com (MSRP: $49.99); $59.99 for 350vi with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.8’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (5 sizes), shirt clip, and plastic clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The lightweight housings are made of black and chromed plastic, as with most of UE’s other recent releases. The cable is soft and flexible and the housing entry strain reliefs are impressive. The strain relief on the plastic-shelled 3.5mm L-plug, however, isn’t
Isolation (3/5) – Good for an entry-level dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics (4/5) – Quite low in the soft and flexible cable. Can be eliminated completely with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) – The housings are small and lightweight, tapering slightly at the front. The long strain reliefs do not pose a problem for over-the-ear wear and an impressive five sizes of eartips are included

Sound (5.9/10) – Priced below the $50 mark, the UE350 is a consumer-oriented dynamic-driver model with a bass-heavy sound signature. By UE’s own admission, the 350 was tuned to provide a club feel, which shows through in the depth and power of the bass. Though not a bass monster in the same way a Sony XB40EX or MEElec M31 may be, the UE350 is unlikely to leave anyone wanting for rumble or power. The Dunu Trident, which has a similar frequency balance, is slightly more controlled at the low end and tends to sound tighter and punchier but the overall bass quantity is comparable between the two. That said, the note presentation of the UE350 is even softer than that of the Trident, causing the bass to sound a touch flabby and muddy, though not offensively so as was the case with many older dynamics of this sort.

The midrange is warm and full, with occasional bass bleed and average detail resolution. Clarity can be slightly disappointing and vocals occasionally sound a touch muffled next to the similarly-priced Dunu Trident and Klipsch Image S3. Smoothness is very impressive, however, making the UE350 much easier to listen to in the long run than the S3 and much more forgiving. The top end is slightly laid-back to avoid listening fatigue and performs similarly to the midrange in clarity and detail resolution. Top-end extension is good but the overall tone is still a touch dark - those looking for more neutral sound with crisp, sparkly treble should invest in the pricier UE500.

The presentation of the UE350 is surprisingly competent – soundstage width is above average and the earphones - while not as well-layered or resolving as the Dunu Trident or pricier UE500 - give a good sense of space for an entry-level product. Klipsch’s similarly-priced Image S3 sounds significantly smaller and more constrained despite boasting better detail and clarity. The note thickness is a little too great for the UE350 to sound as clean and airy as the UE500 does but on the whole the presentation is quite competent.

Value (7.5/10) – Back in the pre-Logitech days, UE released a couple of entry-level dynamic-driver earphones under the MetroFi badge which - while not bad to listen to - were simply priced too ambitiously to be very good value. With the UE350, Ultimate Ears has retained the consumer-friendly sound signature of the old MetroFi earphones while improving the overall usability and lowering the asking price. There are still minor issues such as the new clamshell carrying case - which is small and frustrating to use compared to the old one - but on the whole the UE350 is a solid entry-level product with a clear target audience; audiophiles are clearly expected to save up for the UE500.

Pros: Lightweight and comfortable; deep and powerful bass; easy-going sound signature
Cons: Frustrating carrying case, no strain relief on L-plug, slightly underwhelming clarity & detail

(3A62) Fischer Audio Ceramique

Reviewed Dec 2011

Details: Oversize ceramic in-ear
Current Price: $57 from gd-audiobase.com (MSRP: $57)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 99 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.1' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 8mm | Preferred tips: MEElec CC51 single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (2/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (2 sets), cord wrap, and small leatherette carrying pouch
Build Quality (3/5) - The hefty ceramic shells and metal driver enclosures are solid but for an earphone that weighs as much as the Ceramique the cable thickness is disappointing. The cord is reminiscent of stock Apple earbuds, just more rubbery. The lack of strain reliefs on the cord is cause for concern
Isolation (3.5/5) - Above average with well-sealing tips (not included)
Microphonics (3.5/5) - Fairly average in the thin, rubbery cable; over-the-ear wear is difficult
Comfort (2/5) - Large, heavy housings are problematic, as are the wide nozzle and single size of hard rubber eartips. Getting a seal proved impossible with stock tips and some may not be able to fit the Ceramique at all. Physical activity is out of the question - the earphones are easily dislodged by their own weight

Sound (7.9/10) - Despite its significant ergonomic shortfalls, the sound of the Ceramique is impressive, provided a seal can be maintained. Since stock Ceramique tips won't seal for me, this review was done using tips from MEElec's ceramic earphone, the CC51, which will fit the Ceramique without too much trouble. As expected, a poorly-sealed Ceramique sounds bright and lacking in bass. A properly sealed one is much more balanced, with well-measured bass response and prominent treble. The bass is soft and mellow - compared to the more v-shaped CC51, the Ceramique is less forward and less punchy at the bottom end but still manages slightly better bass depth. It also avoids the mildly mid-recessed profile of the CC51 but yields to the MEElecs in control and dynamics.

Mids are a definite strength of the Ceramique - balanced well with the low end they are slightly warm and very smooth. While the midrange is not recessed, the Ceramique is a laid-back earphone overall and those who prefer an intimate vocal presentation or in-your-face guitar aggression will want to give it a pass. The mids are clean, liquid, and well-detailed, reminding me more of the Spider Realvoice than the CC51. The treble transition is smooth but, in contrast to the pricier Tandem, the Ceramique loses no emphasis at the top. Treble extension is good but the top end is not too high on sparkle - the CC51 again shows off its comparatively v-shaped nature with more sparkly treble that is also crisper and edgier. For its livelier sound, the CC51 is slightly more fatiguing than the Ceramique.

The presentation of the Ceramique suits the balanced signature nicely - the soundstage is spacious, with decent width and depth, and good clarity and detail levels work towards a clean, nicely separated sound. The earphone tends to be quite laid-back on the whole and doesn't deliver great imaging, especially when a track calls for intimacy, partly due to the mediocre dynamics. Compared to the CC51, the Ceramique sounds distant at times but also easily wins in terms of sheer soundstage size.

Value (6.5/10) - The Ceramique is a textbook lesson in form over function. While it combines balanced sound and a spacious presentation with smooth, polished looks, it makes too many usability sacrifices to be a viable alternative to the established segment leaders. The biggest issue is that the large, heavy housings are tricky to fit and even more difficult to keep in place. Add sub-par eartips in only one size and thin cables with no strain reliefs and it becomes clear that some of the sound quality and aesthetics probably should have been sacrificed for better usability.

Pros: Solid sonic characteristics
Cons: One size does not fit all; large and heavy; thin cable lacks strain relief

(3A63) Fischer Audio FA-977 Jazz

Reviewed Jan 2012

Details: Wooden IEM from Fischer Audio
Current Price: $55 from gd-audiobase.com (MSRP: $55)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 18Ω | Sens: 106 dB | Freq: 5-20k Hz | Cable: 4.1' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Generic bi-flanges, stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The large wooden housings of the FA-977 are trimmed in gold, as are the y-split and I-plug. The brown cable is plasticky and of average thickness, with no cable cinch and hard plastic strain reliefs. Mild driver flex is present
Isolation (3/5) – Large housings prevent deep insertion but isolation is easily above average
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Can be bothersome when worn cord-down but lower than with Fischer’s cloth cord. Low when worn cord-up
Comfort (3/5) – Straight-barrel housings are lightweight but surprisingly large. Sizeable diameter prevents deep insertion and may make them uncomfortable for those with smaller outer ears.

Sound (6.4/10) – Quite possibly the most unique of Fischer’s mid-tier models, the Jazz provides a forward yet spacious sound that works surprisingly well when taken as a total package. The bass has decent depth and good impact, lagging only a little behind the Sunrise i100 on both counts. It is punchy but not particularly tight or crisp – mediocre resolution leaves the low end somewhat muddy and ill-defined. Other than the mediocre control, the bass is pleasant – punchy, full, and smooth. Bass depth is average – the pricier Consonance model offers significantly more sub-bass in addition to better detail and texture.

The mids of the Jazz are smooth and prominent. Vocals are forward, balancing well with the impactful low end, and the tone is warm overall. Clarity and detail again suffer due to the mediocre resolution - all of the higher-end Fischer models I’ve tried are superior to the Jazz in this regard. The Ceramique especially sounds much cleaner and more refined, though it lacks some of the fullness of the Jazz. The similarly-priced Brainwavz M2 also offers up better clarity while the cheaper Sunrise i100 falls behind only a little.

The treble transition is smooth and the top end is laid back in comparison to the midrange. The Jazz does a good job of cutting out sibilance but sounds just a hair dark compared to the Ceramique. It also lacks energy with cymbals compared to the Consonance or even the Paradigm v.3. The presentation is wide and spacious despite the forward midrange. The earphones sound airy and open – more so than a Brainwavz M2, for example – but suffer from mediocre dynamics and average separation. The similarly-priced Paradigm v.3 has a smaller soundstage but easily surpasses the separation of the Jazz.

Value (7/10) – With dozens of wooden earphones on the market, Fischer Audio’s FA-977 Jazz stands out mostly with its sound signature, combining a fairly large soundstage with intimate, forward mids and hard-hitting but not overbearing bass response. Competitors with this type of sound signature are few and far between, making the Jazz a good buy for some, but those who are not looking for this particular signature may want to pay a bit more for a Paradigm v.3 or Consonance instead.

Pros: Unique mid-forward sound with good bass punch
Cons: Large housings; Clarity and detail not as impressive as with other Fischer IEMs

(3A64) Fischer Audio Paradigm v.3

Reviewed Jan 2012

Details: angled-nozzle earphone from FA
Current Price: $58 from gd-audiobase.com (MSRP: $58)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 18Ω | Sens: 106 dB | Freq: 6-25k Hz | Cable: 4.1' 45º-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (2/5) - Single-flange (2 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips; soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – The construction of the Paradigm v.3 is similar to that of the similarly-priced Consonance. The housings are plastic but seem to be put together well. The nozzle filters are metal and the strain reliefs are sturdy yet flexible all around. The nylon-sheathed cables are somewhat tangle-prone
Isolation (2.5/5) – Large, vented housings prevent deep insertion but isolation is still decent
Microphonics (2.5/5) – Quite bothersome when worn cord-down and cable-up wear is made difficult by the driver bulge and angled-nozzle housings
Comfort (4/5) – The housings are lightweight but large and fit more like the half-in-ear FA-788 model than slimmer angled-nozzle sets such as the JVC FX500 and Denon C710. Sizeable housing diameter also prevents deep insertion and may make them slightly uncomfortable for those with smaller outer ears

Sound (7.2/10) – The Fischer Audio Paradigm v.3 takes on a fairly well-balanced sound signature, contrasting sharply with the more v-shaped Consonance and the more mid-forward Jazz. The bass has decent depth and good punch – the Paradigm is not constantly bass-heavy as the Consonance tends to be but is more than capable of belting out low notes when necessary. Impact is generally similar to the Jazz and while the Paradigm does have similarly average detail levels, its superior dynamics and bass control result in a more realistic low end.

The midrange of the Paradigm v.3 is clearer and less forward than that of the Jazz but is by no means recessed or distant. The mids are crisp and well-defined, with the Paradigm being quicker and more resolving. With its lesser bass depth, slightly thinner note presentation, and minimal bloat, the Paradigm also lacks the warmth of the Jazz, sounding more neutral and closer to the similarly-priced Ceramique.

The treble is fairly detailed and has some sparkle. It is not as smooth as that of the Ceramique, instead boasting some unevenness reminiscent of the Consonance and Soundmagic’s E10. Top-end extension is average and the Paradigm sounds a touch dark next to the Ceramique. The presentation is fairly average as well – the soundstage is not as large as that of the Jazz even though the Paradigm tends to sound more laid-back on the whole and instrument separation is quite good. Layering, however, isn’t particularly impressive and the Paradigm can’t quite match the more versatile 3-D imaging of the Consonance.

Value (7.5/10) – The Paradigm v.3 is yet another impressive mid-range earphone from Fischer, combining a balanced sound signature with a comfortable form factor and well thought-out build. Those who require high isolation or tend to be active while wearing earphones may want to look for a deeper-fitting earphone that can be worn cable-up more easily but on the whole the Paradigm is a worthy all-rounder.

Pros: Comfortable and well-built; balanced and capable sound
Cons: Tough to wear over-the-ear; microphonics can be annoying

(3A65) Sony MDR-EX300LP

Reviewed Feb 2012

Details: One of Sony's original vertical in-ear monitors
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $89.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 4-28k Hz | Cable: 3.9' L-plug j-cord
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrids (stock)
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) - Single-flange Sony Hybrid silicone tips (3 sizes), cable winder, and hard-shell carrying case
Build Quality (3/5) - The plastic housings of the EX300 seem well-constructed but the cabling is a major letdown - while soft and well-relieved, the thin j-cord is tangle-prone and inspires little confidence
Isolation (2/5) - Mediocre at best due to shallow-insertion form factor
Microphonics (4.5/5) - The soft, flexible j-cord and shallow seal keep cable noise to a minimum
Comfort (3.5/5) - The EX300 is a vertical-driver earphone with a straight nozzle. The housings fit partly into the outer ear and tend to protrude less than those of the pricier EX600 model but are also less secure due to the lack of a memory wire section on the cable. Those with smaller outer ears may find the driver bulge to interfere with the fit

Sound (6.8/10) - The sound of the MDR-EX300 is a compromise between Sony's popular consumer and audiophile signatures but falls closer to the higher-end EX600 and EX1000 than entry-level sets such as the EX85 and the XB series. The bass of the EX300 is enhanced but not overblown. It is punchy but not quite as powerful s that of the Soundmagic E10. Extension is decent enough but the mid-bass hump causes the entire low end to sound bloated and boomy compared to the pricier EX600. The Sonys sound fuller than some of the more analytical sets such as the HiFiMan RE0 and Etymotic MC5 but it's not as thick-sounding as a Dunu Trident or Beyerdynamic DTX 101 iE.

The midrange of the EX300 is warm but clear. Detail is decent enough and the mids sound open and airy. Naturally, the pricier EX600 is much more neutral, clear, and detailed, making the EX300 sound boomy and unrefined, but for a midrange earphone the clarity of the EX300 is more than reasonable. The Soundmagic E10 is a bit clearer and more crisp, giving guitars a bit more bite and making vocals sound a touch more intelligible, but lacks the balance and liquidity of the EX300 and doesn't quite have as big a soundstage.

Towards the top of the midrange, the EX300 picks up some emphasis and with it a bit of sibilance on tracks prone to it. The E10 is a little more forgiving but both earphones have moderate treble sparkle, slightly laid-back upper treble, and mediocre extension at the top. The presentation of the EX300 is wide and well-layered. Though the MDR-EX600 is significantly more spacious still, the EX300 is one of the more open-sounding entry-level earphones. Soundstage depth could be better and the imaging and dynamics lag far behind the EX600 but both are more than reasonable for the asking price. Clearly the EX300 was one of the better earphones in its price category upon release back in 2008.

Value (7.5/10) - The Sony MDR-EX300 impresses with its punchy bass, warm and liquid mids, and spacious presentation, especially considering the age of the earphones. What betrays them is the overall usability, mediocre isolation, and hit-or-miss form factor. The biggest gripe, however, is the thin and frustrating j-cord used by the earphones. For pure sound quality, the EX300 is an easy set to recommend but much of the modern competition simply offers a better value proposition on the whole.

Pros: Punchy, clear, and open sound; almost no cable noise
Cons: J-corded; very thin & tangle-prone cable

(3A66) id America Spark

Reviewed Feb 2012

Details: Metal-shelled headset styled after a spark plug
Current Price: $60 from idamericany.com (MSRP: $59.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 96 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9' I-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) and tubular carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The two-piece housings are aluminum and feel very well-made. Cabling is of average thickness but resistant to tangling and protected by soft rubber strain reliefs at the y-split and I-plug, as well as on housing entry. A single-button mic/remote unit is located on the left side
Isolation (3/5) – Good for a vented dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Present when worn cable-down; very low with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (3.5/5) – The sparkplug-inspired housings are lightweight and can be inserted comfortably due to the long nozzles but sharp rear edges make them less suitable for those with smaller outer ears. Stock tips are of surprisingly good quality

Sound (7.4/10) – The Spark is a bass-heavy earphone with surprisingly solid sonic characteristics. The Bass is deep and powerful, with plenty of punch and good texture throughout. Both the subbass depth and overall bass quantity are slightly greater compared to the Soundmagic E10 and Beyerdynamic DTX 101 and on par with the Fischer Audio Consonance. Bass control is good – the Spark is neither the quickest nor the most resolving earphone out there but for a set bassy enough to please the mainstream listener, it performs very well.

There is a bit of bass bleed but the mids are still strong and clear. The Spark manages to be mildly v-shaped in response without placing the midrange too far back, partly as a result of its overall presentation being fairly aggressive. In this way it is reminiscent of the pricier PureSound ClarityOne, albeit thinner and more dry-sounding. In comparison, the similarly-priced Fischer Audio Consonance is more mid-recessed, but thicker and smoother. The mids of the Spark are still not nearly as forward as those of the Beyerdynamic DTX 101 or Brainwavz M2 but compared to most other bass-heavy sets its balance is rather good.

Moving upward, the Spark boasts some emphasis and mild unevenness in the lower treble, giving it a little sparkle without risking significant sibilance. There is a bit of edginess to the treble but the only real complaint I have is its mediocre extension, which results in a darker tonal slant and slight lack of air in the upper registers. Aside from the last bit of top end extension, the Spark satisfies with good treble energy, detail, and crispness.

The presentation of the Spark is pretty standard for a mid-range dynamic earphone. It is slightly aggressive and doesn’t have the largest soundstage but is well-rounded, with decent depth and good layering. The Soundmagic E10, with its sparkly, well-extended treble, has a larger, more open presentation but the Beyerdynamic DTX 101 and Dunu Trident lack layering and sound less three-dimensional in comparison to the Spark. Instrument separation and dynamics are on similarly even footing with competing sets from Head-Fi’s favorite brands. A final point to note – the Spark is surprisingly efficient and, despite the conservative stated figures, reaches listening volume more quickly than any of the sets I put it up against.

Value (8.5/10) – The id America Spark is a solid choice for those seeking a bass-heavy headset at a reasonable price. True to its name, the Spark is energetic, with excellent bass impact, good clarity, and a well-rounded presentation making it an easy choice over popular mainstream sets such as the Beats by Dre Tour and Klipsch Image S4. Add native headset functionality, a striking design, and good build quality and the Spark should strike up interest not only in the car buffs, but all music lovers.

Pros: Solid build quality; bass-heavy sound with good clarity and layering
Co/strongns: Sharp rear edges maybe be uncomfortable for some

A full review of the Spark with more images can be found here

(3A67) Altec Lansing UHP336 / Ultimate Ears Super.Fi 3

Reviewed Mar 2012

Details: Altec Lansing re-badge of UE's discontinued SuperFi 3
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $129.95)
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 13Ω | Sens: 115 dB | Freq: 20-15k Hz | Cable: 3.8' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrid
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply foam tips, cleaning tool, and soft zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) - Quite similar to the higher-end UE models - thick plastics, detachable cables with two inches of memory wire, and standard I-plug
Isolation (3.5/5) - Quite good with well-fitting tips
Microphonics (4.5/5) - Low due to over-the-ear fit but not absent completely
Comfort (3.5/5) - The shells are similar in shape to those of the TF10 and SF5Pro but slimmer towards the front and lend themselves to insertion much easier. Maintaining a seal can be difficult with stock UE tips but Hybrids work fine. Comply foams seal well also but soak up some of the SF3's already-scarce treble intensity and make them even warmer

Sound (6.9/10) - Introduced a number of years ago as Ultimate Ears' entry-level model, the single-armature SF3 was tuned as a do-it-all earphone to compete with Etymotic's ER6 and Shure's E2C. Like most single-armature earphones from that time period, the SF3 doesn't do a great job of covering the entire frequency spectrum. The bass rolls off significantly and lacks detail near the limit. Poor sub-bass presence aside, the bass is smooth and level, flowing without bleed into the midrange.

The mids are slightly forward - not to the same degree as with the newer SuperFi 5 but definitely more so than the low end and treble. Overall balance is still very good, however, and the note thickness is neither excessive nor lacking. Resolution and detail are not quite on-par with the Etymotics of the period, partly because the SF3 at times seems to gloss over fine detail and texture to maintain its silky-smooth response, but the earphone performs no poorer than most dynamic-driver sets in its bracket. The clarity, too, is quite good but not accentuated by brightness as it is on the Ety ER6i.

Treble sparkle is completely nonexistent, resulting in a smooth, non-fatiguing curve. The top end of the SF3 is a bit laid-back in terms of emphasis and lacks some energy and a bit of extension, much like the low end. The somewhat subdued treble response means that the SF3 is not airy or open-sounding but it does provide a very decent sense of space with good depth and width. An additional consideration - the SF3 can be quite hissy with many sources as a result of its high sensitivity. I would not recommend it at all unless it was to be used with a dedicated audio player.

Value (8/10) - Introduced in 2006, the Ultimate Ears Super.Fi 3 is a single-armature earphone that still manages to impress at the sub-$60 price usually fetched by the Altec Lansing rebrand. The sound is smooth, clean, and balanced - if slightly mid-focused - and the relatively high isolation, low microphonics, and detachable cable only sweeten the deal. As an overall package, the Super.Fi 3 is very much on par with many modern designs and puts many of the entry-level models UE has produced since to shame.

Pros: High isolation; low microphonics; detachable cable; smooth and balanced sound
Cons: Extremely sensitive; not the best performer at the limits

(3A68) Astrotec AM-90

Reviewed May 2012

Details: One of the least expensive BA-based earphones on the market
Current Price: $44 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est. $44)
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 25Ω | Sens: 109dB | Freq: N/A | Cable: 3.9' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrid, Stock silicone, Stock foam
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes) silicone tips, foam tips, and soft carrying pouch (original version also came with triple-flange eartips and clamshell carrying case)
Build Quality (4.5/5) – Construction is solid, with all-metal housings and nozzle filters. Strain reliefs are flexible and the soft cable is above average in thickness and covered with a translucent sheath. It is one of the best cables I’ve seen in a while – quiet, flexible, and tangle-resistant
Isolation (3.5/5) – The tapered housings and inclusion of triple-flange and foam tips allow the AM-90 to isolate quite well
Microphonics (4/5) – Cable noise is low when worn cable-down and nearly nonexistent with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4.5/5) – The tapered housing design makes for one of the better straight-barrel form factors, with an elongated body that flares out gradually. The shells of the AM-90 are less likely to contact the outer ear than those of the Dunu Trident and narrower at the front than those of almost all other straight barrel earphones, allowing for a deeper seal. They might be a bit long for those with steeply-angled ear canals but for most they should be very comfortable

Sound (7.4/10) – The AM-90 is a smooth-sounding BA-based earphone that falls on the warmer side of things in terms of tone. It uses a Knowles SR (Siren) armature and – not surprisingly – doesn’t sound all that different from the SR-based MEElec A151. Both are some of the better such setups I’ve heard and the sonic differences between them are no greater than what one would instead anticipate from two revisions of the same product.

The sound signature of the AM-90, while slightly warm, is not unbalanced. Bass depth is decent enough – no match for dynamic-driver sets such as the id America Spark or VSonic GR99 but good for a single armature. Mid-bass impact is a hair lower than that of the A151 but control and detail are similarly good. The low end can be classified as punchy, but also not lacking in body and fullness for a BA-based earphone – seemingly a hallmark of the SR armature.

The midrange of the AM-90 is on the warm side but seems to be a bit more level compared to that of the A151. The AM-90 is a touch less mid-forward (but still more so than a Brainwavz M1, for example) and sounds fuller and smoother than the A151. The MEElec set is a bit thinner-sounding and also more dry but maintains clarity better on busy passages. The differences are small, however, and the two earphones are still far more similar to each other than they are to competing sets. Neither earphone has the crispness of a higher-end BA-based earphone and both lack the perception of added clarity that comes with emphasized treble.

The top end of the AM-90 is a touch more extended than that of the A151 and also less grainy but neither earphone can be recommended to fans of sparkly, prominent highs. Rather, the earphones are laid-back at the top and very, very smooth, doing a great job of cutting out harshness and sibilance. The VSonic GR06, for example, manages significantly better extension and energy at top but is also more fatiguing than the AM-90. Soundstage size, similarly, is not too impressive – the space is average and there’s not a whole lot of air compared to sets such as the GR06. However, as with the A151, the presentation is well-rounded, with some depth and height in addition to the width, good separation, and versatility in portraying intimacy as well as distance.

Value (10/10) – The sound signature of the AM-90 may be nothing new next to other entry-level, single-BA earphones but it is the most reasonably-priced – and one of the best-sounding - SR-based sets I’ve heard. In addition, Astrotec’s OEM expertise shows in the excellent design – the solid isolation, sturdy housings, outstanding cables, and comfortable form factor. For a value-oriented product the AM-90 is not stingy on accessories, either, with a very nice hard case and good-quality tips included to make them work even for first-time IEM users. They are remarkably easy to get a seal with compared even to the A151 and therefore make an excellent stepping-off point into BA-based monitors.

Pros: Well-balanced, slightly warm Knowles SR sound; good build quality; great cable; comfortable tapered design
Cons: N/A

(3A69) VSonic GR02 Bass Edition

Reviewed June 2012

Details: Bass-oriented VSonic earphone based on the aging R02ProII
Current Price: $36 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est $36)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 24Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 12-25k Hz | Cable: 4.3' 45º-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: stock bi-flanges; MEElec “balanced” bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes), hybrid-style (7 sizes), foam-stuffed hybrid (3 sizes), and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and padded spring-clasp carrying pouch
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The GR02 Bass Edition utilizes the same plastic-and-metal housings as the old R02ProII model and a number of other earphones. The construction is very good – the shells feel well put-together and the strain reliefs are strong and flexible. The cabling is similar to that of the R02ProII – thicker than that of the GR99, strong, and tangle-resistant
Isolation (3/5) – Good, especially with the included thick bi-flange tips
Microphonics (4/5) – Low when worn cable-down; very low with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) – The familiar housings are small and fit well. Long strain reliefs may pose an issue for some with over-the-ear wear but a cable cinch is present to help out. Tip selection is very generous

Sound (7.6/10) – Despite its ominous moniker, the GR02 Bass Edition doesn’t add a whole lot of low-end grunt to the sound of the older R02ProII model, which, admittedly, was hardly bass-shy to begin with. The low of the GR02 is punchy, but not inaccurate and the earphone is not quite a bass monster. There is a similar amount of deep bass compared to the cheaper GR99 but the mid-bass is dominant source of power with the GR02. Despite this, the Bass Edition also gains a bit of detail, control, and dynamics and can be more impactful than the GR99 when pressed.

The GR02 is also bassier than the higher-end GR06 and its low end can overshadow the midrange on occasion compared to the more mid-forward GR06, the more subbass-focused GR99, and more balanced-sounding sets such as the Monoprice 8320. The note presentation of the GR02 is thinner compared to the GR06 and the midrange clarity is a bit better. The mids are less liquid and intimate compared to the GR06 but warmer, cleaner, and a touch more forward compared to the GR99.

The top end of the GR02 bears some resemblance to the GR06 and GR07 models, with good presence and extension but a slight predisposition towards pointing out sibilance on tracks. For the price there are very few sets that do treble this well without sacrificing brightness as the lower-end GR99 does. Similarly, soundstaging prowess lags a little behind the higher-end models but is more than acceptable for the price. The soundstage is average in size and lacks the separation and layering of the GR06 but still provides a well-rounded sonic image for a satisfying experience.

Value (10/10) – VSonic’s new lineup continues to impress with this re-tuned take on the aging R02ProII model. An impressive performer with a focus on mid-bass punch, the GR02 Bass Edition provides unexpected bang for not very much buck and - from the durable, time-tested housings to the tangle-resistant cable and 28-piece tipset - doesn’t feel one bit outdated.

Pros: Very well-built, great sound for the money, generous tip set
Cons: N/A

(3A70) Philips O'Neill Tread SHO2200

Added Sep 2012

Details: Sport-oriented earphones from Philips designed for maximum durability
Current Price: $40 from amazon.com (MSRP: $39.99); $50 for SHO2205 with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 6-23.5k Hz | Cable: 3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: MEElec M6 bi-flanges, Sony Hybrid
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (1/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality (5/5) – The Tread has clearly been designed with extreme durability in mind - the earpieces boast aluminum inner shells protected by a rubber sheath and are said to survive up to 300 lbs of impact. The nozzles are protected by metal filters and the cables - by long, flexible strain reliefs. The Kevlar-reinforced cord is thicker than average and surprisingly tangle-resistant. It is sheathed in cloth below the y-split and features an exceptionally beefy L-plug and rock-solid Y-split
Isolation (3/5) - Isolation is good for a dynamic-driver earphone – more than reasonable for the typical daily commute
Microphonics (4/5) – Low when worn cable-down; nearly nonexistent when worn cord-up
Comfort (3/5) – Though it was designed with sports in mind, the Tread is conventional straight-barrel in-ear earphone. The housings are slightly on the heavy side and the stock eartips are a little stiff. Comfort is average but at least the earphones can be worn over-the-ear quite easily due to the flexible strain reliefs and soft cable

Sound (6/10) - Philips has focused mostly on style and durability with the O’Neill line but the sound quality of the Tread is still respectable for the asking price. While the marketing materials promise good bass depth, in reality the Tread puts out mostly mid-bass and suffers from mild low-end roll-off. The low end is punchy, however - impact is about on-par with the similarly-priced Klipsch Image S3 and lags just behind Philips’ cheaper SHE3580 model. The SHE3580 also has better sub-bass presence and sounds fuller and warmer. The MEElectronics M9, on the other hand, also has greater bass quantity but lags behind the Tread in quality, sounding boomy and muddy in comparison.

The midrange of the Tread is clear and prominent. There is more emphasis on the bass but vocals don’t sound too recessed and there is no bass bleeding into the mids. The tone is on the cool side compared to most entry-level sets, which tend to be warm and bassy. Moving up into the treble, the Tread is a touch uneven but not excessively so - the Klipsch Image S3, for example, is harsher and far more sibilant. The Tread also derives some extra intelligibility with vocals from its prominent treble and has decent top-end extension compared to the MEElectronics M9 and Dunu Trident. The presentation is respectable as well – soundstage size is average but the instrument separation is good and the earphones don’t sound congested. The Tread still doest’t sound anywhere near as large and spacious as the Soundmagic E10 but keeps up with the popular mainstream sets in its price bracket.

Value (8/10) – The Philips O’Neill Tread delivers exactly what it promises – a bulletproof construction that puts most earphones – no matter the price – to shame. Passive noise isolation is also good for an in-ear of its type and cable noise is respectably low. There are more comfortable earphones out there and certainly better-sounding ones - the clean, slightly cold sound of the Tread may not appeal to mainstream listeners and won’t win over many audiophiles – but on the whole the Tread is sure to be a success with those who are simply tired of replacing broken earphones.

Pros: Extremely solid construction; low cable noise; decent clarity
Cons: Slightly cold and thin-sounding; sound does not measure up to cheaper SHE3580 model

(3A71) Klipsch Image S3

Added Sep 2012

Details: Younger, less elegant sibling of the popular Image S4
Current Price: $39 from amazon.com (MSRP: $49.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 18Ω | Sens: 106 dB | Freq: 12-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Klipsch gels

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) - Single-flange (2 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips; compact zippered carrying case
Build Quality (3.5/5) - Housings are plastic but sturdy and well-relieved on cable entry. No nozzle filter is present and the cable is thin and lacks a cinch
Isolation (3/5) – Above average for a dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics (4/5) – Very low with over-the-ear wear; tolerable otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5) – The angled-nozzle housings are lightweight and unobtrusive, though slightly larger than those of the S4. They also have sharper front edges, which can become uncomfortable for extended wear

Sound (5.9/10) – The Image S3 is reminiscent of the pricier S4 not only cosmetically, but also sonically. Like the design, which is a simplified, cheaper-looking, and less ear-friendly take on the S4, the sound borrows both the positive and not-so-positive traits of the higher-end model.

The S3 is v-shaped in signature, with strong bass and treble. As with the S4, the low end is rarely boomy considering the enhanced bass quantity but lacks some rumble in the sub-bass region. Both the Soundmagic E10 and MEElectronics M9 extend better at the bottom. The cheaper M9 sounds a bit loose next to the S3 but those looking purely for bass ‘slam’ will still be better off with an M9 or Sony XB-series earphone. For quick and punchy bass, the S3 performs rather well.

Bass bleed is minimal but as with the S4 the midrange is somewhat recessed compared to the bass and treble. Clarity is quite above average for the price but note presentation is on the thin side – the Soundmagic E10 sounds significantly fuller and more realistic with its warmer, smoother sound signature. The S3 comes across cold and harsh, in large part due to the peaky treble. As with the S4, the top end can be downright unpleasant at times, with occasional bouts of sibilance and a tendency make drums and snares sound unnecessarily sharp and edgy.

Soundstaging is also average at best – the S3 has a typical in-the-head budget in-ear presentation and lacks depth. The Soundmagic E10 sounds much more spacious and ambient, portraying both width and depth better than the Image S3. Even next to the MEElectronics M9 the S3 sounds a bit compressed and congested, though it is helped along by better resolution and clarity as well as slightly better treble extension.

Value (7/10) – The Klipsch Image S3 boasts good clarity and punchy bass but is let down by the hot treble and mediocre presentation. Like the S4, it is a decent earphone for those looking to stay with a name brand but far from the best-sounding set for the price. In the world outside of retail stores, this “S4 light” has some very stiff competition.

Pros: Good clarity and bass; very low cable noise with cable-up wear; 2-yr warranty
Cons: Treble quality lacking; can be uncomfortable due to sharp housing edges

(3A72) Rock-It Sounds R-20

Added Sep 2012

Details: One of the most reasonably-priced BA-based IEMs on the market
Current Price: $40 from rockitsounds.com (MSRP: $39.99); $49.99 for R-20M with mic and 1-button remote
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 31Ω @ 500 Hz | Sens: 109 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 3mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges; Shure gray flex
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), airline adapter, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The R-20 utilizes plastic housings with filterless nozzles. The strain reliefs are a bit too hard for my liking but the twisted cable is excellent, identical to those found on the R-11, R-30, and R-50, as well as the MEElectronics A151. The molded L/R markings can be hard to discern but luckily the earpieces are asymmetric and easy to tell apart
Isolation (3.5/5) – Isolation is good even though only single-flange tips are included
Microphonics (5/5) – Cable noise is nonexistent with the excellent twisted cable
Comfort (4.5/5) – The R-20 is clearly designed for over-the-ear wear but the nozzles are angled opposite of the convention used by nearly all other earphone manufactures, which makes cable-down wear impractical. The only sets with the same design are old UEs such as the TF10. In addition, the cord of the R-20 is advertised as a regular cable with memory wire but actually uses a twisted cable with no memory wire. The cable is soft and flexible, however, and the lack of memory wire causes no issues

Sound (7.4/10) – The sound of the R-20 is highly reminiscent of other IEMs utilizing the Knowles SR driver. The bass is tight and clean, a huge improvement over Rock-It’s lower-end dynamic models. There’s slightly less bass depth, impact, and fullness compared to the MEElec A151 but the R-20 is still on the warm and punchy side for an armature-based earphone. There is no bleed into the midrange, which is clean and a touch forward.

Looking at the market as a whole, the differences between the R-20 and A151 are small and the two earphones are far more similar than they are different. However, whereas the A151 has a darker, smoother sound with more laid-back upper mids resulting in a duller vocal presentation, the R-20 is thinner-sounding and emphasizes the upper midrange more. As a result it is brighter and more energetic. It is also a bit less forgiving of sibilance than the A151, but still more so than the higher-end R-30 model. The treble of the R-20 is laid-back on the whole and top-end extension isn’t great. Neither the R-20 nor the A151 has the crispness of higher-end BA earphones, and both lack the perception of added clarity that comes with emphasized treble.

Soundstage size is not too impressive either – the space is average and there’s not a whole lot of air compared to the higher-end R-30 and competing dynamic-driver sets such as the Soundmagic E30. However, as with the MEElec A151, the presentation is well-rounded, with some depth and height in addition to the width, good separation, and the ability to portray intimacy as well as distance.

Value (10/10) – Although the R-20 is among the cheapest BA-based IEMs on the market, Rock-It Sounds has taken no shortcuts when it comes to design or construction. The cable is excellent and the over-the-ear fit is secure and comfortable over long listening sessions. The sound, too, is competitive with other entry-level single armature earphones and makes the R-20 a great introduction to the world of balanced armatures at a rock-bottom price.

Pros: Comfortable; excellent cable; no cable noise, good clarity and detail
Cons: Unusual nozzle angle forbids cable-down wear; strain reliefs could be more flexible

(3A73) Brainwavz M5

Added Oct 2012

Details: Brainwavz’ fifth M-series in-ear

Current Price: $40 from amazon.com (MSRP: $49.50); $54.50 for M5 with microphone

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 103 dB | Freq: 16-18k Hz | Cable: 4.3' L-plug

Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock (wide channel) single-flanges

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) - Single-flange wide channel (3 sizes), single-flange narrow channel (3 sizes), and bi-flange silicone tips, Comply foam tips, shirt clip, and hard clamshell carrying case

Build Quality (4/5) - The M5 features lightweight aluminum shells with metal nozzle filters. The rubbery cabling is a bit thin above the y-split but strain relief is excellent all around and the new L-plug seems very durable

Isolation (2.5/5) – Isolation is about average for a dynamic-driver earphone and can be increase slightly with the included Comply tips

Microphonics (3.5/5) – Cable noise is bothersome when worn cable-down. Cable-up wear is recommended

Comfort (4/5) – The housings are lightweight and compact, tapering at the rear to provide a compliant, non-intrusive fit. Flexible strain reliefs and cable cinch allow for over-the-ear wear, though this may not be desirable when a mic/remote is present

Sound (7.6/10) – The newest M-series earphone from Brainwavz, the M5 seems to combine some of the best aspects from the M1 and M2 into a competent and coherent audio package. At the core of the sound is ample bass—the low end of the M5 boasts good depth, plenty of impact, and a mild mid-bass focus. Compared to the older M1, M2, and M3, the bass of the M5 is deeper, more powerful, and more dynamic. It is noticeably more detailed and effortless, and even next to the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition the M5 more than holds its own, providing a deeper, more fleshed-out low end.

Despite the powerful bass, the M5 does a reasonable job of minimizing bass bleed and bloat. Part of the reason is the prominent lower midrange of the M5 – unlike many other bass-heavy earphones the M5 isn't notably mid-recessed. The lower mids are emphasized and the entire midrange is smooth, dropping gradually in forwardness towards the top. The treble takes a small step back and clarity is pretty much the only aspect of the M5 that doesn’t surpass other earphones in its price range. Still, despite its warmer tone, the M5 is about as clear as the older M1 model. Vocal clarity and intelligibility, especially with female vocals, take a hit compared to the M1 and M2 as well as competing sets like the pricier VSonic GR06. Detail levels are better than average, however, with the M5 sounding more refined and realistic than the M2. The top end doesn’t offer up a whole lot of sparkle but extension is good for a warmer earphone. Harshness and sibilance are nonexistent – in fact, the M5 cuts down on sibilance

The presentation is affected by the laid-back treble but offers a substantial improvement over the older Brainwavz models. The M5 isn’t very airy and can get slightly congested on busy tracks but has better layering and sounds much more enveloping than the M1 and M2. The M2 especially sounds exceedingly flat and two-dimensional next to the M5. The pricier VSonic GR06, on the other hand, despite its more forward midrange, is capable of portraying a wider and more open sonic space.

Value (9/10) – The Brainwavz M5 is a well-built, well-accessorized, and comfortable earphone with sound that puts it at the top of its game. Its sonic signature won’t do for those looking to maximize clarity but it is sure to please fans of warmer, smoother sound. Better still, the M5 improves in many ways on the older M1, M2, and ProAlpha models without hiking up the price – an amazing accomplishment considering how far ahead of the competition the original Brainwavz earphones were upon release just a few short years ago.

Pros: Good build quality; deep bass and full, smooth sound

Cons: Average clarity

(3A74) ViSang VS-K1

Added Jan 2013

Details: Compact metal-shelled earphone from ViSang
Current Price: $50 from ebay.com (MSRP: est. $49.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 115 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.3' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, generic single-flanged
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) - Single-flange hybrid-style silicone tips (3 sizes), foam tips, shirt clip, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The VS-K1 features aluminum shells with metal nozzle filters. The cabling is identical to my older ViSang and Brainwavz models – internally braided and a little stiff. No cable cinch is present
Isolation (2.5/5) - Isolation is about average for a shallow-fit dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics (4/5) – Present when worn cable-down; very low otherwise
Comfort (4/5) - The housings are compact and taper at the rear to provide a compliant, non-intrusive fit. The K1 is happy with a relatively shallow seal and can be worn over-the-ear easily

Sound (7.6/10) – The sound of ViSang’s latest and greatest harkens back to the R01, R02, and R03 models of old but provides a more mature and refined experience. The sound signature is reasonably balanced, with a slight mid-bass lift and mild treble roll-off. The bass has decent depth and good overall presence but the earphones are far from bass-heavy. They don’t have the bass boost of the old R03 model (perhaps better known by its Brainwavz M2 rebrand) but there is more body and fullness compared to the Brainwavz M1 and similarly-priced armature earphones such as the Astrotec AM-90. It’s not the tightest low end out there, but the control is respectable and the overall presentation will appeal to those who enjoy a softer, smoother sound.

The ViSang products of old--even the bass-heavy ones--have always had clean, articulate mids, and the VS-K1 is no exception. The midrange is prominent and the earphones could potentially be called mid-centric if not for the decent amount of bass. As is, the sound is rather well-balanced overall. There is no bass bleed; Brainwavz’ new M5 model is significantly bassier and more subdued in the midrange compared to the VS-K1. Clarity is good for the asking price – not quite up there with the armature-based Astrotec AM-90 or the thinner-sounding Brainwavz M1, but very close.

Starting with the upper midrange, the VS-K1 follows a smooth and forgiving approach reminiscent of the Brainwavz M5. The top end is laid-back but not enough so to make the earphones sound dark and lacking in balance. Sets such as the Astrotec AM-90 have more upper midrange presence and energy while the VS-K1 sounds more smooth and relaxed. This goes for the presentation as well – the VS-K1 is not as forward as the AM-90 or Brainwavz M1. It has very decent depth, which is noticeable next to the older ViSang R03/Brainwavz M2, but doesn’t sound as big and enveloping as the pricier VSonic GR06. Overall, the relaxed presentation fits the sound signature well.

Value (9/10) – The ViSang VS-K1 is a budget earphone that offers strong performance across the board. Fans of the older ViSang models will be pleased with the more mature sound and the smooth yet reasonably balanced tuning should appeal to an even wider audience. The solid construction and comfortable, shallow-fit housings round the VS-K1 out as an easy recommendation.

Pros: Solid construction, smooth sound
Cons: No cable cinch

(3A75) RHA MA-350

Added Jan 2013

Details: First in-ear earphone from Scotland-based Reid & Heath Audio
Current Price: $35 from amazon.com (MSRP: $39.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 103 dB | Freq: 16-22k Hz | Cable: 3.9' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, Sony Hybrid
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and drawstring carrying pouch
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The MA-350 boasts solid-feeling machined aluminum housings, metal nozzle filters, and fabric cables with flexible strain reliefs. The cable is a little tangle-prone but the overall feel is one of a higher-end product. The 3-year warranty is very impressive as well
Isolation (3.5/5) – The housings are narrow at the front, allowing relatively deep insertion with good isolation
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Moderate in the cloth-sheathed cable; can be greatly reduced with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) – The earphone housings have a familiar flared shape a-la Dunu Trident but are compact and light. The small diameter at the front affords a comfortable, unobtrusive fit

Sound (6.8/10) – The MA-350 pursues a consumer-friendly sound and delivers on its promise of “a deep, full bass response” in spades, pumping out plenty of powerful sub-bass. It delivers more low bass than either the Brainwavz M5 or Dunu Trident, two solid and bass-heavy sub-$50 in-ears. Though the sub-bass is not very informative, the low end of the MA-350 genuinely impresses with its depth and rumble. The response stays strong well into the mid-bass region, resulting in a warm—but not overly so—tone.

The powerful bass of the MA-350 makes the mids sound slightly overshadowed and at times a touch muddy. This is far from uncommon for bass-heavy entry-level earphones – there are a few that manage better overall clarity (e.g. VSonic GR02 BE) and many more that can’t compete with the MA-350. Note thickness is good and the overall sound is rich and full.

The treble is in balance with the midrange and generally smooth. At reasonable volumes the top end is very inoffensive. The MA-350 is smoother overall than the popular VSonic GR02 BE and doesn’t introduce sibilance to a track. A little grain can become apparent at higher volumes—the Dunu Trident behaves better here even though it is not as crisp and extended as the MA-350. Top-end roll-off is present, but gradual. No surprises for an entry-level set.

In terms of presentation, the MA-350 is again par for the course. It is not the most spacious earphone and, like most budget sets, generally has an intimate, in-the-head presentation. It can get a touch congested but is more than acceptable for the asking price—better, for example, than the more closed-in sounding Dunu Trident.

Value (9/10) – RHA’s first in-ear earphone is a solid entry-level offering. There is quite a lot to like here but ultimately the MA-350 stands out in two ways – excellent build quality and deep, subwoofer-like bass. This is definitely the one earphone to show those claiming that in-ears can’t deliver adequate bass across the spectrum and, hopefully, is just the first of many in-ear products from RHA.

Pros: Solid build quality; 3 year warranty; powerful subbass
Cons: Cable noise can be bothersome unless worn cord-up

(3A76) Spider TinyEar

Added Feb 2013

Details: Spider’s light-and-comfortable entry-level earphone
Current Price: $35 from amazon.com (MSRP: $39.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 18Ω | Sens: 104 dB | Freq: 18-22k Hz | Cable: 3.9' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges; MEElec M6 single flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) - Single-flange (2 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips; plastic carrying case with integrated cable winder
Build Quality (3/5) – The TinyEar uses two-piece plastic housings with hard stems, no strain reliefs, and a rubberized cable of average thickness. The L/R markings stamped into the housings can be hard to see
Isolation (3/5) – The slim housings allow for good isolation
Microphonics (3/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; low otherwise
Comfort (4.5/5) – The TinyEar is claimed to be the smallest in-ear headphone on market, and while that’s not exactly true, the housings are quite small and very lightweight. Stems are short and it’s easy to get a seal even though only 2 smaller sizes of single-flange tips are included

Sound (6.6/10) – The sound of the TinyEar is well-balanced with an emphasis on treble. The bass is medium in quantity – punchy but not really enhanced and much flatter overall than the boosted bass of a JVC FX101 or Dunu Trident. Sub-bass drops off rather quickly - both low-end extension and impact are lacking compared to Spider’s pricier Realvoice model.

The midrange is mildly recessed but the balance is good overall – better, for example, than with comparably-priced JVC and Klipsch models. Clarity is decent, helped along by the treble emphasis. Note thickness is on the low side – the TinyEar is not nearly as thick as the warmer, weightier Realvoice. The tone overall is cooler and brighter compared to most sets in the price range. The treble is energetic but seems to be enhanced rather evenly, without any major spikes. The TinyEar is definitely brighter and more treble-heavy overall than the JVC FX101 but still remains smoother and easier to listen to than the harsher JVCs.

The soundstage of the TinyEar is average in size. Good treble extension provides decent air but soundstage width and depth are only moderate. The similarly-priced Soundmagic E10 provides a more open, out-of-the-head presentation and even the Dunu Trident has better depth and layering. Worth noting also is how inefficient the TinyEar is – despite the advertised 104dB sensitivity, it required more power to reach listening volume than any of the earphones I put it up against.

Value (7.5/10) – While not as impressive as Spider’s higher-end Realvoice model, the TinyEar provides clean and balanced sound in an extremely compact form factor. Clearly designed for those with smaller ears, the TinyEar will fit pretty much anyone comfortably, which is good because many will enjoy its clarity and energetic – but surprisingly non-fatiguing – treble.

Pros: Small and lightweight; clean & clear sound
Cons: Microphonic when worn cable-down

Thanks to mcnoiserdc for the TinyEar loan!

(3A77) VSonic VC02

Reviewed Feb 2013

Details: Dynamic microdriver earphone from VSonic
Current Price: $40 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est. $40)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 10-25k Hz | Cable: 4.3' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes), hybrid-style (7 sizes), and bi-flange silicone tips; shirt clip, drawstring carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The VC02’s form factor is of the slim, straight-barrel variety. The construction is very similar to that of the pricier GR01, albeit with detachable cables and fixed nozzles. The cable is smooth but on the thin side and lacks a sliding cinch. It utilizes a conventional 2-pin socket, though it detaches a little more easily than I’d have liked. A bump on the inside of the right strain relief differentiates the left and right connectors.
Isolation (3.5/5) – Similar to the pricier GR06 and GR07 models
Microphonics (4/5) - Cable noise is bothersome when worn cable-down but becomes low with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4.5/5) - The housings are very slim and easy to insert deeply for a good seal. The sheer variety of included eartips should allow the fit to work for anyone, though earphones with slimmer nozzles provide more fitment options still. The cable exits at an angle so those with smaller ears may have trouble wearing the VC02 cable-up

Sound (8.1/10) – The VC02 is undoubtedly the most balanced sub-$100 model I’ve heard from VSonic thus far. It pursues an accurate, uncolored sound that continuously impresses with its crispness and clarity. The low end of the VC02 is tight and punchy, though fans of enhanced bass will be disappointed by its linear nature. The impact is slightly greater compared to the HiFiMan RE0 but not at the level of VSonic’s GR06 model. Bass depth is good and bass detail and texture are excellent due to the lack of mid-bass bloat – easily among the best I’ve heard in the sub-$100 range.

The mids are clean and crisp. Midrange presence is excellent, with no recession but also less warmth and thickness compared to sets that would normally be considered “balanced” in the budget realm, such as the Brainwavz M1 and Monoprice 8320. The VC02 is clearer than these, and clearer also than the armature-based Rock-It Sounds R-30, falling just behind the far more expensive HiFiMan RE-ZERO and MEElec A161P. It is slightly thin-sounding and the tonality is on the cool side, which will still make the GR06 a better choice for some listeners.

The top end of the VC02 is extended and just as crisp as the rest of the signature, but still has some of the slightly hot character that all higher-end VSonic dynamics seem to share. It is a little less sibilant than my GR07 mkI but still doesn’t quite have the refinement of HiFiMan’s dynamic-driver earphones. The presentation is spacious but not particularly enveloping – the GR07 and GR06 both seem to present a more well-rounded sonic image. Soundstage width is good, however, and the balanced, clear sound leaves no room for any sort of congestion. In fact, the VC02 makes the armature-based Rock-It R-30 sound a little congested and vague when it comes to imaging. All in all, it has nothing to be ashamed of for the price. It may be worth noting the lower-than-average sensitivity of the VC02, which will leave those who gauge sound quality by volume level wanting.

Value (10/10) – I wrote and scrapped this section several times trying to convey the scope of the VC02’s brilliance. While VSonic’s GR-series earphones have simply been at the top of their game, the VC02 seems to transcend competing altogether. There are a few nitpicks but there’s so much more to like. I like the detachable cables with the common 2-pin connector – something I haven’t seen on a budget earphone since Altec Lansing stopped selling UE models at huge discounts. I like the tiny 3mm dynamic driver, the slim form factor, and the resulting comfort and noise isolation. I like the fact that VSonic includes a ton of tips despite the small sizing gaps between them. And I especially like fact that the VC02 boasts what has to be the clearest, tightest, and most detailed sound this side of the HiFiMan RE0 – a model that was originally considered well-priced at $239 and remained a Head-Fi favorite for years. The VC02 does all that at an astonishingly low price point. Enough said.

Pros: Small, lightweight, and comfortable; very balanced and articulate sound
Cons: Lacks cable cinch; detachable cables can come off too easily

(3A78) VSonic R02 Silver

Reviewed May 2013

Details: Latest version of VSonic's popular R02 model
Current Price: $49 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est $49)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 24Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 8-28k Hz | Cable: 4.1' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: stock bi-flanges; MEElec “balanced” bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) - Bi-flange silicone tips (3 pairs in 2 sizes), shirt clip, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The R02 Silver is similar to VSonic’s other -02 models in appearance but actually has a smaller nozzle diameter and all-plastic housings. The earphones are still very robust, however, and the cable is strong and flexible
Isolation (3.5/5) – Good, especially with the included thick bi-flange tips
Microphonics (4/5) – Low when worn cable-down; very low with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) – The familiar housings are small and fit well. Long strain reliefs may pose an issue for some with over-the-ear wear but a cable cinch is present to help out

Sound (8/10) – The R02 Silver is the latest iteration of VSonic’s long-running R02 model. The last one I tested – the GR02 Bass Edition – had a rather v-shaped sound to it, complete with strong bass and prominent, occasionally sibilant treble. The R02 Silver pursues the opposite signature – smooth and almost mid-centric in nature. It reminds me of a Brainwavz M1 with punchier bass and all-around better clarity.

The most prominent feature of the R02 Silver is the midrange – it is far more forward than with the GR02 bass edition and a little more so than with the pricier GR06. The bass quantity, on the other hand, is diminished compared to the GR02 Bass Edition, appearing less impactful but also less prone to bleeding up into the midrange. Bass punch is similar to the pricier GR06, though the latter is a touch quicker. The mids sound clear and open – a little thicker and less nuanced than with the VSonic VC02 and many of the pricier armature-based earphones, but nonetheless very clean and natural.

The top end is smooth, but not recessed. There is less treble brilliance than with VSonic’s other dynamic-driver earphones, but also no sibilance. This is especially noticeable next it the Bass Edition of the GR02, which tends to be hotter and more harsh in the treble. The presentation of the R02 Silver is fitting, with a large, out-of-the-head sound. The imaging is not the most precise but still on-par with the better earphones in its price range.

Value (10/10) – The aging VSonic R02 continues to impress with its latest tuning, eschewing the v-shaped signature of the GR02 Bass Edition for a more mid-centric sound with surprisingly good clarity and bass quality. The only downside here is the limited tip selection compared to the GR02 bass edition, but even having to pick up a few extra tips fails to diminish the value of what VSonic has here.

Pros: Well-built, great sound for the money
Cons: Lacks in tip selection compared to GR02 Bass Edition

(3A79) Dunu DN-22M Detonator

Added Jun 2013

Details: Entry-level headset model from Dunu
Current Price: N/A (MSRP: $45)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Hybrid-style single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange regular (3 sizes), hybrid-style (3 sizes), bi-flange, and triple-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, soft carrying pouch, clamshell carrying case, and integrated cable wrap
Build Quality (5/5) – Overall construction is excellent. The cable is similar to the one on the old Trident model – a little rubbery but mostly soft and flexible. The housings are metal and feel very solid, boasting also a very nice finish. A single-button mic and remote – the first I’ve seen from Dunu – is located on the left-side cable
Isolation (3.5/5) – Very good for a dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Quite tolerable when worn cable-down; over-the-ear wear may be restricted by mic position
Comfort (3.5/5) – The housings are one the heavy side but rounded at the front for comfort. The fit is typical of a straight-barrel earphone

Sound (6.7/10) – The sound of the Detonator is decidedly explosive, underpinned by the enhanced bass response. The low end has good extension but also quite a lot of mid-bass emphasis, which gives the earphone a slightly boomy and bloated sound. Overall, the bass is a little too enhanced for my tastes, with more impact compared to Dunu’s popular Trident model as well as the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition.

The mids are warm and smooth – not as recessed as with the GR02 Bass Edition or RHA MA-350, but still not too prominent due to the bass emphasis. Clarity is similar to the Dunu Trident and lags behind the pricier DN-23 Landmine model. The earphones remain very smooth up into the treble and roll off at the top, giving up the energy – but also the potential for harshness and sibilance – of sets such as the GR02 Bass Edition.

Although the pricier DN-23 manages to be almost as bassy with less bloat, the bass of the DN-22M intrudes on the midrange at times. This causes the earphone to sound more congested than and less natural than the DN-23. Other than that, the presentation is quite good – a little wider compared to the Trident but otherwise similarly competent.

Value (8/10) – While the Detonator is not an upgrade to the popular DN-17 Trident, it does offer a slightly bassier sound with better accessories. Plus, it boasts an inline microphone and remote – the first I’ve seen from Dunu – and retains the fantastic build quality Dunu has become known for. For those in search of a bulletproof entry-level smartphone headset, it’s a tough one to beat. Purely for audio quality, the less expensive DN-17 Trident is still my recommendation.

Pros: Fantastic build quality; well-accessorized
Cons: Not as accurate as the DN-17 Trident

(3A80) Sony MH1C

Added Jun 2013

Details: Sony headset designed for the Xperia line of smartphones

Current Price: $35 from ebay.com (bulk packaging) (MSRP: $79.99)

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 15 Ω | Sens: 115 dB/V | Freq: 1-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9' L-plug J-cord

Nozzle Size: 3mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges

Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (1.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes) and shirt clip

Build Quality (3.5/5) – The MH1C is rather well-made, with a metal housing, flexible strain reliefs, and a sturdy flat cable. However, it is this rubbery, j-style (asymmetric) cable that can also make the earphones very to use. The 4-button remote is designed for Sony Xperia phones but offers partial functionality with many other devices

Isolation (3.5/5) – Isolation is quite good

Microphonics (3/5) – J-corded IEMs typically manage to avoid microphonics but the rubbery flat cable in the MH1C still carries a lot of noise

Comfort (4/5) – The skinny housings and flexible tips of the MH1C provide a comfortable fit but the j-cord makes it difficult to wear the earphones cable-up

Sound (8.1/10) – Designed for smartphone users in search of great audio quality, the MH1C provides a warm, clear, and smooth sound only made more impressive by the reasonable price of the headset. The bass is deep and full, with an emphasis on sub-bass rather than mid-bass. Generally speaking, the MH1C has rather good bass quality with less mid-bass bloat than the Audio-Technica CKM500, for example. Considering the bass quantity, control is rather good although it’s still not as tight as the bass of the VSonic VC02 or the pricier Philips Fidelio S1.

The mids of the MH1C are not as prominent as the low end, but they are pleasantly warm and smooth. The treble, likewise, is very inoffensive without sacrificing overall refinement. I did sometimes wish for better overall balance as the bass emphasis of the MH1C results in occasional veiling, but the clarity is generally very good.

Better still is the high volume performance of the MH1C – the earphone remains very composed when played loud and its silky-smooth signature is conducive toward high-volume listening. Compared to the Brainwavz M5, for instance, the MH1C has less prominent mids and highs but is also smoother and more natural. Whereas the M5 can begin to distort slightly at high volumes, the MH1C produces no audible distortion.

The soundstage of the MH1C is a little narrower compared to the half in-ear ATH-CKM500 and the pricier Philips Fidelio S1 but the overall presentation is very good, providing a moderately airy and open sound despite the warm tone with good soundstage width and depth.

Select comparisons:

LG Quadbeat HSS-F420 ($32)

Not unlike the MH1C, the Quadbeat is a stock headset included with many LG smartphones. The sound signature of the Quadbeat is on the v-shaped side compared to the MH1C and its bass, especially subbass, is lower in quantity. The low end of the Quadbeat is a little tighter but the difference isn’t drastic. The LGs also sacrifice some of the warmth and fullness of the Sonys, giving up the excellent note thickness of the MH1C for a bit of added clarity, aided also by the extra treble energy of the Quadbeat. Next to the warm and smooth MH1C, the treble of the Quadbeat sounds brighter and harsher overall.

I ended up preferring the sound of the MH1C, which overall sounded more natural and convincing despite the extra bass. On a user-friendliness note, while I found the cable of the Quadbeat to be a lot more tolerable than that of the MH1C, its extra-soft stock eartips did not work for me and had to be replaced with a set of standard bi-flanges of the MEElectronics variety. The Quadbeat was also more sensitive, reaching loud volumes very easily.

VSonic VC02 ($49)

The VC02 is one of clearest and most balanced sub-$100 earphones I’ve ever heard, with a tiny 3mm dynamic driver providing a uniquely delicate, yet punchy sound. Unsurprisingly, the MH1C has a lot more bass and much warmer overall tone than the VC02. Its mids and treble are recessed in comparison to its bass whereas the VSonic set is rather well-balanced. The VC02 sounds brighter and thinner overall than the MH1C. It is clearer and more accurate, but the treble is harsher in comparison. The bass of the VC02 is surprisingly punchy considering its commitment to an accurate sound but remains tighter than that of the Sony.

In terms of overall usabilit, both sets can be a little frustrating – the VC02 sounds best with a rather deep fit and has detachable cables that are not connected to the housings as securely as I’d like. It really is an enthusiast’s IEM, requiring some care in use and storage. The MH1C is easier to fit and has a built-in remote and mic but also utilizes a cable that is rubbery and microphonic in comparison to the soft and flexible cord of the VC02.

VSonic VSD1 ($43)

The VSD1 was released as a budget version of VSonic’s popular GR07 model, providing a less analytical sound than the VC02 but retaining its technical performance. In comparison to the MH1C, the VSD1 is less bassy, boasting better overall balance and more neutral tone. Bass quality is similar between the two but the VSD1 is a touch clearer overall and boasts more treble presence. As with the pricier GR07, its treble does have a slight predisposition towards sibilance in comparison to the buttery-smooth MH1C. The soundstage is a touch wider with the VSD1 and again the VSonic is noticeably more sensitive than the Sony.

Value (10/10) – Despite my issues with its j-style cable, microphonics, and proprietary remote, the MH1C offers fantastic sound quality for the asking price, and beyond. The bass is deep and full, and the overall sound is smooth and inviting. As long as its skew towards bass is not an issue, this is a fantastic mid-range earphone for beginners and veterans alike, and one that offers as much audio quality per dollar as anything else I’ve come across.

Pros: Great deep bass & outstanding overall sound quality; comfortable form factor; good noise isolation

Cons: Rubbery, flat, j-style cable can be aggravating

Big thanks to scootsit for the MH1C unit!

(3A81) LG Quadbeat HSS-F420

Added Jun 2013

Details: Stock headset for several LG smartphones; also sold separately
Current Price: $32 from ebay.com (MSRP: est $35)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 24Ω | Sens: 98 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (1/5) - Single-flange (2 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips
Build Quality (3.5/5) – Much like the Sony MH1C, the Quadbeat utilizes aluminum housings and lightweight, tangle-resistant flat cables. There is a single-button mic and remote on the right-side cable
Isolation (3/5) – Good when well-sealing eartips are used
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down but tolerable with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (3.5/5) – The shells of the Quadbeat are on the large side and the nozzles are extremely short. The stock tips are longer than average, designed to offset the issue with the housing shape, but are very soft and don’t provide a great seal for me. Those with small outer ears may have an issue finding a comfortable fit due to the housing shape

Sound (7.9/10) – The sound of the Quadbeat takes on a slightly v-shaped character with present but not overbearing bass and crisp, bright highs. Overall, it strongly reminds me of the Sunrise Audio Xcited. The low end has good extension and slight mid-bass boost for a punchy, yet clean sound. The Quadbeat lacks the depth and thickness of the Sony MH1C, so it won’t be a good match for those who prefer a fuller, weightier low end. However, its bass competes well with more neutral VSonic VC02, which has slightly less bass quantity.

The midrange of the Quadbeat is clear and detailed, cleaner of bass bleed than the mids of the Philips SHE3580 and Astrotec AM-800, for example. Note thickness is similar to the VSonic VC02 and again lacking some of the fullness of sets like the Sony MH1C and VSonic VSD1.

The treble is energetic, giving the overall tone a slightly bright tilt. Though the VSonic VC02 and VSD1 are slightly more predisposed towards sibilance, the Quadbeat has more overall energy in the upper midrange and lower parts of the treble, which gives it a brighter, slightly splashy sound. Next to the silky-smooth MH1C, it sounds a bit harsh but on its own the treble quality is decent enough. The presentation of the Quadbeat is wide and uncongested, as tends to be the case with other earphones with similar signatures. It is more out-of-the-head than that of the Sony MH1C and even the VSonic VSD1 and retains good separation and imaging.

Value (10/10) – The LG Quadbeat provides a clean and detailed, yet minimally offensive sound with a slightly v-shaped signature. It’s also rather user-friendly, boasting flat cables that are less annoying than those on the Sony MH1C and a universal single-button remote. Not all is ideal - the wide, straight-barrel housings won’t work for all ear shapes and the stock tips may need replacing, but even with the cost of new tips factored in the Quadbeat offers great value for money. It also means that owners of certain LG phones will have to spend a good chunk of change to upgrade from their stock headsets. Whether this is a curse or a blessing, I’m not quite sure.

Pros: Great audio quality
Cons: Wide housings not ideal for small ears; flimsy stock tips

Big thanks to Fernito for the LG Quadbeat loan!

(3A82) Signature Acoustics Elements C-12

Added Aug 2013

Details: Entry-level earphone from the first Indian IEM manufacturer

Current Price: est. $50 from ebay.com (MSRP: est. $60)

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 18Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 17-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9' L-plug

Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Generic single-flanges

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), replacement filters, shirt clip, and genuine leather zippered carrying pouch (limited first run also comes with heavy screw-top brass case)

Build Quality (4/5) – The wooden housings of the C-12 are a little plain but well put-together. The earphones feature replaceable filters, which is a rarity these days. The textured cable is nice and sturdy, reminding me of the cords on the Brainwavz M1/M2/M3 earphones. No cable cinch is present

Isolation (3/5) – Shallow fit results in average noise isolation

Microphonics (4.5/5) – Good with cable-down wear; even better when worn over-the-ear

Comfort (4/5) – The wooden housings are very lightweight and not overly large, allowing for a comfortable fit

Sound (7.2/10) – The C-12 is an unabashedly bass-heavy earphone that focuses on presenting listeners with a big and impactful low end. The midbass region is hyped up, resulting in a slightly boomy sound and making the deep bass appear less prominent. Earphones such as the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition and Dunu Trident, which are by no means lacking in bass, both yield to the C-12 in overall impact, offering a more linear response better balanced between midbass and subbass. Suffice it to say that no one will find the bass of the C-12 deficient.

As a result of the bass boost, the mids of the C-12 are mildly veiled but at the same time maintain a warm and rich tone. Note thickness is rather good, though for my tastes the earphones could use more midrange presence and clarity. Clarity and detail levels are about on-par with the Brainwavz M2 and the older bass-heavy Xears models. The top end rolls off gently for a slightly dark overall tone and has a smoother character than, for example, VSonic earphones and the Astrotec AM-800. This makes it less fatiguing and more tolerable at high volumes. At the same time, the C-12 has a bit more sparkle than the aging Brainwavz M1 and M2 models, which is a plus.

The presentation of the C-12 is nice and spacious, making competitors such as the Dunu Trident sound closed-in and congested in comparison. It’s not quite at the level of the pricier Astrotec AM-800 but comes very close, which is all the more impressive considering the more bass-heavy balance and darker tone of the C-12. Combined with the powerful bass, the spacious presentation makes for a very enjoyable listening experience.

Value (8/10) – The Signature Acoustics Elements C-12 is a very capable earphone from the first India-based IEM manufacturer. A solid all-rounder with even more solid bass response, the Elements C-12 boasts slightly rolled-off treble and a spacious, reverberant presentation. The wooden housings are lightweight and comfortable in the ear while the twisted cables are strong and non-microphonic, making for convenient listening while out and about. Minor details such as packaging are slightly rough around the edges but one thing is certain: the Elements C-12 doesn’t look – or sound – like a freshman effort.

Pros: Lightweight housings & strong cables; impactful bass; good sense of space

Cons: Somewhat veiled midrange

(3A83) SteelSeries Flux In-Ear

Added September 2013

Details: dynamic-driver headset from Denmark-based manufacturer of gaming peripherals SteelSeries
MSRP: $49.99 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $49.99 from amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 19Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug w/ mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and zippered carrying pouch
Build Quality (3/5) – The metal-and-plastic housings of the Flux remind me of the HiSoundAudio Crystal in both size and shape. The strain reliefs are not flexible enough for my liking but the narrow, rubbery flat cable works rather well. It holds a single-button inline remote and microphone.
Isolation (4/5) – Good, thanks to slim form factor and well-sealing stock tips
Microphonics (3/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; good otherwise
Comfort (4.5/5) – The housings are compact and lightweight, providing an unobtrusive fit that is comfortable for extended listening. The stock tips are of very good quality. The earphones can be worn cable-up as well as cable-down, though the microphone position suffers with over-the-ear wear

Sound (8.2/10) – The first dynamic-driver earphone from SteelSeries, the Flux In-Ear uses 6mm transducers and delivers a lively, well-rounded sound that impressed me from the very first listen. The bass has excellent extension and delivers good punch with no bloat. I would put the overall bass quantity on-par with the VSonic GR07 Bass Edition – like the VSonics, the Flux offers more impact than strictly neutral earphones such as the HiFiMan RE-400 but retains better accuracy than properly bass-heavy sets. The bass is not enhanced enough for the Flux to sound bloated – in fact, it is only a touch more boomy compared to the pricier and more neutral-sounding RE-400 and VSonic GR07.

The midrange of the Flux is among clearest I’ve heard in the price range and maintains a neutral-to-warm tone. The mids are a little recessed compared to sets such as the RE-400 and Dunu’s Tai Chi model, as well as the pricier Flux In-Ear Pro. This is not to say the Flux sounds severely v-shaped – rather, it is balanced-sounding with just a bit of a bass enhancement and crisp, prominent treble. The top end is extended, has good energy, and sounds mostly smooth, with just a bit of grain compared to higher-end sets such as the Flux In-Ear Pro, UE 600, and HiFiMan RE-400. It’s not nearly as prone to sibilance as many of the popular VSonic models and makes sets that are more laid-back at the top, such as the Dunu Tai Chi, sound dull and smoothed-over in comparison.

The presentation of the Flux fits in with the overall signature, being neither as forward and mid-centric as that of the HiFiMan RE-400, not as wide and out-of-the-head as that of the VSonic GR07. The good top-to-bottom extension, bass control, and overall balance of the Flux all help make sure that no elements of the sound are lost, in keeping with SteelSeries earphones being marketed for gaming as well as music.

Select Comparisons

Sony MH1C ($38)

Last year, Sony’s MH1C model took the audiophile scene by storm as one of the best bang-per-buck in-ears on the market, making it a great benchmark for the new SteelSeries earphones. The MH1C offers a little more bass impact and a warmer tone than the Flux at the expense of greater bass bloat. The Flux has tighter bass compared to the Sony, and less of it, but still maintains great extension and good impact. The Flux also has more treble presence whereas the MH1C is a little smoother up top and a touch more spacious. From a user-friendliness perspective, the appeal of the MH1C is limited slightly by the annoying j-cord setup and Sony Xperia remote whereas the Flux has a universal one-button remote and standard y-type cable.

HiSoundAudio Crystal ($99)

The Crystal may be significantly more expensive than the Flux, but the two earphones have quite a lot in common. They are similar in size and shape, similar in fit, and, as it turns out, similar in audio quality as well. I’ve always considered the Crystal to be a very solid earphone – a more balanced but similarly well-isolating alternative to the popular Shure SE215. Happily, the Flux offers all that at a fraction of the price. Compared to the Crystal, it has a warmer tone and more bass presence. The midrange of the Flux is a little less prominent, making it sound a touch more v-shaped, and its treble – slightly smoother. The Crystal, on the hand, is brighter and boasts more prominent mids. It has a slight advantage in midrange clarity but also sounds more harsh and prone to exposing sibilance.

SteelSeries Flux In-Ear Pro ($130)

SteelSeries’ two in-ear monitors are both impressive performers but the sound quality difference between them isn’t as great as the price suggests. The armature-based Flux In-Ear Pro is flatter and more accurate, with more prominent mids, less bass, and smoother treble compared to the dynamic-driver Flux. It is also more sensitive, requiring less power to reach listening volumes.

The cheaper Flux model, on the other hand, boasts more bass and appears to have better bass depth. In terms of clarity the two are very close, with the more prominent treble of the Flux sometimes giving it an edge in vocal intelligibility. That same treble can sound a little grainy compared to the Flux In-Ear Pro but overall the two aren’t far apart. The soundstages of both earphones are similarly well-rounded but the Flux can be a little more dynamic at times.

Value (10/10) – The SteelSeries Flux In-Ear headset is one of the very best mid-range earphones I’ve heard to date, delivering fantastic sound quality per dollar with punchy, extended bass, good treble energy, and excellent clarity. SteelSeries’ freshman effort beats many higher-priced products from brands that have had years to refine their in-ear offerings, making its performance all the more impressive. The only shortcoming is the cable, which could use better strain relief and tends to be noisy when the earphones are worn cord-down, but it’s a small caveat on what is undoubtedly one of the best-performing earphones in its class.

Pros: Excellent sound quality; small & comfortable design
Cons: Cable is noisy when worn straight down

(3A84) Fidue A63

Reviewed March 2014

Details: One of the first IEM releases from China-based Fidue
MSRP: est. $65 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $60 from amazon.com; $59 from ebay.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 101 dB | Freq: 18-21k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock bi-flanges, MEElec M6 single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)

Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips; soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – The A63 features aluminum shells and cabling identical to my older ViSang and Brainwavz earphones – internally braided and covered in a smooth, glossy sheath. It’s a little stiff and lacks a cable cinch but in my experience these cables tend to be quite durable. I also like the soft strain reliefs where the cables enter the housings, as well as on the aluminum I-plug and y-split. A raised dot on the right strain relief makes the earpieces easy to tell apart in the dark
Isolation (3/5) – Isolation is about average for this type of earphone
Microphonics (4/5) – Present when worn cable-down; low otherwise
Comfort (3/5) – While the A63 is lightweight and not too large, I did have an issue with the housings – the metal ridges at the rear are quite tall and sharp. The corners hurt after a while unless I either switch to bi-flanges and position the housings farther in the ear, or simply wear them cable-up. Not a deal breaker, but I would have preferred smoother housings nonetheless

Sound (8.2/10) – If there was one sound signature I could single out as being unpopular with manufacturers of reasonably-priced in-ears, it would be mid-forward sound. There are a few good earphones with forward mids, but the vast majority of budget in-ears are either bass-focused or v-shaped. A solid mid-forward set is a rarity, which is why I was intrigued by the Fidue A63 from the start.

The A63 is a punchy earphone, but not downright bass-heavy, and presents a mild mid-bass “hump”. On the whole it has less bass, especially deep bass, compared to the popular Sony MH1C, but bass control is similar between them due to the more midbass-oriented nature of the A63. Next to the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition, however, the low end of the A63 is significantly tighter and cleaner. That’s not to say that the bass is in any way lacking in quantity – the similarly-priced Astrotec AM-800, another capable dynamic-driver earphone, is rather light on impact compared to the A63.

The Fidue A63 sounds quite clear and impressively detailed through the midrange. The prominent mids provide absolutely fantastic vocal clarity compared to most mid-range IEMs. The Sony MH1C, for example, sounds mid-recessed and has poorer vocal intelligibility next to the stronger midrange of the A63. The rather v-shaped GR02 Bass Edition, likewise, has very recessed mids and misses out on much of the clarity (the GR02 is, generally speaking, the inverse of the A63 in sound signature). Only the brighter-sounding Astrotec AM-800 manages to keep up with the A63 in midrange clarity at the expense of sounding more harsh and sibilance-prone.

At the top, the A63 is pretty smooth and inoffensive. It’s not quite as forgiving and refined as the Sony MH1C, but the Sony is more an exception than the rule. The A63 definitely has an upper hand in treble quality on brighter earphones such as the VSonic GR02 BE and Astrotec AM-800. Maybe it isn’t for fans of energetic, sparkly top ends but I much prefer this approach to treble that brutalizes bad recordings and sensitive ears. The soundstage is as one would expect – the A63 is a spacious earphone that presents a good soundtage without compression or congestion, but the forward mids pretty much guarantee that it won’t sound as out-of-the-head as, say, a VSonic GR07 or Fidue’s higher-end A81 model. That said, for the price there’s certainly nothing wrong with the presentation of the A63.

Select Comparisons

VSonic VSD1S ($45)

Like so many of the best-performing budget sets, the VSD1S emphasizes both its bass and treble for a lively, v-shaped sound. It has more bass impact than the A63 and presents a warmer tonal character and more full-bodied sound. The A63 has less bass and more prominent mids, which at times give vocals greater intelligibility compared to the VSonics. The VSD1S is brighter and more sibilant compared to the A63, which has smoother, less prominent treble. Both earphones impress on the soundstage front and are as spacious and well-layered as anything I’ve heard in the price bracket.

SteelSeries Flux ($50)

These two earphones lean only slightly on different sides of “balanced”, with the Flux coming out just a touch v-shaped and the A63 going the opposite way. They have similar bass quantity overall but the Flux boasts better extension and more subbass presence. Its mids, however, are a little recessed while those of the Fidue A63 are prominent. At times, this gives the A63 better vocal clarity and intelligibility. The A63 also places more emphasis on its upper midrange while the Flux is a touch smoother all the way through the treble. As a result, it tends to be a bit more forgiving when it comes to harshness and sibilance. There is also a large difference in efficiency between the two earphones, with the A63 being significantly more sensitive.

MOE-SS01 ($65)

The somewhat v-shaped MOE-SS01 makes for a strong contrast to the mid-forward Fidue A63. The SS01 impresses most with its bass depth, which is superior to the A63, and clarity, which is about on-par with the Fidue set. The A63 has similar bass punch to the SS01 but is more midbass-oriented and warmer in tone. Despite this, its strong mids manage to avoid veiling quite well and maintain good vocal clarity. The SS01 has more upper midrange and treble presence and sounds more harsh and splashy than the relatively smooth A63.

Dunu DN-23 Landmine ($69)

Dunu’s mid-range Landmine model is a warm, bass-heavy earphone that also has good presence in the midrange. Compared to the Fidue A63, the bass of the Landmine is noticeably more powerful, but also more bloated. The low end of the A63 is tighter and cleaner, though perhaps less well-suited for bass lovers. The mids of the Landmine are prominent, but still sound veiled thanks to the plentiful bass. The A63 sounds clearer and more balanced. The two earphones differ less in the treble region, with the DN-23 being only a touch smoother.

Value (8.5/10) – The Fidue A63 may be the company’s first mid-range in-ear monitor, but it ticks pretty much all the boxes for sound quality. Solid bass impact and strong midrange presence are complemented by an uncongested soundstage and treble that is neither harsh nor sibilant. I like the construction, as well. The only downside is that the sharp edges of the housings necessitate some fiddling to find a truly comfortable fit, especially for those with small outer ears – a small concession as there are precious few IEMs that can hope to keep up with the A63 in intelligibility, but it takes away slightly from what is otherwise an outstanding design.

Pros: Excellent sound quality and solid construction
Cons: Housings have sharp corners

(3A85) T-Peos Tank

Reviewed March 2014

Details: Entry-level headset from Korea-based T-Peos
MSRP: est. $40 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $30 from mp4nation.net; $33 from HiFiNage.com (India only)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2′ L-plug with mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), foam tips (1 pair), shirt clip, and velvet drawstring carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – True to its name, the Tank feels quite sturdy, with metal housings, narrow flat cables, and a well-relieved L-plug. It also boasts an inline mic with a 1-button remote, but no cable cinch
Isolation (3/5) – On par with other earphones of this type
Microphonics (3/5) – Bothersome with cable-down wear; good when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The 8mm driver of the Tank permits a slim and compact design. The earphones can be worn comfortably both cable-down and cable up, though the flat cable can be a bit resistant to over-the-ear wear and the lack of a cable cinch doesn’t help

Sound (7.7/10) – The T-Peos Tank is a dynamic-driver earphone with an enhanced-bass sound signature and warm tonal character. It has significantly more bass than the VSonic VSD1, for example, but a bit less than the Sony MH1C, especially in the sub-bass region. Bass quality is good – it is tighter compared to both the less bassy Soundmagic E10 and the more impactful Dunu Landmine.

Its mids manage to avoid veiling quite well, and don’t sound as recessed as those of the Sony MH1C. Clarity is very good, beating out the similarly-priced VSonic GR02 Bass Edition and Soundmagic E10, as well as the pricier but more veiled-sounding Dunu Landmine.

There is a bit of elevation in the treble region, which is shared by the other dynamic-driver T-Peos earphones I’ve tried recently. At times it results in mild harshness and can accentuate sibilance some, but overall the Tank is pretty composed. Tonally, it is darker and warmer than, for example, the Soundmagic E10.

The presentation is good, not great, with only average depth and a bit of congestion. It is less spacious than the Soundmagic E10, for example, and even the Dunu Landmine. The enhanced bass also hurts the imaging a touch compared to T-Peos’ similarly-priced but less bassy Popular model.

Select Comparisons

T-Peos Popular (~$40)

These sibling earphones from T-Peos are cut from the same cloth but have distinctive sound signatures. The Tank is warmer and bassier, while the Popular is brighter and sounds more v-shaped. The greater bass quantity of the Tank makes it a little boomy in comparison while the more neutral Popular model is clearer. The treble of the Tank is a little smoother while the Popular is more harsh and splashy, but also more crisp. The soundstage presentations of the two earphones are extremely similar. Lastly, the Tank also has a bit of driver flex while the Popular seems immune to the phenomenon.

VSonic GR02 Bass Edition ($35)

The GR02 Bass Edition is a v-shaped, enhanced-bass earphone. Overall bass impact is pretty similar between the GR02 and Tank but the latter boasts a slightly tighter low end. Its mids are also less recessed compared to the VSonics and sound warmer and more natural overall. At the top, the Tank is a little smoother while the more v-shaped GR02 has a greater tendency towards sibilance. The GR02 has a wider soundstage, however, and sounds a little more airy.

VSonic VSD1S ($50)

VSonic’s newer budget set, the VSD1S, is a more balanced earphone compared to the GR02 Bass Edition but still maintains a somewhat v-shaped sound signature. Compared to the Tank, its bass is less enhanced and the tone is not as warm. The VSD1S sounds clearer and has a brighter, more energetic top end that makes the Tank seem somewhat dark in comparison. The Tank also appears a bit congested next to the wide and airy soundstage of the VSD1S.

Sony MH1C ($60)

Sony’s MH1C is a warm and smooth-sounding earphone that’s tonally similar to the Tank. It has a bit more subbass presence and less mid-bass bloat than the Tank, but both earphones have plenty of bass. The MH1C sounds more recessed in the midrange but is smoother in the treble region, while the Tank is a little more peaky and energetic at the top. The presentation of the MH1C also has an upper hand.

Value (8.5/10) – There aren’t many sub-$50 sets that perform on the level of the new T-Peos Tank, and fewer still also offer headset functionality and a sturdy construction. The signature of the Tank is a bassy one, but it manages to maintain control over its bass and good clarity elsewhere, especially in the midrange. As it is a new release, international pricing hasn’t stabilized quite yet, but anything at or below ~$40 makes the Tank a solid buy.

Pros: Enhanced-bass sound signature with good clarity; compact and comfortable housings; solid construction
Cons: Treble could be smoother; cable can be noisy when worn cord-down

Thanks to abhijollyguy for the chance to try the T-Peos Tank!

(3A86) T-Peos Popular

Reviewed April 2014

Details: Budget IEM from Korea-based T-Peos similar to their Tank model
MSRP: est. $40 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $30 from mp4nation.com; $28 from HiFiNage (India only)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, MEElec M6 single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)

Accessories (1.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and shirt clip
Build Quality (4/5) – The construction of the Popular is very similar to T-Peos’ similarly-priced Tank model. It uses metal housings akin to those of the higher-end D200 and H-100 models, narrow flat cables, and a well-relieved L-plug
Isolation (3/5) – Isolation is on par with other earphones of this type
Microphonics (3/5) – Average with cable-down wear; good when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The small dynamic driver permits a compact housing design. The earphones can be worn comfortably both cable-down and cable-up, though the flat cable with no cable cinch can be a bit resistant to over-the-ear wear

Sound (7.8/10) – The T-Peos Popular is similar to the Tank in price and construction, and also uses 8mm dynamic drivers, but delivers a more balanced and neutral sound compared to the warmer, bassier Tank. The less dominant low end actually benefits the Popular, allowing the bass quality to go from great to outstanding. The earphones are still not bass-light by any stretch – bass impact is only a hair below the VSonic VSD1S, for example, and greater than with the Astrotec AM-800 and the dual-driver MOE-SS01. Despite this, bass control is excellent, resulting one of the best bass quality/quantity ratios I’ve heard among budget earphones.

The Popular has a slightly v-shaped overall signature but its midrange doesn’t appear notably recessed – less so than with the VSD1S and especially the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition, for example. There’s no veiling of the midrange, which helps the Popular also achieve fantastic clarity, nearly on par with the MOE-SS01.

At the top, the Popular has a similar character to the Tank, with a treble peak or two resulting in a sound that is a touch harsher than I would like, especially at higher volumes. This is more noticeable with the Popular than the Tank thanks to its less bassy sound signature. It can accentuate sibilance some as well. In comparison, the MOE-SS01 has a slightly less edgy treble character whereas the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition fares similarly to the T-Peos unit.

The Popular is a little more spacious and images better than the bassier Tank, though it still offers only average soundstage depth and is less spacious than the VSonic VSD1S, for example, or the MOE-SS01.

Select Comparisons

T-Peos Tank (~$40)

These sibling earphones from T-Peos are cut from the same cloth but have distinctive sound signatures. The Tank is warmer and bassier, while the Popular is brighter and sounds more v-shaped. The greater bass quantity of the Tank makes it a little boomy in comparison while the more neutral Popular model is clearer. The treble of the Tank is a little smoother while the Popular is more harsh and splashy, but also more crisp. The soundstage presentations of the two earphones are extremely similar, though the Popular is less congested. Lastly, the Tank also has a bit of driver flex while the Popular seems immune to the phenomenon.

VSonic VSD1S ($50)

VSonic’s VSD1S holds its own against any earphone in the price range, but the T-Peos Popular is remarkably adept at highlighting the its few weaknesses. The VSD1S has a hair more mid-bass presence than the Popular, which give it a warmer tone but also makes its mids sound more recessed and even somewhat veiled. It has a more full-bodied sound while the Popular has an edge in overall clarity but also more presence in the upper midrange and lower treble, which makes it harsher compared to the VSonic unit. The VSD1S is a little more sibilant than the T-Peos and has a wider, more spaced-out presentation.

Astrotec AM-800 ($50)

The AM-800 is a bright, mildly v-shaped earphone that makes a pretty decent signature match for the Popular. It has less bass than the T-Peos unit and sounds a touch more v-shaped courtesy of its brighter treble. The Popular has both greater bass quantity and superior bass depth, with more slam and rumble. The top-end emphasis of the AM-800 seems to enhance its clarity, however, akin to a treble-boost equalizer setting. The Astrotec also has a wider soundstage, sounding more distant, while the Popular is less spacious, but more cohesive.

Fidue A63 ($60)

The A63 is a mid-forward earphone that makes for an interesting contrast to the Popular. Naturally, the mids of the somewhat v-shaped Popular are noticeably recessed in comparison, but the T-Peos also offers less mid-bass, sounding tighter and making the A63 appear somewhat bloated in comparison. The sound of the Popular is brighter, and though its treble is harsher and more splashy, it is a little clearer overall. However, the A63 is warmer more natural from a tonal standpoint, thanks in part to the smoother treble, and has a more spacious and uncongested presentation.

Value (8.5/10) – The Popular is my favorite of the three new dynamic-driver sets from T-Peos (the other two being the Tank and Spider models) thanks to its clearer, more neutral sound. The Popular is also a standout in bass quality, and though its treble can be somewhat harsh, overall performance is very impressive for the price. As with the other T-Peos earphones I’ve tried, it boasts a sturdy construction and is comfortable in the ear—there’s really not much more to ask of an IEM priced below $40.

Pros: Punchy, well-controlled bass and good clarity; compact and comfortable housings; solid construction
Cons: Treble could be smoother; cable can be noisy when worn cord-down

Thanks to abhijollyguy for the chance to try the T-Peos Popular!

(3A87) T-Peos D200R

Reviewed August 2014

Details: One of several sub-$50 headset models from Korea-based T-Peos
MSRP: est. $35
Current Price: $35 from mp4nation.net
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4′ L-plug with mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, MEElec M6 single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – As with the other T-Peos earphones I’ve tried, the construction of the D200R is well above average, utilizing metal housings and a sturdy cable that’s nylon-sheathed below the y-split and terminated with an angled plug. The D200R boasts an inline mic with a 1-button remote, but no cable cinch
Isolation (3/5) – Good, on par with other earphones of this type
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Present with cable-down wear; very good when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The 8mm driver allows a slim and compact housing design and the earphones are not heavy despite the metal construction. Due to the soft and flexible cable, the D200R can be worn very comfortably both cable-down and cable up

Sound (7.9/10) – The T-Peos D200R is the latest in a long line of sub-$50 T-Peos earphones I’ve had the pleasure of listening to, the others being the Tank, Popular, Spider, and Rich200. While they all share a familial resemblance in sound signature, the D200R is the most balanced of the lot by a margin – it has the least bass enhancement, the smoothest treble, and the strongest midrange.

The bass of the D200R is still emphasized, however, and the tonal character is on the warm side of neutral. Its bass quantity is lower compared to the other T-Peos earphones but impact is still on par with sets like VSonic’s VSD1S. Bass quality is good – there is just a touch of “boom” compared to the T-Peos Popular and Rich200, both of which impressed me to no end with the quality of their bass, as well as the pricier SteelSeries Flux.

The midrange of the D200R is in good balance with its bass – not forward, like that of the Fidue A63, but not recessed. It is more prominent and full-bodied compared to the other T-Peos earphones I’ve tied, which tend to be more v-shaped. In the case of the D200R, the v-shape is so mild that calling the overall sound “balanced” is hardly a stretch. Clarity is very good, again lagging just behind the Popular, Rich200, and SteelSeries Flux.

There is a small amount of elevation in the treble region, but the D200R is smoother and less treble-heavy than the other T-Peos sets. It’s still not as smooth as the HiFiMan RE-400 or Fidue A63, for example, but its treble presence is excellent in my book – enough to convey the energy of cymbals, but not quite enough to be consistently harsh or sibilant. It teeters right on the edge of what I would call unforgiving, but more often than not stays on the right side of that line.

The presentation is good, with decent depth and better width. Thanks to more balanced sound, the D200R has better imaging and less congestion than the other entry-level T-Peos earphones I’ve tried so far.

Select Comparisons

T-Peos Rich200 ($33)

The T-Peos D200R and Rich200 boast similar audio performance but differ in sound signature, with the Rich200 offering up a slightly more v-shaped response. Its bass is a bit more impactful but impresses greatly with its quality – it is very tight and extended. The D200R, on the other hand, boasts more presence in the midrange and has a more full-bodied sound. The mids of the Rich200 are a touch more recessed, but also clearer. Part of the clarity comes from the stronger treble, which also causes it to be somewhat more harsh and sibilance-prone than the D200R.

The similarities in price, form factor, and even feature set make choosing between these two earphones more difficult than it should be, but what it comes down to is this: the Rich200 has better bass while mids are a toss-up – fuller and more forward on the D200R, more recessed but clearer on the Rich200. Treble is better with the D200R and its less v-shaped sound grants it a slightly more natural tone.

NarMoo R1M ($30) (silver ports)

NarMoo’s entry-level R1M model features interchangeable tuning ports which give it three different sound signatures. The R1M is at its best with the (least bassy) “silver” tuning ports. Even in this configuration, the D200R has slightly less bass quantity but still maintains excellent extension and is capable of very solid punch. The low end of the R1M appears stronger and at times more intrusive while the bass of the D200R is tighter and its midrange is more prominent and clear. However, the T-Peos also tends to sound harsher at times. The R1M is significantly less crisp, but boasts a wider soundstage and more open sound next to the more forward D200R.

Astrotec AM-90 ($44)

The Astrotec AM-90 is one of the most affordable Balanced Armature earphones on the market and a decent enough example of BA sound. Several years ago, a BA earphone would in this price range would have been a no-brainer, but dynamic-driver sets have come a long way, which the D200R illustrates perfectly. As expected, the T-Peos unit boasts significantly more bass than the AM-90 – its low end has greater depth and body, delivering more of both sub-bass rumble and mid-bass impact.

In the midrange, the AM-90 sounds thinner, but surprisingly not any clearer than the D200R. The D200R also boasts greater treble energy while the AM-90 is smoother and more forgiving. Personally, I find the D200R’s greater treble presence to be more realistic. It is also the more dynamic and engaging of the two earphones and images better, making the AM-90 sound a little too flat and forward in comparison.

VSonic VSD1S ($50)

VSonic’s VSD1S is more v-shaped in response than the T-Peos D200R. Its bass is similar in impact to the T-Peos but a bit tighter, and its midrange is more recessed and a little clearer, more like that of the T-Peos Rich200. The D200R has more midrange presence and sounds thicker and more full-bodied than the VSD1S. It is also smoother up top, though still far from forgiving. The VSD1S can be a touch more sibilant at times. Both earphones are quite capable on the presentation front, but the VSonic unit is a bit more spacious.

T-Peos H-100 ($120)

T-Peos’ higher-end H-100 model is a hybrid earphone – that is, it uses a combination of dynamic and balanced armature drivers, in this case one of each. Despite the H-100 having a dynamic driver dedicated to producing bass, the D200R is bassier. It offers up more impact, but its bass sounds boomy in comparison to the tight low end of the H-100. It seems that the woofer of the H-100 is tuned for quality over quantity.

Thanks to the boomier bass, the D200R also sounds muddier in the midrange. The mids of the H-100 are significantly clearer and more detailed, but also somewhat thin-sounding and a little withdrawn. The tone of the D200R is warmer, whereas the H-100 is fairly bright. The more crisp and energetic treble of the H-100 is also less tolerant of sibilance, though not as much so as one may expect from such a bright earphone. Thanks to its more recessed mids, the H-100 has a wider, somewhat more distant sound whereas the D200R is more forward.

Value (9.5/10) – As far as reasonably-priced earphones go, the T-Peos D200R has a lot going for it – sturdy build, headset functionality, and a sonic signature that makes all the right concessions. It might not have the tightest bass or clearest sound, but it avoids recessed mids and is smoother up top compared to its siblings. Its round cables make it easier to wear over-the-ear compared to the flat-cabled T-Peos sets, and it is less microphonic. For all these reasons, the D200R gets our “Recommended” badge.

Pros: Good bass and excellent all-around performance; compact and comfortable housings; solid construction
Cons: Bass quality not quite as impressive as with the T-Peos Rich200

Thanks to abhijollyguy for the chance to try the T-Peos D200R!

(3A88) NarMoo S1

Reviewed Sep 2014

Details: NarMoo’s second release and one of the most reasonably-priced dual-dynamic earphones on the market
MSRP: $89.99 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $40 from amazon.com; $36 from NarMoo.com with coupon code “THL”
Specs: Driver: Dual Dynamic (10 + 6mm) | Imp: 10Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 5-23k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: MEElec “balanced” bi-flanges, stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down (preferred) or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, and oversize zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The shells of the S1 are aluminum, with build quality as good as any in the price segment. The strain reliefs are soft and flexible, protecting a glossy, internally-braided cable. This type of cable can lose some of its flexibility with time and exposure to sweat, but otherwise tends to be very reliable. As with the lower-end R1M model, mild driver flex is present
Isolation (3/5) – Average
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Quite noticeable when worn cable-down; can be improved with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (3.5/5) – As with NarMoo’s R1M model, the housings of the S1 are on the large side, but light enough to still be comfortable. With its conventional cable and soft strain reliefs, the S1 is easier to wear over-the-ear than the R1M

Sound (7.7/10) – While NarMoo’s entry-level R1M model features three different sound tunings, the dual dynamic driver S1 only has one configuration – enhanced bass. The 10mm woofers produce large amounts of both mid-bass and subbass – enough to satisfy even die-hard bassheads. Even when compared to other bass-heavy earphones such as the Sony MH1C and Nuforce NE-700X, the S1 sounds bassier, though also more boomy. Bass extension is excellent, but the mid-bass steals the show most of the time (the double-flange eartips I ended up using help a little in keeping it under control). As a result, earphones with similar low end power but less mid-bass – the RHA MA750 and Sony MH1C, for example – appear to have more prominent sub-bass than the S1.

The powerful low end gives the S1 a warm and rich tonal character. The midrange, surprisingly, is not significantly recessed and not at all thin-sounding. In comparison, the Nuforce NE-700X is less warm in tone and more mid-recessed. The low end of the S1 can be intrusive and sometimes bleeds into the midrange, reducing clarity. NarMoo’s entry-level R1M model, for instance, has better clarity when used on its less bassy settings, as do the pricier Nuforce NE-700X and Sony MH1C. However, the S1 is clearer and more natural in both tone and note thickness than the similarly-priced RHA MA350.

Strictly speaking, the S1 is a v-shaped earphone with more bass and treble than midrange. However, its top end doesn’t sound bright and remains smooth, especially at low-to-moderate volumes. Some harshness can be coaxed out at high volumes, but the S1 is still best characterized as a smooth earphone. The presentation, likewise, is capable and uncongested, especially considering how much bass the S1 has. Overall, it performs very well, sounding more spacious and three-dimensional than the pricier Nuforce NE-700X.

Select Comparisons

NarMoo R1M (black ports) ($25)

NarMoo’s first earphone, the R1M features a sound adjustment system with three pairs of interchangeable tuning ports. These ports most strongly affect the bass quantity of the earphones. The R1M matches the bass of the S1 most closely with its bassiest tuning (black ports). In this configuration, the R1M has bass quality comparable to the S1, though bass depth still seems just a hair better with the dual-driver model. The mids of the S1 are not as recessed, sounding more natural and maintaining clarity much better when the bass attempts to intrude. The S1 is a little brighter than the R1M, which has less treble presence and crispness. In the more balanced gunmetal and silver configurations, the R1M has a more neutral sound than the S1, with much less bass and a thinner note presentation.

Tekfusion Twinwoofers ($50)

Tekfusion’s Twinwoofers are among the bassiest earphones I’ve tried this year, but arguably go a step too far in the direction of warm and smooth sound compared to the S1. The Twinwoofers have a darker tonal character and sound a bit less clear in the midrange. Their bass is comparable in quantity to that of the S1 but seems more powerful still thanks to the more laid-back treble. The Twinfoors have a smoother top end while the S1 is brighter and thinner, but in a good way, delivering more detail and better clarity.

Brainwavz S1 ($60)

The identically-titled Brainwavz model is, like the NarMoo S1, a bass-heavy earphone. What’s surprising is just how similar these earphones sound – through the bass and lower midrange, the S1 matches the S1 almost note for note. The NarMoo unit is a hair bassier and bleeds slightly more up into the midrange as a result, but the difference is small. The NarMoo S1 does sound warmer overall and has a thicker, more full-bodied sound. The Brainwavz S1 has a thinner midrange with a brighter tonal tilt. It sounds clearer and has more treble sparkle than the NarMoo S1. However, its treble tends to be more sharp and sibilant, especially at higher volumes compared to the smoother, more laid-back highs of the NarMoo.

RHA MA600 ($80)

Another enhanced-bass option, the MA600 from RHA was downright disappointing in this comparison. The significantly more expensive MA600 has slightly tighter mid-bass with similar depth. However, its bass still gets in the way of its mids, which are thinner and more recessed compared to those of the NarMoo S1. The S1 has more full-bodied, more prominent, less veiled mids. Its warmer tone doesn’t stop it from matching the clarity of the MA600, which has more upper midrange presence, brighter tone, and thinner sound. The treble of the MA600 is also grainier compared to the smoother S1, and the presentation is not as spacious.

Value (8.5/10) – The NarMoo S1 is a dual dynamic driver earphone with a powerful, smooth, likable sound signature. While bass control and clarity are limited by the bass quantity, both still impress in comparison to other sets with similar tuning. The housings are on the large side, but very solidly built and comfortable except in small ears. Combined with a sub-$50 price tag, this makes the S1 an easy recommendation among bass-heavy IEMs.

Pros: Bass-heavy sound with surprisingly robust midrange and smooth treble
Cons: Some bass bloat/boom; mild driver flex

(3A89) Brainwavz S1

Reviewed August 2014

Details: Flat-cable enhanced-bass earphone from Brainwavz
MSRP: $79.50 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $60 from mp4nation.net; $60 from amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 93 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.3′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock gray single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down (preferred) or over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Black single-flange (3 sizes), double-flange, and triple-flange silicone tips, gray single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply S400 foam tips, airline adapter, and sturdy zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The S1 is well-made, with metal housings and almost comically chunky strain reliefs protecting its flat cable. The cable is rather long at ~4.3ft but resists tangling very well. Mild driver flex is present
Isolation (3.5/5) – Good, especially with deeper-sealing tips
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Surprisingly decent for a flat-cable earphone; noticeable when worn cable-down but improved with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) – The S1 uses a fairly conventional angled-nozzle housing design, which keeps its large housings more flush in the ear when worn cable-up. What’s unconventional is the angled strain relief, which makes it easier to route the flat cable over-the-ear. It still works cable-down, too, and I actually managed a more secure fit that way

Sound (7.8/10) – Brainwavz has produced a lot of great earphones over the years, from the original M1 model, which remains one of my top recommendations in its class, to the reference-grade (yet very inexpensive) B2. The unifying factor is good performance for the price, and that’s the case with the S1 as well.

The S1 is a bass-heavy earphone with a v-shaped sound signature. The bass is powerful and extended, with a good balance of mid-bass impact and sub-bass depth. The low end is not the most controlled, but it is less muddy compared to most other in-ears that are similarly well-endowed when it comes to bass.

Despite its v-shaped balance, the midrange of the S1 doesn’t sound heavily recessed, partly due to the fullness of the sound and partly because of the prominent upper mids. Strong upper midrange presence also helps with the clarity, reducing the effect of the powerful low end occasionally intruding on the lower mids. Ultimately, this gives the S1 good vocal intelligibility and better clarity compared to other sets with similar bass quantity such as the NarMoo S1 and Tekfusion Twinwoofers.

The strong top end of the Brainwavz does come with some caveats – the earphone sounds a little peaky and has a tendency towards harshness and sibilance. Far from a deal breaker – in fact, the sibilance is in good company with the likes of the popular – and much more expensive – VSonic GR07 in the way it is presented. Also, while the S1 has plenty of treble energy, its tone is not particularly bright thanks to the heavy bass. Similarly, the energetic top end is a tolerable – even beneficial – as a way of counterbalancing the bass, especially at low-to-medium volumes.

On the point of volume, the S1 has above-average sensitivity despite the rather low stated figure. Its overall tonality is hard to characterize – the energetic treble prevents the earphones from sounding particularly warm, but they also don’t sound bright because of the strong bass. To provide some comparisons, the MOE-SS01, a similarly-priced dual-dynamic earphone, sounds colder (and harsher) next to the Brainwavz S1 thanks to its flatter, even more upper midrange-heavy sound. The T-Peos Rich200, on the other hand, is downright brighter – its signature is v-shaped, but biased less towards the low end than that of the S1. The SS01 is more spacious than the S1, whereas the Rich200 has a smaller, more in-the-head presentation.

Select Comparisons

NarMoo S1 ($40)

The identically-titled NarMoo model is, like the Brainwavz S1, a bass-heavy earphone. What’s surprising is just how similar these earphones sound – through the bass and lower midrange, the S1 matches the S1 almost note for note. The NarMoo unit is a hair bassier and bleeds more up into the midrange as a result, but the difference is small. The NarMoo S1 sounds warmer overall and has a thicker sound. The Brainwavz S1 has a thinner midrange with a brighter tonal tilt. It sounds clearer and has more treble sparkle than the NarMoo S1. However, its treble tends to be more sharp and sibilant, especially at higher volumes, compared to the more laid-back highs of the NarMoo.

VSonic VSD1S ($50)

The VSD1S follows the sound signature of VSonic’s higher-end models, delivering a mildly v-shaped sound with punchy bass. Brainwavz’ similarly-priced S1 model is more powerful at the low end, offering up more of both impact and depth. The bass of the S1 tends to be a little more intrusive. However, despite its tighter, less powerful bass, the VSD1S still sounds a little more distant and veiled in the midrange. The S1 has more presence in the upper midrange and lower treble, which makes its mids sound more clear, crisp, and intelligible.

The VSD1S has less upper midrange emphasis than the S1, sounding smoother overall up until the mid-upper treble, where a couple of narrow peaks make the VSD1S somewhat sibilant. The S1 is similarly unforgiving of sibilants and offers up even more treble energy overall. From a tonal standpoint, the VSD1S is more neutral and accurate. Worth noting is that the bassier, livelier S1 is more sensitive than the VSD1 and will definitely have more of a “wow” factor for casual listeners than the flatter VSonic unit.

Brainwavz R3 ($130)

The R3 is a dual-dynamic monitor with a balanced and refined sound, serving a very different purpose than the S1. The S1 provides an upgrade to popular mainstream sets such as the Klipsch S4 and Beats by Dre Tour while the R3 channels the signatures of higher-end earphones such as the $500 Shure SE535 and $250 Sony MDR-7550. It is flatter and more neutral than the S1, with tighter bass and more refinement all around. The S1 has heavier bass, but also sounds more bloated and a little dark in tone. The treble of the S1 is peaky in comparison, making it sound harsher and more metallic next to the smooth and natural R3. However, the clarity of the S1 is on-par with the pricier R3, likely due to the stronger treble. Indeed, the R3 can sound a little dull and smoothed-over up top at times. The S1 is also a touch more coherent, while the pricier R3 has a wider, more spaced-out presentation.

Value (8/10) – The Brainwavz S1 combines plentiful bass and strong treble to deliver a lively, engaging sound with a popular v-shaped sound signature. Its tuning is like an improved version of the best-selling Klipsch S4, for not much more money. Sure, it could stand to be smoother and the bass can get intrusive at times, but with a price tag well south of $100, good build quality, and a housing design that’s surprisingly comfortable when worn cable-down, the S1 is a good buy.

Pros: tangle-resistant cable, strong bass
Cons: over-ear wear not easy for those with small ears

(3A90) T-Peos Rich200

Reviewed Sep 2014

Details: Entry-level headset from Korea-based T-Peos

MSRP: est. $35 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $33 from mp4nation.net
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2′ L-plug with mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges; MEElec M6 single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)

Accessories (1.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and shirt clip
Build Quality (4/5) – The Rich200 is built similarly to T-Peos’ other earphones, with metal housings, narrow flat cables, and a well-relieved low-profile L-plug. It also has an inline mic with a 1-button remote, but no cable cinch
Isolation (3/5) – On par with other earphones of this type
Microphonics (3/5) – Average with cable-down wear; good when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The 8mm driver permits a slim and compact design. The earphones can be worn comfortably both cable-down and cable up, though the flat cable can be a bit resistant to over-the-ear wear and the lack of a cable cinch doesn’t help

Sound (7.9/10) – The Rich200 is yet another budget set from T-Peos, sister earphone to the Tank, Popular, and D200R models that I’ve already reviewed. It is priced similarly to the others but – in some ways, at least – is the best of the bunch. It sounds tighter and clearer than the slightly bassier Tank, smoother than the Popular, and more controlled at the low end (but also more mid-recessed) than the D200R.

The most impressive thing about the Rich200 is the bass – the earphones have an outstanding balance of bass quality vs. quantity, perhaps the best I’ve ever encountered with a budget earphone. The low end is punchy and extended, but also very controlled.

The second most impressive characteristic of the Rich200 is its clarity. The overall sound signature is a touch v-shaped but the bass quality allows the midrange to avoid veiling. Clarity lags just a touch behind the more mid-recessed VSonic VSD1S and the colder, brighter-sounding MOE-SS01, both of which are pricier than the Rich200.

There is some treble elevation, similar to what I’ve encountered with the other T-Peos sets I have tried. At times it results in mild harshness and can accentuate sibilance some, but overall the Rich200 is rather composed. The MOE-SS01, for example, has more upper midrange/treble presence than the Rich200, and the VSonic VSD1S sounds more sibilant. Soundstaging is, as with other entry-level T-Peos earphones, nothing to write home about. The presentation has average depth and width. Imaging is pretty good thanks to the clarity but there’s just not much sonic space for the earphones to play with.

Select Comparisons

T-Peos D200R ($35)

Xiaomi Piston 2 ($25)

The Xiaomi Piston 2 is warm and bassy, but nonetheless a very capable earphone priced similarly to the Rich200, making for a worthwhile comparison. In short, the Rich200 has an advantage in bass quality (but not quantity) and clarity, but loses out in treble quality and soundstaging.

Compared to the Piston 2, the bass quality of the Rich200 is significantly better – it is less mid-bassy, resulting in an overall tighter and cleaner sound, but still has similarly good depth. The Rich200 is also clearer – but thinner-sounding – compared to the warmer and more full-bodied Piston 2. The Piston 2 is smoother and more forgiving up top, however, making the Rich200 sound harsh in comparison. It also has a wider, more spacious, more out-of-the-head presentation.

Astrotec AM-800 ($40)

Astrotec’s dynamic-driver AM-800 boasts a clear, slightly v-shaped sound, but deviates quite a bit from the listening experience provided by the T-Peos Rich200. The AM-800 is notable for its wide, open, and airy sound, and that’s where it differs most from the T-Peos unit – the AM-800 sounds like an open-back headphone, while the Rich200 sounds like a sealed one, both in presentation and bass impact. The bass of the Rich200 is more authoritative –deeper and punchier, whereas the AM-800 lacks depth and sounds lighter and less weighty.

Tonally, the Rich200 is warmer while the AM-800 is brighter, lending a more treble-heavy tilt to its v-shaped signature. This results in the Astrotec unit appearing a bit clearer, but the difference is minute. In addition, while the Rich200 has greater bass quantity, the quality of its low end doesn’t suffer – it is just as tight as the AM-800. The presentation of the T-Peos is smaller, more closed-in, and more in-the-head, however.

Brainwavz S1 ($60)

Brainwavz’ S1 model is yet another v-shaped in-ear earphone, this one with an unabashedly bass-heavy sound signature. It pumps out significantly more bass than the Rich200, but sounds boomier as well. Its bass tends to be more intrusive, resulting in more veiled mids in comparison to the tight and controlled T-Peos unit. The tone of the S1 is warmer and it sounds more full-bodied overall while the Rich200 sounds thinner, but also clearer. The Rich200 is brighter, thanks mostly to having much less bass than the S1, but still a touch smoother. One area where the S1 does win is presentation – while it doesn’t image much better than the Rich200, it sounds more spacious and unconstrained. It is also more efficient.

Value (9/10) – With its comfortable form factor, sturdy construction, and headset functionality, the T-Peos Rich200 offers excellent practicality and matching audio performance. Its sound is notable for clean, impactful, extended bass and good clarity, though those with different priorities may prefer its sister model, the D200R. For under $35, the Rich200 is an easy recommendation.

Pros: Great bass quality and clarity; compact and comfortable housings; solid construction
Cons: Cable can be noisy when worn cord-down

(3A91) Tekfusion Twinwoofers

Reviewed October 2014

Details: Enhanced-bass earphone from India-based Tekfusion
MSRP: $49.99 for Twinwoofers; $69.99 for Twinwoofers M with mic & 1-button remote
Current Price: $50 from amazon.com for Twinwoofers; $70 from amazon.com for Twinwoofers M
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 113 dB | Freq: 19-21k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)

Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and triple-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips, shirt clip, and velvet spring-clasp carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The construction of the Twinwoofers is par for the course, with sturdy-feeling metal housings coupled to a pretty conventional cable. Mild driver flex is present
Isolation (3.5/5) – Above average for an earphone of this type
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Moderate when worn cable-down; very good otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5) – The Twinwoofers look bulkier than they really are. The housings are long, but relatively slim and not too heavy. They are just a touch bigger than similarly-priced T-Peos models such as the D200R and Popular, and I’ve always thought those very comfortable

Sound (7.2/10) – Tekfusion’s Twinwoofers are bass-heavy in-ears with a warm and rich tonal character. The deep bass is strong, but outpaced still by the mid-bass hump of the Twinwoofers, which results in well above-average impact. Compared, for example, to Nuforce’s bass-heavy NE-700X model, the Twinwoofers have more mid-bass presence and as a result sound “bassier” in the conventional sense. The side effect of the mid-bass boost is, of course, some bass bloat, with sets such as the NE-700X and the pricier Brainwavz S1 sounding less boomy in comparison.

Possibly the greatest asset of the Twinwoofers is the midrange, which is quite strong for an earphone with so much low end presence. IEMs with the bass power of the Twinwoofers, especially at this price point, tend to have more recessed mids. Here, however, the prominent midrange keeps the sound natural and cohesive. For instance, the mids are warmer and more natural compared to the Nuforce NE-700X and NE-600X, with the Twinwoofers sounding a little more balanced and less mid-recessed. Also, while the clarity of the more v-shaped Nuforce units is technically greater, vocal intelligibility was better with the more forward Twinwoofers, except on tracks with very prominent bass.

The Twinwoofers are quite smooth up through the treble, again benefitting from their sound being less v-shaped than much of the competition. The earphones do an excellent job of avoiding harshness and sibilance. There’s not a whole lot of energy here, but it’s doubtful purchasers of mid-range basshead earphones will mind. The presentation could be more open as well, but it is quite uncongested considering the bass power of the Twinwoofers, reminding me of NarMoo’s dual-driver S1 model.

Select Comparisons

Fidue A31s ($30)

Fidue’s tiny A31s headset is comfortable and inexpensive, but not very good-sounding. While definitely bass-heavy, it has nowhere near the same amount of depth and impact as the Tekfusion Twinwoofers. The bass of the Twinwoofers is a touch more boomy, but not proportionally so considering the greater bass quantity. The midrange of the Twinwoofers is more forward and a little clearer despite its greater bass quantity. The A31s is muddier, and while its treble is smoother, the lack of clarity is just too great to get past.

JVC HA-FR301 ($40)

The flagship of JVC’s enhanced-bass “Xtreme Xplosives” line has one of the most v-shaped sound profiles I’ve ever encountered, with greatly boosted bass and treble. It is actually bassier than the Twinwoofers but lacks the fullness and smoothness of the Tekfusion. The midrange of the FR301 is much more recessed, though also a bit clearer, and its top end is way harsher, making its sound less natural tonally. The Twinwoofers do sound a little muddy in comparison to the FR301, but on the whole I found them more natural.

NarMoo S1 ($40)

While the NarMoo S1 is no slouch, Tekfusion’s Twinwoofers are among the bassiest earphones I’ve tried this year, providing an even warmer and smoother sound. The Twinwoofers have a darker tonal character and sound a bit less clear. Their bass is comparable in quantity to that of the S1 but seems more powerful still thanks to the more laid-back treble. The Tekfusion unit also has a smoother top end, while the S1 is brighter and thinner, delivering a bit more detail and slightly better clarity as a result.

Signature Acoustics Elements C-12 ($50)

As the only product I have from the only other India-based IEM manufacturer I know, the Signature Acoustics Elements C-12 made for a logical comparison with the Twinwoofers. The two are actually quite close in performance, with similar bass impact but with the Twinwoofers boasting a slightly less mid-recessed, more balanced sound. The midrange of the Tekfusion sounds warmer and more natural, whereas the C-12 is a little more mid-recessed. The C-12 is more v-shaped as well, and while the extra top-end energy makes it sound slightly harsher, it also gives the C-12 a more neutral tone and at times permits it to sound clearer/less muddy in the midrange.

Value (7.5/10) – The Tekfusion Twinwoofers are competent bass-heavy earphones that suffer from a spot of bass bloat but still offer up good midrange presence and a smooth, inoffensive top end. The large-ish housings are more comfortable than they look, too, and deliver above-average noise isolation. In the US market, the Twinwoofers are faced with stiff competition, but much of the low pricing that we enjoy here simply isn’t available overseas, making the Twinwoofers an even stronger proposition.

Pros: Basshead sound with good mids; good noise isolation
Cons: Some bass bloat; mild driver flex

(3A92) JVC Xtreme Xplosives HA-FR301

Reviewed March 2014

Details: Flagship of JVC’s Xtreme Xplosives line of bass-heavy in-ear earphones

MSRP: $39.95
Current Price: $40 from amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 104 dB | Freq: 5-23k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug with mic & 1-button remote and CTIA/OMTP switch
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Comply T400, Stock single-flanges; generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down (preferred) or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and plastic carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The HA-FR301 is built like the other Xtreme Xplosives models and features plastic housings with rubber bumpers, paper nozzle filters, and the usual PVC cable. The cord lacks a sliding cinch and terminates with a well-relieved I-plug. A 1-button remote with mic is positioned at the y-split. On the back of the remote is a switch that toggles between the two common headset wiring configurations – CTIA and OMTP – which differ in where the microphone and ground leads are on the plug. A few other IEMs do this with adapter cables, but a switch is a much neater solution. There aren’t many OMTP phones in the US these days, but this feature does add flexibility for users of some older and/or imported devices
Isolation (3/5) – Good for an earphone of this type
Microphonics (5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent
Comfort (4/5) – The fit is similar to the other XX models – the tubby housings with their rubber bumpers may be a little large for over-the-ear fitment in smaller ears but cord-down wear is very comfortable thanks to the steeply angled nozzles

Sound (6.8/10) – JVC’s Xtreme Xplosives line has always been known for abundant bass, and the HA-FR301 model is no exception – it is the bassiest earphone I’ve heard all year and follows a very pronounced “v-shaped” sound signature with powerful lows and highs.

A prominent mid-bass hump gives the FR301 its enormous impact, which easily beat all of the sets I compared it to, from the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition to the Nuforce NE-700X, in quantity. Extension is great, too, though the sub-bass is not the focus here.

As is usually the case with earphones that have emphasized mid-bass, the low end of the FR301 sounds somewhat boomy. However, the midrange is not thick, which helps the earphones maintain excellent clarity. That’s not to say the mids aren’t noticeably recessed – they are – but thanks to a relatively lean note presentation and plenty of presence in the upper midrange and lower treble, clarity is pretty good, lagging just behind the more balanced VSonic GR02 BE and beating sets such as the Nuforce NE-700X and Fidue A31s. The bass does still bleed up, but not as much as can be expected give the sheer amount present.

The FR301 is a v-shaped earphone, and like many it can sound pretty harsh up top. This is especially noticeable on cymbal hits, which tend to be overly energetic and quite splashy. Sibilance, however, is not bad at all – better than with the VSonic GR02 BE, for instance. The presentation, likewise, can get a touch congested when the heavy bass steps in but is otherwise quite well-rounded. The v-shaped sound sig is an advantage here and keeps the soundstage size above average, whereas bass-heavy earphones with prominent mids and laid-back treble tend to sound more thick and congested.

Select Comparisons

Note: I could have included more head-to-head comparisons but they all came out pretty much the same – compared to the other sub-$50 bass-heavy earphones in my collection, which tend to be either full-bodied and smooth or v-shaped with a low end bias, the FR301 invariably sounds bassier, clearer but more recessed in the midrange, and harsher up top.

Tekfusion Twinwoofers ($50)

The Twinwoofers are bass-heavy but rather smooth-sounding earphones – a contrast to the significantly v-shaped JVC HA-FR301. In comparison to the Twinwoofers, the low end of the JVCs is more powerful, the mids are much more recessed and not as full-bodied, though also clearer, and the top end is harsher. The warm and smooth Twinwoofers are perhaps more natural tonally, but also quite muddy-sounding in comparison. Overall they are two very different takes on bass-heavy sound; which is better really depends on what the bigger dealbreaker is - lack of clarity or harsh highs.

Brainwavz S1 ($60)

Brainwavz’ S1 model is similar to the FR301 in the general sense of being v-shaped and bass-heavy, but the greater mid-bass power of the FR301 affects its overall sound quite a bit. The S1 is very capable of producing deep, powerful bass but still falls significantly short of the FR301 in sheer slam. The low end of the S1 is tighter, as expected considering the quantity difference. The mids are a little more detailed and nuanced with less bass to get in the way, and the top end is not as harsh as that of the FR301.

Beats by Dre Tour 2.0 ($150)

The latest version of the Beats by Dre Tour is not exactly a top performer in its price bracket, but the warm and smooth sound holds its own against other basshead earphones. Indeed, the Tour 2.0 was probably the closest to the JVC HA-FR301 in bass quantity out of everything I tried. The FR301 is still a touch more impactful, and overall more v-shaped with significantly brighter treble. It sounds harsher, but also quite a bit clearer than the somewhat muffled Beats.

I found that both sound best with music that relies on bass and is sparsely instrumental, such as Hip-Hop and EDM. This tends to mask the shortcomings with the clarity of the Beats, the harsh treble and recessed mids of the FR301, and the overpowering bass of both. With complex tracks the smoother sound of the Tour 2.0 pulls ahead slightly.

Value (8/10) – The JVC Xtreme Xplosives HA-FR301 is an earphone for bassheads, pure and simple. Its v-shaped sound signature keeps muddiness to a minimum and maintains impressive clarity for such a bassy earphone, though it is not without drawbacks. Still, considering the solid build quality, amazingly quiet cable, and remote with a universal smartphone switch, I expect I’ll be recommending these often to bass lovers all over the world.

Pros: Cable has no microphonics; comfortable fit; extremely heavy bass; dual-mode remote compatible with all smartphones
Cons: Extremely heavy bass; sharp highs

(3A93) Brainwavz S0

Reviewed May 2015

Brief: New entry-level IEM model in Brainwavz’ S series

MSRP: $49.50 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $45 from amazon.com; $50 from mp4nation.net
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 18-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2′ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Hybrid-style single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)

Accessories (4.5/5) – Standard single-flange (3 pairs), hybrid-style single-flange (3 pairs), double-flange, and triple-flange silicone tips; Comply S400 foam tips; and sturdy zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The S0 is well-made, with metal housings and sizable strain reliefs protecting its tangle-resistant flat cable. The y-split is less bulky than on the higher-end S1 and S5 models, but doesn’t seem any less protective
Isolation (3/5) – Average, but more than sufficient for day-to-day use
Microphonics (3/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; improved with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) – The S0 uses a conventional straight-nozzle design and has average-sized, lightweight housings. Despite the flat cable, it can still be worn cable-up comfortably

Sound (7.5/10) – Slotted below the S1 and S5 models in the company’s extensive IEM lineup, the Brainwavz S0 is a mid-range earphone with a mildly v-shaped sound signature. The bass is boosted, but by a more moderate amount compared to the Brainwavz S1 and S5, both of which pack greater bass impact and depth. The S0 has more reasonable bass quantity, which allows it to maintain pretty good quality. For instance, it is neither as bassy nor as boomy as the pricier UBSOUND Fighter or the Nuforce NE-600X (one of my top picks among entry-level bass-heavy IEMs).

Bass depth is good, too – much better than with the similarly-priced Brainwavz M1. There is a bit more mid- and upper bass than I would like, however, which doesn’t do the performance any favors – it doesn’t create a ton of impact, yet affects clarity in the midrange. The S0 is still not as warm and muffled as the UBSOUND Fighter and its midrange tends to be clearer and more detailed compared to both the Fighter and Nuforce NE-600X. However, the clarity difference is smaller than may be expected considering how much bassier the Nuforce unit is. Clarity ends up being similar to the older Brainwavz M1, a smoother, darker, more mid-centric earphone, and doesn’t quite keep up with the brighter, more v-shaped S1 and S5 models.

At the top, the balance of the S0 again falls between the more v-shaped S1 and S5, and the smoother M1. The S1 and S5 are both brighter and slightly less forgiving, but the highs of the S0 are still a little sharp and metallic despite not being overly bright. On the whole, treble quality is similar to the Nuforce NE-600X – both have some treble edginess, and just which earphone is smoother varies from track to track.

The presentation of the S0 is quite capable – a good-sized soundstage that’s well-rounded in terms of width and depth. Separation is good as far as the clarity allows – the M1 model, for example, lacks the soundstaging prowess of the S0 thanks to its more mid-forward tuning, which makes its presentation seem a little compressed in comparison. The Brainwavz S5, on the other hand, is significantly more dynamic, with its deeper bass and more extended treble, and has superior depth and imaging as a result.

Select comparisons

T-Peos Popular ($30)

The strengths of the Popular – as well as T-Peos’ numerous other entry-level earphones – are clarity and bass control. On both counts it is ahead of the Brainwavz S0, which is tuned for a warmer and more bass-heavy sound. The Popular is more balanced on the whole, largely thanks to its tighter, less emphasized low end. The Popular lacks the mid-bass boost of the S0, which in turn makes its deep bass seem a little more prominent. Its sound is thinner overall, however, and the brighter treble is more prone to harshness and sibilance than that of the Brainwavz.

Brainwavz S1 ($55)

The S1 is the next model up from the S0 in Brainwavz’ lineup. In this case, the lower-end earphone sounds more balanced while the pricier S1 suffers from more recessed mids and stronger, harsher treble. The S1 has noticeably more bass depth and impact and a more v-shaped sound signature with sharper treble and more withdrawn, less full-bodied mids.

At first glance it seems that the S0 should be the more Hi-Fi earphone of the two – it has lower overall bass quantity, less midrange recession, and smoother highs. However, the S0 also has a more audible mid-bass hump, which negates all benefits of a less bass-heavy sound signature and results in slightly boomier bass and mids that are more veiled compared to the S1, making the higher-end model preferable, at least to me.

Rock Jaw Alfa Genus (balanced setting) ($70)

The Alfa Genus is a variable-sound earphone with three sets of interchangeable nozzle filters supplying the different sound tunings. I chose the more balanced-sounding “gold” filters for this comparison, as the bass-heavy black filters are similar in sound to the Brainwavz S1.

With the gold nozzles in place, the Alfa Genus sounds flatter and more balanced than the slightly v-shaped S0. The Brainwavz’ mid-bass boost is very noticeable, making it sound bassier and boomier in comparison. However, even without the extra bass, the Alfa Genus doesn’t sound thin or lacking in body in comparison. It is clearer and smoother, though, while the S0 is more veiled through the midrange and harsher up top.

Value (8/10) – The entry-level model in Brainwavz “S” series, the S0 is a more balanced-sounding alternative to the slightly pricier S1 model. Like the S1, it boasts metal housings and flat cables, but with a more conventional form factor that should be friendlier towards first-time IEM users. The dynamic drivers deliver a mildly v-shaped sound signature with ample bass, treble that’s neither too bright nor too dull, and a well-rounded presentation. With that said, for those who don’t mind a more v-shaped sound signature I’d recommend making the jump to the higher-end S1 model for only a couple more bucks.

Pros: Nice carrying case and eartip selection; solid construction
Cons: Some microphonics when worn cable-down; not quite as clear as the higher-end Brainwavz models

(3A94) Zipbuds PRO

Added August 2015

Brief: Tangle-resistant IEMs with a built-in “zipper” in place of a conventional cable cinch

Accessories (2/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and built-in “zipper” cable cinch
Build Quality (4/5) – The housings of the Zipbuds PRO are plastic – well-made, but nothing out of the ordinary. The earphones have ample strain relief and a nylon sheath on the cable below the y-split. The mic is well-positioned, too. The distinguishing characteristic, of course, is the zipper, which starts at the y-split and goes right up to the microphone, replacing the cable cinch. The teeth of the zipper are plastic while the slider is metal. It works well and I never got myself or my clothes caught in it, though I am not convinced of its superiority to a good cable cinch. The cable is terminated with a metal-jacketed I-plug
Isolation (3/5) – Good for this type of earphone
Microphonics (2.5/5) – The cloth-covered cable and plastic zipper teeth don’t do the Zipbuds any favors when it comes to cable noise. The earphones are meant to be worn cable-down, and in this configuration cable noise can be bothersome. Adjusting the zipper while wearing them creates additional noise
Comfort (4/5) – The Zipbuds are rather well-designed when it comes to comfort, with an angled-nozzle housing that’s smooth and rounded at the front. The driver chamber is rather large, and on the whole the fit is similar to a “half in-ear” earphone – snug in the outer ear, but comfortable

Sound (7.9/10) – The sound signature of the Zipbuds PRO is pretty much perfect considering the relatively low price and consumer-oriented nature of the earphones, pushing the bass and treble slightly ahead of the midrange for a punchy, clear, and exciting sound – a “v-shaped” frequency response.

There’s plenty of bass with a mild mid-bass hump, but the Zipbuds are surprisingly free of bloat. The moderate bass enhancement never left me wanting for impact and extension is surprisingly good at both ends. At the same time, the tone is not very warm and avoids the clarity penalty overly warm earphones in this price range tend to have (see, for instance, the Fidue A31s or HiFiMan RE300h).

Clarity and detail are pretty impressive and midrange recession is minor for a v-shaped earphone. The upper mids and treble are accented, with both carrying plenty of energy. As expected, this gives the Zipbuds PRO a tendency towards harshness and sibilance, especially at high volumes, but it is very mild and the gain in clarity and overall energy is worth the tradeoff. Good treble extension also results in a decently wide presentation and a rather open, airy, and dynamic sound compared to other similarly-priced and similarly-tuned earphones.

Select Comparisons

Xiaomi Piston 2 ($25)

The Piston 2 from China-based Xiaomi took the audiophile world by storm with its warm, capable sound, becoming a popular budget choice very quickly. The Zipbuds PRO boasts comparable performance with a slightly more v-shaped sound signature.

While the Piston 2 is tonally warmer and has more of a deep bass focus, the Zipbuds have a touch more mid-bass instead. Bass control and overall clarity are generally similar between the two earphones, but the Zipbuds have a more v-shaped tuning with more presence in the upper midrange and treble. This makes for a brighter sound and also raises vocal intelligibility a bit compared to the Piston 2. On the whole, the Zipbuds are more sparkly and lively but have a greater tendency towards harshness and sibilance, especially at higher volumes. The Piston 2 sounds smoother and more refined in comparison, and also has a slightly more “open” presentation.

T-Peos Popular ($30)

The T-Peos Popular and Zipbuds PRO make for an interesting matchup, being two rather different takes on a v-shaped sound tuning – one bassier, and the other brighter. The brighter T-Peos model is more balanced and neutral, with a shallower “v-shape” to its sound. It has less mid-bass, which makes its low end tighter and allows for more deep bass emphasis. The Zipbuds, on the other hand, sound bassier and more boomy. Their tuning has a more pronounced v-shape with more midrange recession. Surprisingly, despite having a thinner and brighter sound, the Popular isn’t clearer than the bassier Zipbuds. It does, however, have a slightly wider soundstage. In the end, it’s very hard to say which is better – at times I preferred the more balanced Popular, and at times the bassier and more dynamic Zipbuds.

Brainwavz S0 ($45)

The entry-level model in Brainwavz’ popular S-series, the S0 is a relatively well-balanced earphone compared to the bassier, more mid-recessed Zipbuds. Despite their more powerful bass and slightly more recessed mids, however, the Zipbuds sound clearer. The upper midrange is more forward, resulting in more intelligible vocals, and the sound is more dynamic and lively on the whole. The S0, on the other hand, is a little less clear and makes vocals sound more distant. It also has weaker bass and lacks some dynamics in comparison to the Zipbuds.

Brainwavz S1 ($60)

The Brainwavz S1 makes for a better sound signature match for the Zipbuds than does the S0. While the S0 is flatter/more balanced than the Zipbuds, the tuning of the S1 is the opposite, increasing the bass and recessing the mids slightly for an even more “v-shaped” sound signature. This makes the v-shape more audible – and at times more bothersome – than the milder coloration of the Zipbuds.

The bass of the S1 is deeper and marginally tighter than that of the Zipbuds. However, the Zipbuds have less recessed mids and a more neutral tone compared to the darker S1. The brighter treble of the Zipbuds is a little more harsh, but it also makes them a touch clearer and more open-sounding – and preferable to the S1 for me.

Value (8.5/10) – Microphonics aside, the Zipbids PRO is my favorite kind of earphone – one with unexpectedly strong audio performance that took me entirely by surprise (the previous such set being the Flux In-Ear from PC accessories manufacturer SteelSeries).

While the zipper cable cinch is a bit of a gimmick, the Zipbuds cover the basics very well with excellent sound quality and a comfortable angled-nozzle design. With a v-shaped sound signature emphasizing bass and treble and satisfying clarity, dynamics, and even soundstaging, the Zipbuds PRO is a winner in sound – and easily recommendable overall.

Pros: Comfortable angled-nozzle design; does resist tangling; nice mic; very good sound quality
Cons: Cable noise (microphonics)

(3A95) HiFiMan RE300h

Reviewed August 2015

Brief: HiFiMan’s first sub-$50 IEM in several years

Accessories (2/5) – Long single-flange and short bi-flange silicone tips; replacement nozzle filters (5 pairs)
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The tiny housings of the RE300h are plastic and feature replaceable nozzle filters and decent strain relief. The cables are plastic and not nylon-sheathed below the y-split like the higher-end HiFiMan models. A nice L-plug terminates the cable
Isolation (3/5) – The RE300h is a shallow-fit earphone but the included tips isolate surprisingly well and aftermarket tips can increase isolation a bit further
Microphonics (4/5) – Decent even when worn cable-down thanks to the soft cable
Comfort (4.5/5) – The housings of the RE300h are designed for cable-down wear and unusually-shaped, but very small and lightweight. The small footprint in the ear and shallow fit makes them extremely comfortable, though I can see some users – especially those with larger ears – having to find alternatives to the two included eartips to get a proper seal

Sound (7.9/10) – The RE300h takes the HiFiMan house sound and makes it more consumer-friendly by skewing the usual near-neutral balance in a warmer, bassier direction. In 2009 – three generations back in HiFiMan terms – the RE1 model attempted something similar but it was pricier and suffered from relatively low efficiency, which made it less well-suited for the mainstream consumer. The RE300h has no such problems – it’s easy to drive and the bassy and forgiving sound signature feels right at home at $50.

The RE300h places more emphasis on bass compared not only to any other HiFiMan product I’ve heard in years, but also other high-performing ~$50 sets such as the SteelSeries Flux and Fidue A63, stopping just short of the Sennheiser Momentum In-Ear. It is not intended to please bassheads, but rather to deliver enough punch and body to avoid any accusations of sounding flat or lean, as often happens with higher-end HiFiMan models. Unfortunately bass control typically decreases as bass quantity goes up, and the bass of the RE300h is not as tight as that of higher-end HiFiMan IEMs and the aforementioned Fidue, SteelSeries, and Sennheiser sets.

The lower midrange of the RE300h is just as prominent as the bass. Indeed, the lack of midrange recession is what keeps the earphone grounded in the HiFiMan house sound. The RE300h ends up sounding warmer and not at all v-shaped compared to sets like the SteelSeries Flux, Xiaomi Piston 2, and Sennheiser Momentum.

However, together with the prominent bass, the warm and somewhat thick mids limit clarity. Other earphones mitigate this by providing bright, emphasized treble but the smooth and relaxed highs of the RE300h are no help here. As a result, clarity lags slightly behind the abovementioned earphones. Treble smoothness, on the other hand, is superb. The RE300h is less bright/energetic and more forgiving than the Flux, Piston 2, and especially the Momentum In-Ear. It kills harshness and sibilance on tracks like very few IEMs can, especially at lower listening volumes.

Like the higher-end RE-400, the presentation of the RE300h is not at all laid-back, in part due to the forward midrange. However, the soundstage still has pretty good width and ends up surprisingly well-rounded – certainly an enjoyable presentation well ahead of most others in this price range. It’s also worth noting the high sensitivity of the RE300h – the earphone is well above average in that regard, too.

Select Comparisons

HiFiMan RE-400 ($79)

The RE300h’s older sibling is well known for its balanced and accurate sound. Compared to the pricier RE-400, the lower-end model sounds warmer and more bass-heavy. It is also more sensitive. The changes towards “louder” and “bassier” make sense when moving downmarket and targeting consumers rather than audiophiles. Unfortunately, with the tuning change the RE300h also loses some of what has made the RE-400 one of the best audiophile earphones on the market for the past 2½ years.

The extra bass of the RE300h is intrusive compared to the RE-400’s tighter, more well-measured low end. It is boomy and makes the earphones sound muddier. The RE-400 has more of a midrange focus but still sounds more tonally correct and natural, especially with vocals. It is clearer, more accurate, and more refined. The highs are brighter and crisper. Detail comes through better as well.

The one thing the RE300h does have going for it besides greater bass impact and better sensitivity is a more dynamic presentation, which makes its soundstage appear a little less flat and intimate than that of the RE-400. Soundstaging has never been one of the RE-400’s strengths, and it really shows here.

VSonic VSD3S ($45 – $60)

The RE300h is reminiscent of other HiFiMan in-ears with its lack of midrange recession and forgiving treble. The VSD3S, likewise, follows the VSonic house sound through and through, and is tuned very differently from the RE300h. Its sound is slightly v-shaped, with more bass punch and brighter treble compared to the HiFiMan set. The VSD3S is clearer and slightly more resolving, but suffers from sharper, more sibilance-prone highs and mild midrange recession. Despite its lower bass quantity, the RE300h has more bass bloat. It is also warmer, smoother, and more full-bodied than the VSD3S, and has a slightly more well-rounded soundstage.

Sony MH1C ($25 -$80)

Sony’s warm and smooth-sounding MH1C follows a less balanced sound tuning than the RE300h, placing more emphasis on bass (especially deep bass) and less on the midrange. However, the less forward mids of the Sony unit are also a bit thinner, which helps the MH1C achieve better clarity compared to the RE300h despite its more powerful bass. The presentation of the MH1C is more laid-back and spacious, too, while the RE300h is more forward and intimate. Lastly, the HiFiMan unit is significantly more sensitive.

Value (8.5/10) – The HiFiMan RE300h is an earphone for those who above all else favor a warm and forgiving sound. It maintains forward mids and smooth treble for that quintessential HiFiMan flavor, but provides more bass than the higher-end models. The result is a sound profile dominated by the bass and lower midrange, and somewhat limited in clarity and bass control. These are not positive traits for critical listening, but there’s plenty to like here as well – the lack of midrange recession despite strong bass, the soundstage, and the smoothness, which kills off harshness and sibilance better than the vast majority of competing earphones. I also like the tiny low profile housings – HiFiMan’s been pretty good at giving us IEMs that fit well in smaller ears lately. All in all, while it is not going to dethrone HiFiMan’s higher-end RE-400 model in bang for your buck, the RE300h offers a unique sound tuning in a unique form factor, both of which make it a compelling offering.

Pros: Compact & comfortable housings; plentiful bass with prominent mids and very smooth treble
Cons: Clarity and bass control could be better

post #4 of 16444

3/19/10 at 6:21pm

Thread Starter

ljokerl
Trader Feedback: +103
Portables Reviewerus Prolificus
offline

10,212 Posts. Joined 3/2009
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Select All Posts By This User

Tier 3C ($60-100)

(2C1) Head-Direct RE0

Reviewed Nov 2009

Details: Summer 2009 version of the RE0 IEM (cloth cable).
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (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) - Spare filters, a nice selection of silicone tips (both single- and bi-flanges), and a shirt clip
Build Quality (4/5) – Classy-looking 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) – 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 small and light. Comfort hugely dependent on tips but is generally very good

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 detailing 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.

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, some reported durability issues

(2C2) Ultimate Ears MetroFi 220

Reviewed Nov 2009

Details: Newer (2008) version of one of UE’s entry-level IEMs

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 (5.7/10) – Overall, the sound is smooth and slightly warm. The soundstage is wider than average, with decent separation and positioning. 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. The bass sounds full without being overwhelming.. 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 a bit. 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 (3.5/5) – 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) – 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, clean 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 being totally offensive. There is some bleed into the midrange, which is smooth and articulate, if a little thin and recessed. The treble that the S4s put out is the weak point for me – it lacks the 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 other devices can be borderline unbearable.

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:Metal-shelled earphone from V-Moda

Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (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 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 too much. 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 , though there is a microphone on the right-side cable to aid in identifying the right channel
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. I can’t wear them cord-down because of the weight of the earphones. Wearing them cable up works better but is impractical due to the mic

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.

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: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $79.99)
Specs: Driver:BA | Imp: 55.5 Ω | Sens: 108 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cord: 4’ 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 (3.5/5) – 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 (5/10) – 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 devoid of sparkle and excitement, resulting in a slightly dark sound. Really, they aren’t bad at all, but 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 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 can say that the sound signatures are pretty 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 (3.5/5) – 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 (note: latest version carries 45°-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) – 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.

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: N/A (discontinued) (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 (7/10) – 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: N/A (discontinued) (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 (2.5/5) – 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) – 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 (3.5/5) – 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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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) – 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) - 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) – 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: N/A (discontinued)
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 (3.5/5) – 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) – 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 (2.5/5) – 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) – 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 (7.1/10) – 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) – 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 Hi-Fi 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 (3.5/5) – 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 (2.5/5) – 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 (3.5/5) – 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: N/A (discontinued) (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) – The bulky housings prevent deep insertion and are vented like most dynamics, resulting in average isolation
Microphonics (4/5) – Annoying when worn cable-down; not bad with over-the-ear fitment
Comfort (3.5/5) – 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 / A151P

Reviewed Jan 2011

Details: First armature-based earphone from MEElec
Current Price: $75 from meelec.com (MSRP: $74.99); $80 for A151P w/mic & 1-button remote
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 (3.5/5) – 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 (5/5) – The flexible braided cable carries very little noise when worn cord-down and none with over-the-ear wear

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: N/A (discontinued) (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) – 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: N/A (discontinued)
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: N/A (discontinued) (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 (3.5/5) – 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) – 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) – 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 (3.5/5) - 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 (6.9/10) – 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 (3.5/5) – 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 / MC2 / 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 (7.8/10) – 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. 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) – 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 (7.2/10) – 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 (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 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 (7.4/10) – 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 (3.5/5) – 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 (2.5/5) – 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 (3.5/5) – 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 (7/10) – 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: 2.5mm | 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 (4.5/5) – 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
Isolation (4/5) – 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 (8/10) – 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 (9/10) – 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

(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) – 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 (8/10) – 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) – 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) Phonak Audéo 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: 3mm | 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!

(2C45) Dunu DN-17 Crater

Reviewed Feb 2012

Details: Vented, vocal-oriented earphone from Dunu
Current Price: $76 from ebay.com (MSRP: $76)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 16-22k Hz | Cable: 4' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 3.5mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrid-style single-flange (stock)
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes), bi-flange, and Sony Hybrid-style (4 pairs in 3 sizes) silicone tips, airline adapter, ¼” adapter, shirt clip, cleaning cloth, soft pleather carrying pouch, crushproof metal carrying case, and integrated cable wrap
Build Quality (5/5) – The new Dunu earphones continue to amaze with their build quality – solid metal housings boast excellent fit and finish and the new silver cables are terminated by a heavy-duty L-plug. Proper strain relief is present all around. The cable itself is softer and more supple than previous cords but the sheath is somewhat sticky and tangle-prone

Isolation (3/5) - Good for a vented dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics (3.5/5) - Bothersome when worn cable-down; not an issue otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5) – The housings are moderately large and on the heavy side. Nozzles are stepped to allow for a deeper insertion but the front edges are wide, sharp, and potentially problematic for those with smaller ears

Sound (6.8/10) – The DN-17 Crater is a vented earphone tuned specifically for vocal performances. It is not surprising, then, that it is the least bass-dominant of all the Dunu models I’ve tried. The low end of the Crater offers good depth and punch, lagging slightly behind sets such as the DN-16 Hephaes, DN-12 Trident, and Brainwavz M2 in overall bass quantity. It is about as controlled as that of the cheaper Trident, sounding a bit bloated at times, but has a slightly more linear curve with less mid-bass emphasis. Note presentation is slightly on the soft side, resulting in a slight lack of crispness and resolution. There is some texture missing as well, giving the bass a somewhat ‘hollow’ feel with more impact than information.

The midrange of the Crater is prominent and very full-bodied. The balance and presentation are very different from most competing sets - the Crater can easily be called mid-centric despite the ample bass punch and vocals are always upfront, as advertised. Nearly any other earphone sounds thinner in comparison. As with the bass, texture and detail levels are mediocre and the sound has a dull nature, partly due to the underemphasized treble. Indeed, the Crater altogether lacks the increased clarity attained as a result of treble emphasis, relying entirely on natural clarity for intelligibility. The results of not having a very dark background are mixed, sounding excellent on vocal-centric tracks but reverting to an ‘AM radio’ feel with genres relying on heavy instrumentation.

The top end of the Crater is dull and lacks emphasis compared even to the similarly-priced DN-16 Hephaes. Treble extension isn’t bad but detail levels are only on-par with the cheaper DN-12 Trident and there isn’t much crispness or sparkle to the top end. Harshness and sibilance are absent but the treble clearly take a back seat, resulting in a distinct lack of energy. Despite this the Crater has good air that compliments its full, fluid sound well.

The presentation of the Crater is generally forward, especially in the midrange, but the softer note character prevents it from sounding aggressive. The headstage is larger than average and while the positioning is on the vague side, the Crater never sounds congested. Compared to the Dunu Hephaes, the Crater sounds large and full, more of an ‘in-ear speaker’ to the Hephaes’ ‘in-ear earphone’. Interestingly, the Crater is also more sensitive than the previous Dunu dynamics and has a tendency to pick up electrical noise.

Updated January 2013 (7.2/10)

An updated version of the Crater has replaced the one I originally reviewed, boasting the same design with improved sound tuning. The new tuning is a major step forward, in essence applying a v-shaped filter over the somewhat mid-centric sound of the original Crater. The resulting sound very different from the original – dynamic and engaging in ways that make the old tuning seem dull and muffled.

The bass, for one, no longer sounds sluggish and uninformative; instead, it is punchy and dynamic, with better extension compared to the original Crater. The overall sound is more balanced and less mid-centric. Clarity is improved and vocals boast better intelligibility despite the lack of midrange emphasis. Added treble presence creates more natural treble energy for a more realistic sound. The less relaxed top end does cause the new Crater to sound less smooth and forgiving, but the slight increase in the potential for sibilance is a worthy tradeoff.

The presentation is where the biggest gains are made – the new Crater is more dynamic and has better soundstage depth and layering. The presentation is now very good overall – broad, yet boasting decent imaging. All in all, the new Crater is notably more competitive when it comes to audio quality – unquestionably an all-around improvement that justifies the price tag.

Value (8/10) – The DN-17 Crater carries on Dunu’s trend of offering unparalleled build quality and attention to detail at a low price, but does so with a new, more restrained design. While the original tuning was best suited for those who usually listen with a ‘vocal’ EQ preset applied, the new (as of late 2012) tuning makes the Crater easy to recommend over its DN-18 Hawkeye counterpart.

Pros: Very well-built and well-accessorized; full and spacious sound
Cons: Cable can be noisy when worn straight down

(2C46) Dunu DN-18 Hawkeye

Reviewed Feb 2012

Details: Sealed sibling of the DN-17 Crater
Current Price: $60 from ebay (MSRP: $60)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 3.5mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrid-style single-flange (stock)
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes), bi-flange, and Hybrid-style (4 pairs in 3 sizes) silicone tips, airline adapter, ¼” adapter, shirt clip, cleaning cloth, soft pleather carrying pouch, zippered clamshell carrying case, and integrated cable wrap
Build Quality (5/5) - The new Dunu earphones continue to amaze with their build quality – solid metal housings boast excellent fit and finish and the new silver cables are terminated by a heavy-duty L-plug. Proper strain relief is present all around. The cable itself is softer and more supple than previous cords but the sheath is somewhat sticky and tangle-prone
Isolation (3/5) - Good, somewhat limited by the shallow insertion depth
Microphonics (3.5/5) - Bothersome when worn cable-down; not an issue otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5) - The housings are moderately large and on the heavy side. Nozzles are stepped to allow for a deeper insertion but the front edges are wide, sharp, and potentially problematic for those with smaller ears

Sound (6.9/10) – Dunu’s DN-18 Hawkeye is the closed-back sibling of the DN-17 Crater. Unsurprisingly, the two earphones are very similar in overall performance,/strong with the Hawkeye’s being a compromise between the uniquely vocal-centric sound of the Crater and the more consumer-oriented sound of Dunu’s previous dynamic-driver models. While the bass of the Crater is nice and punchy, the Hawkeye offers better depth and more rumble, as well as a touch more impact overall. Note presentation is still a bit soft, resulting in a slight lack of crispness, texture, and resolution, but the greater bass quantity of the Hawkeye makes this less unusual.

The midrange of the Hawkeye, like that of the Crater, is forward and full-sounding. There is more warmth as a result of slightly greater bass bleed but on the whole the bass-midrange balance of the Hawkeye is more even. Detail levels and clarity are average at best but the Hawkeye seems to be a bit more resolving and a touch more crisp, especially when things get busy. There is less upper midrange emphasis with the Hawkeye, though the top end is just as laid-back overall as it is with the Crater. Treble extension is decent but there just isn’t much crispness or sparkle to the top end, resulting in a lack of energy and realism.

The presentation of the Hawkeye, too, is similar to that of the Crater, which is actually more impressive coming from its sealed-back form factor. The soundstage is still rather large and never congested, though the Crater has a touch more air and space. The Hawkeye still sounds ‘bigger’ than the DN-16 Hephaes and most other sealed IEMs, especially those normally found at its price point. Like the Crater, it is also oddly predisposed towards picking up electrical noise - a potential annoyance with sub-par sources such as laptops.

Updated January 2013 (7/10)

An updated version of the Hawkeye has replaced the one I originally reviewed. As with the Crater, the new tuning strives for a more balanced sound, though the changes are not as drastic with the Hawkeye. While I originally preferred the Hawkeye to the pricier, vented Crater model, it has undergone less dramatic improvement with the revision and the tables have turned.

The bass of the new Hawkeye is noticeably tighter but also gives up some of the impact of the original tuning. With this latest revision, the Crater is the bassier of the two earphones, though the Hawkeye still has slightly better extension. Clarity is improved slightly next to the original tuning and the overall sound is more refined and natural. The difference is slight, however – compared to the new Crater the Hawkeye still falls short in detail resolution. It does have smoother and more forgiving treble but at the expense of some of the air and clarity.

All in all, the Hawkeye is now the more mid-centric earphone while the Crater emphasizes the bass and treble more for a more balanced overall signature. This means that there is more room for both sets in the lineup but also makes it easy for me to recommend the Crater as the better choice for most genres.

Value (7.5/10) – The Dunu DN-18 Hawkeye provides spacious, mid-forward sound with enhanced bass punch and a warmer tone. With excellent build quality and well thought-out accessory pack, the DN-18 is a great earphone for those interested in rock-solid build quality with a sound signature focused mostly on the bass and midrange for not very much money.

Pros: Very well-built and well-accessorized; full sound; good bass
Cons: Cable can be noisy when worn straight down; sound lacks some texture and detail; dull treble

(2C47) Ultimate Ears Super.Fi 4 / 4vi

Reviewed Feb 2012

Details: Consumer-oriented BA earphone from UE
Current Price: $60 from amazon.com (MSRP: $129.99); $90 for Super.Fi 4vi w/mic
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 29Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-15k Hz | Cable: 3.8' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Generic bi-flange
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (4/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply foam tips (2 sets), cleaning tool, and hard plastic carrying case
Build Quality (3/5) - The build of the SF4 is typical of mid-range UE earphones - thin but soft and flexible cables, minimal strain relief, and notched, filter-less nozzles. The shells themselves are rather sturdy and very good-looking in all of their matte metallic glory
Isolation (3/5) - Above average at their best but the housings don't lend themselves to deep insertion easily
Microphonics (4/5) - Quite low in the soft and flexible cable. Can be eliminated completely with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (3/5) - The barrel-like shells and relatively short nozzle mean that not everyone will be able to maintain a seal with shorter tips. The stock tips are the same ones included with the MetroFi earphones and simply aren't very good. The included Complys are nice but will require replacement. On the upside, over-the-ear wear is quite easy due to short strain reliefs and flexible cable

Sound (6.5/10) - Announced nearly three years ago, the SuperFi 4 was originally designed to slot in between the aging SuperFi 3 and SuperFi 5 Pro/EB models in UE's lineup. The current SuperFi 5 (UE 600) would not yet be announced for nearly a year so the single-armature design was not yet ubiquitous to the SuperFi line and the SF4 fit in just fine. To differentiate it sonically from the SuperFi 3, the SF4 was tuned for a thicker, slightly bottom-heavy sound. The bass is not particularly powerful, rumbly, or well-extended but it is punchy, full-bodied, and very well-textured for an armature-based earphone. It is accurate but not particularly lean, lacking the control and clarity of the newer SuperFi 5 and UE 700, at times sounding a bit sluggish.

Like the low end, the midrange of the SF4 sounds thick and full for an armature-based earphone despite being slightly recessed in comparison to the low end (in stark contrast to that of the SF5). At the same time, a bit of crispness and resolution is missing compared to some of the better similarly-priced dynamics and the pricier SuperFi 5. Detail is still good but due to the slightly bottom-tilted balance of the SF4, it performs better with male vocals than female ones. There is a narrow spike that can make the SuperFi 4 very sibilant with the rare poorly-mastered track but for the most part the treble is reasonably smooth. A bit of texture is missing at the high end and the very top bit of extension isn't there but on the whole the treble of the SF4 is well-detailed and pleasant.

Presentation-wise the SF4 is surprisingly spacious. Though leaning slightly towards a darker tone, the SF is a balanced earphone and carries a moderate amount of air. The soundstage is oblong in shape but at least has good width. Separation is better with the SF4 compared to the older SF3, though the positioning and imaging are less precise. An interesting characteristic of the SF4 is that it is less efficient than the rest of the UE range and can be a touch more difficult to drive. It is still more suitable for low-volume listening than the older SuperFi 5 Pro, however, which struggles to produce fine detail at lower output levels.

Value (7/10) - The modestly-sized SF4 is a welcome design change from the classic UE designs, though the company has taken the 'chrome' theme a bit too close to heart since the release of the SF4. The short nozzles and tubby shells are unusual for a single-armature earphone and may lead to fitting issues with single-flange silicone tips (the fit of the SF4 reminds me of a handicapped Hippo Boom) and the build quality is typical of lower-end UE products but on the whole the SF4 is a solid consumer-oriented single-armature setup with capabilities well in line with the rapidly-dropping street price.

Pros: Convenient carrying case, low microphonics, generally capable sound
Cons: Can be uncomfortable

(2C48) Hippo 10EB

Reviewed Mar 2012

Details: Short-lived half-in-ear model from Hippo
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $70)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 110 dB | Freq: 20-23k Hz | Cable: 4.3' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (2.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4.5/5) – Well-made plastic-and-metal housings, supple strain reliefs, a smooth and flexible cable, and heavy-duty 3.5mm L-plug all make the 10 an impressively well-constructed monitor
Isolation (2.5/5) – Not bad for a shallow-fit IEM
Microphonics (2.5/5) – Quite bothersome and difficult to avoid with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) – Half-in-ear design with a shallow fit makes the 10 very comfortable

Sound (7.3/10) – The Hippo 10EB is a very well-balanced earphone with a neutral tonality and impressive resolution. The low end has decent depth and no discernable mid-bass lift. It is quick and punchy - low on body but high on resolution and detail. The mids are in balance with the low end and again offer great clarity and detail at the expense of a bit of note thickness. Those looking for a full, warm sound definitely won’t find it with the 10EBs. The response is rather flat overall and the tone is neutral or even slightly on the cool side. There is a small amount of treble sparkle but nothing like what a Brainwavz Beta produces. The top end is smooth and extended – perfectly pleasant for a mid-level dynamic.

The soundstage has good air and conveys a sense of space well. Instruments are well-separated and clearly distinguishable. However, the presentation is much wider than it is deep, resulting in minimal layering and rather poor imaging. The 10EB does not fare well at portraying intimacy and doesn’t offer much of a center image – a common theme with many half in-ear designs I’ve tried. Its presentation is laid-back and distancing. Worth noting also is that the specs can be a bit misleading – though it doesn’t need to be amped, the Hippo 10EB is not a particularly sensitive earphone and requires several volume notches above most similarly-priced sets to reach listening volume.

Value (7/10) – The Hippo 10EB is a solid mid-level monitor with a flat sound profile and a wide, airy presentation. Its low note thickness and cooler tonality mean that accuracy is emphasized over musicality and the heavy-duty build indicates a studio application. The only real complaint is that the ergonomic shells can make over-the-ear wear tough, which in turns leads to problems mitigating cord contact noise.

Pros: Well-built and comfortable; clean and balanced sound
Cons: High microphonics; difficult to wear cord-up

(2C49) Velodyne vPulse

Reviewed Mar 2012

Details: In-ear headset from subwoofer manufacturer Velodyne
Current Price: $89 from amazon.com (MSRP: $89)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 99 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.7' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges; short bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (10 pairs in 4 sizes), shirt clip, and carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) - The design of the vPulse is highly derivative but the earphones are well-built and user-friendly. The flat cable is smooth and tangle-free, with a sturdy feel and nice matte finish. It lacks heavy-duty strain reliefs but includes a cable cinch and shirt clip, both rare among flat-cable models. Some of the plastic parts show molding artifacts, which detracts from the otherwise premium feel of the product. A 3-button apple remote and in-line mic are present on the left side
Isolation (3.5/5) – Very good for a vented, angled-nozzle design
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Low when worn cable-down; nonexistent otherwise
Comfort (4/5) - The vPulse uses an angled-nozzle design for ergonomic fitment. The housings are light and the stock tips are quite decent. Wearing the earphones cord-up is a bit tricky due to the flat cable but the cable cinch and shirt clip help. The vPulse does appreciate a deeper seal for best sound so longer aftermarket tips may be required for some

Sound (7.4/10) - The tagline developed by Velodyne for the vPulse is simply “bring the bass”, a promise the earphones keep in a big way. The bass is deep, reaching down below 30Hz effortlessly and offering pretty good texture all the way down. There is significant sub-bass emphasis but not much of a mid-bass hump, which allows the vPulse to avoid the boomy, bloated sound of mid-bassy sets such as the TFTA 1V and Beyerdynamic DTX 101 iE. The bass does tend to linger a bit and there are definitely times when the vPulse is overwhelmingly bassy but for the amount of bass contained, the control is very impressive.

The midrange of the vPulse takes a step back in emphasis compared to the subbass but sounds clear and detailed, giving up just a bit of resolution and crispness to the MEElec CC51, VSonic GR06, and higher-end sets. The laid-back nature is especially apparent next to the Dunu Trident and Beyerdynamic DTX 101 iE, both of which try to keep their mids free of bass bleed by pushing them forward. With the vPulse it is instead the lack of mid-bass bloat that keeps the midrange clean, allowing the response to remain more level all the way up. The mids are smooth but a bit on the dry side, reminding me of the HiSound Crystal, and lack some delicacy and refinement, as well a bit of transparency.

At the top the vPulse is again laid-back and not at all bright – the balance is clearly skewed towards the lows. Next to the more v-shaped sound of sets such as the id America Spark and Klipsch S4, the Velodynes come across a bit dull but avoid all harshness and sibilance, delivering a smooth, non-fatiguing sound. They are also more forgiving of lower-bitrate tracks – likely a positive considering the iPhone-wielding target audience of the vPulse.

The presentation of the Velodynes is rather wide but the soundstage doesn’t have great depth or layering, resulting in sound that feels a bit ‘flat’. This is due in part to the somewhat constrained dynamics - the MEElec CC51 and id America Spark, for example, both sound more dynamic and provide more well-rounded – albeit smaller – presentations. The vPulse lacks good on-center feel and separation, and while its sound is more spacious and less closed-in next to cheaper IEMs such as the Dunu Trident, the mediocre dynamics also cause it to sound a bit dull and uninvolving at lower listening volumes.

Value (9/10) – The first in-ear earphone from the bass experts at Velodyne, the vPulse does a good job of combining user-friendliness and functionality in a single package. While the design is derivative in many ways, the vPulse has a lot going for it - tangle-resistant cables, low microphonics, comfortable angled-nozzle earpieces, and a 3-button remote are all standard features. The sound combines solid bass rumble and depth with slightly subdued – but still clean and detailed – mids and highs. The bass can be a touch overpowering on some tracks but normally remains well-behaved for such a bassy earphone, making the vPulse highly suitable for anyone in search of a reasonably-priced headset with plentiful rumble and power.

Pros: Comfortable and well-designed; deep, powerful bass; good clarity and all-around performance
Cons: Bass can occasionally be overwhelming

(2C50) Ultimate Ears 500 / 500vi

Reviewed Apr 2012

Details: UE's priciest dynamic-driver model
Current Price: $60 from amazon.com (MSRP: $69.99); $79.99 for 500vi with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.8' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (5 sizes), comply foam tips, shirt clip, and plastic clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (3/5) - As with most of UE's recent releases, the lightweight housings of the UE500 are made mostly of chromed plastic. The flat cable is soft and flexible but could really use better strain reliefs on housing entry and the 3.5mm L-plug. The paint on the housings rubs off over time
Isolation (3.5/5) - Very good for a dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics (4/5) - Reasonably low in the soft and flexible flat cable. Can be reduced further with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) - The housings are small and lightweight, tapering slightly at the rear. The nozzles are reasonably long and angled slightly for comfort. The flat cord can make over-the-ear wear slightly more troublesome but with the cable cinch it is still very much possible

Sound (7.4/10) - In stark contrast to the UE350 and UE600 models, the signature of the UE500 is very mildly v-shaped, with punchy bass and crisp, sparkly treble attracting the most attention. The low end of the UE500 is weaker than that of the UE350 but unlike the cheaper model, which is bassy all the time, the 500 can be impactful when it needs to be and balanced when it doesn't. The bass is reasonably well-extended and has good impact for an earphone that can still be called balanced on the whole. It is not the tightest or quickest and there is slight mid-bass emphasis, giving the sound a very small amount of warmth and slight fullness compared to sets such as the RE-ZERO, but no discernible bloat or bleed. Those seeking Klipsch S4 or Beats by Dre-like bass power will want to look elsewhere.

The midrange is slightly laid back and possesses good detail and clarity. Compared to the UE350, the UE500 sounds significantly cleaner, though it trades off some of the fullness and forwardness of the cheaper model. The top end is crisp and sparkly and the earphones would sound slightly bright overall if not for the mid-bass emphasis. Top-end extension is good but those who prefer laid-back treble might find the UE500 just a bit too energetic. The overall balance reminds me of the Sunrise Xcited - both earphones are spacious and reasonably balanced, with the Xcited being slightly clearer and more detailed but also brighter, edgier, and more aggressive. The UE500, on the other hand, offers more impact and a smoother sound.

The presentation of the UE500 is spacious and airy. The sonic space is wider than it is deep or tall - not as well-rounded as something like the Sunrise Xcape IE or MEElec CC51. As a result, the UE500 has a bit of a tough time portraying intimacy compared even to the Sunrise Xcited, which has a similarly wide presentation, but is still very enjoyable overall. Instrument separation and overall resolution trail the Xcited slightly but the dynamics of the UEs are good and the layering is a touch more convincing than with the older BA-based SuperFi 4. One thing that surprised me knowing that the UE500 is a consumer-oriented earphone is the relatively low sensitivity - there will undoubtedly be complaints of low volume in the general populace, though the UE500 is still plenty loud next to the Phonak 012.

Value (8.5/10) - The UE500 differs both from UE’s lower-end dynamic-driver models and the old armature-based SuperFi line in offering a mildly v-shaped signature with impactful bass and sparkly treble. Thanks to its clean and detailed sound, it competes well with Head-Fi's favorite mid-range IEMs, which is in itself is impressive for an earphone so readily available to the general public. The flat cable is rather poorly relieved for my liking and the frustrating plastic carrying case puts style above convenience but neither of these will stop me from recommending the UE500.

Pros: Lightweight and comfortable; clear and articulate sound
Cons: Frustrating carrying case; poor strain relief

(2C51) VSonic GR06

Reviewed Apr 2012

Details: VSonic’s mid-range dynamic monitor
Current Price: $63 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: $63)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 24Ω | Sens: 108 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4.3' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 3.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes), hybrid-style (7 sizes), foam-stuffed hybrid (3 sizes), and bi-flange silicone tips, foam tips, over-the-ear cable guides and padded spring-clasp carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) - Designed for over-the-ear wear, the GR06 features adjustable-angle metal nozzles coupled and ergonomically-shaped housings. The cable is sturdy and smooth but can be somewhat resistant to staying behind one’s ears without the included guides
Isolation (3.5/5) – Despite the ergonomic form factor the GR06 isolates rather well with the right tips
Microphonics (4.5/5) - Cable noise is very low as the GR06 can only be worn in the over-the-ear configuration
Comfort (4.5/5) - The GR06 works very well for prolonged listening - the angle of the nozzle is adjustable in every direction by ~40º due to a unique swivel mechanism and the sleek, lightweight housings are even smaller than those of the GR07

Sound (8.1/10) – While the higher-end GR07 model presents itself as a dynamic-driver take on a professional monitor, the GR06 offers a more consumer-friendly signature while showcasing just how far the sound quality of IEMs in the sub-$100 range has come in the past couple of years.

The bass of the GR06 is impactful and well-rounded. Compared to the GR07, the GR06 has less bass depth and more emphasis on the mid-bass region, resulting in a fuller, softer note presentation and warmer tone. In fact, the GR06 is more reminiscent of the Yamaha EPH-100 through the bass and midrange, albeit not as clear, hard-hitting, or resolving. It is not as tight or quick as the GR07 but competes extremely well in its price range, making solid mid-level sets such as the Spider Realvoice and MEElec CC51 sound boomy and bloated. The pricier HiSound Crystal, on the other hand, is a touch cleaner and quicker at the expense of slightly dryer sound.

The midrange of the GR06 is smooth, warm, and forward. The mids sound clean and have decent detail but are limited by the same slightly soft note presentation as the bass. As a result, the GR06 doesn’t sound quite as crisp, clean, and transparent as the GR07 or – to a lesser extent - the HiFiMan RE-ZERO or HiSound Crystal, but competes very well with pretty much everything else in its price bracket. The MEElec CC51 and Soundmagic E10 both sound mid-recessed in comparison while the Spider Realvoice and Brainwavz M2 lack detail and resolution. The pricier Sennheiser IE6 also sounds less refined than the GR06, with an edgier note presentation but no gain in clarity or detail.

At the top, the GR06 is clean and detailed but comes across a bit less aggressive than the GR07, which sounds hotter and has more sparkle. While the GR06 is generally smoother, it’s still not quite as smooth as a Sunrise Xcape IE or HiFiMan RE-ZERO. Like the GR07, the lower-end model has a slight tendency to point out sibilance and good – but not class-leading - extension. There are competing sets that sound a little crisper and more resolving – the RE-ZERO and HiSound Crystal, for example - but none of them get far ahead of the cheaper and smoother-sounding GR06.

The presentation of the GR06 is perhaps its most impressive aspect – soundstage size is above average and retains good instrument separation. The GR06 really makes similarly-priced sets such as the Brainwavz M2, MEElec A151, and even HiSound Crystal sound small and intimate. The presentation is more on-par with the far more expensive Sennheiser IE6 and IE7. Some nitpicks - there is decent air to the presentation but the more forward-sounding GR06 doesn’t have the sheer expanse of the GR07. Like the GR07, it also doesn’t have the best soundstage depth or the most 3-dimensional sonic image and the dynamics could be better. For the price, however, none of these should elicit any complaints.

Value (10/10) – The VSonic GR06 does to the sub-$100 market what last year’s release of the GR07 did to top-tier earphones, embarrassing quite a few of its competitors by combining a comfortable over-the-ear form factor, great build quality, and excellent sound at an unreasonably low price point. While some nitpicks that do make their way into its evaluation, most of them are normally reserved for upper-tier products, itself a compliment to the GR06. This is yet another VSonic product punching well above its weight.

Pros: Well-built and well-designed; warm, spacious, slightly mid-forward sound
Cons: N/A

(2C52) Rock-It Sounds R-30

Added Sep 2012

Details: Single BA earphone from Rock-It Sounds
Current Price: $70 from rockitsounds.com (MSRP: $69.99); $75.99 for R-30M with mic and 1-button remote
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 29Ω | Sens: 114 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 3mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges; Shure gray flex; Shure olives
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), rubber housing covers (3 sizes), airline adapter, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The R-30 utilizes plastic housings with three pairs of removable rubber sheaths included to aid in fitment. The sheaths differ in size and shape and can be removed entirely to make the housings smaller (shown). The twisted cable is identical to those found on other Rock-It products and the MEElectronics A151
Isolation (3.5/5) – Isolation is good even though only single-flange tips are included
Microphonics (5/5) – Cable noise is nonexistent with the excellent twisted cable
Comfort (4.5/5) – The R-30 utilizes a familiar over-the-ear design and fits much like the Westone IEMs. The housings are on the large side with the silicone sheaths in place but may offer a more stable fit. Removing the sheaths entirely is an option, though the shells are somewhat elongated and may not fit smaller ears still

Sound (7.7/10) – The overall sound signature of the R-30 is a balanced one, with a hint of warmth and impressive bass for an entry-level BA earphone. The low end is punchy and only slightly rolled off, with a rather full-bodied presentation for a single armature. Bass control and extension lag slightly behind higher-end sets such as the MEElec A161P and Rock-It’s own R-50, resulting in a softer, slightly boomy note and more deep bass drop-off. In this way and others, the R-30 reminds me of the pricier Westone 1. Compared to the lower-end R-20 model, however, the sound of the R-30 is more balanced and the bass is more natural – fuller and deeper with no reduction in tightness.

The midrange of the R-30 is forward and a bit warm in tone. Clarity is better compared to the R-20 but not quite as good as with the A161P or R-50 – about on-par with the VSonic GR06 and Monoprice 8320. The mids of the R-30 are quite smooth and note thickness is greater than with the more Ety-like A161P, which sounds thinner but also more crisp than the R-30.

The top end of the R-30 is slightly laid back on the whole – low on sparkle and not as extended as the treble of the A161P. The R-30 still has better sparkle and extension than the R-20, but also filters out less sibilance In fact, sibilance on tracks is about as exposed as with the R-50 despite the crisper, more prominent treble of the higher-end dual-armature earphone.

The soundstage of the R-30 is above average – larger and airier than that of the R-20, for example. There is some depth and height as well as good separation, and the ability to portray intimacy as well as distance. In addition, the R-30 is quite sensitive – more so than the lower-end R-20 and other Siren-based armature earphones.

Value (10/10) – The R-30 is an impressive performer, improving noticeably on the sound of most entry-level BA earphones while competing with them directly on price. The color scheme and odd-looking outer sheaths of the R-30 may be a turn-off for some but as a whole the R-30 is one of the most well-rounded packages south of $100.

Pros: Comfortable; excellent cable; no cable noise, great sound for the price
Cons: May not fit those with smaller ears well

(2C53) Thinksound MS01

Added October 2012

Details: Eco-friendly IEM from Thinksound
Current Price: $100 from amazon.com (MSRP: $119.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 96 dB | Freq: 18-20k 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 (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), shirt clip, cotton carrying pouch, and over-the-ear cable guides
Build Quality (4/5) – The MS01 is similar in both construction and appearance to the other Thinksound models. The housings are made out of wood and aluminum and the rubbery cable features long strain reliefs and a beefy 3.5mm plug. The cable lacks a cinch but other than that attention to detail is excellent
Isolation (3/5) – Respectable for a dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics (4/5) – Low in the PVC-free cable
Comfort (4/5) – The MS01 uses a slim, elongated housing to allow for a deeper, more comfortable insertion. The housings are lightweight and the earphones are very comfortable when worn. The included cable guides eliminate cable noise and can provide a more secure fit, though I personally don’t need them to wear the MS01 cable-up

Sound (8/10) – The MS01 is the first earphone from Thinksound’s Monitor Series, said to be designed for pros and discerning listeners. Make no mistake, however—the MS01 still follows Thinksound’s usual signature, offering enhanced bass with clean, engaging mids and highs, only in a slightly more tempered proportion. At the core is ample bass boasting good extension and plentiful impact. The 8mm drivers move plenty of air – the low end of the MS01 is hard-hitting and visceral, outpacing those of the Brainwavz M5 and VSonic GR02 Bass Edition. Despite this, the bass is not too boomy and bass bleed up into the midrange is mild, resulting in a sound that is warm but not bloated.

The midrange of the MS01 retains good clarity and detail. The mids are not as thick and lush as may be expected considering the powerful bass but the MS01 is not as thin-sounding as an RE-ZERO or Sunrise Xcited, either. The midrange is reasonably smooth and not overly recessed – less so, for example, than that of the HiSound Wooduo 2. In typical Thinksound fashion, the treble carries a bit of emphasis for a mildly v-shaped overall sound. Top-end extension isn’t great but otherwise the MS01 is crisp and pleasant, though not well-suited for those who prefer a laid-back treble presentation.

The MS01 also presents a coherent sonic image – the mildly v-shaped sound gives it a reasonably open and airy feel, though more emphasis on upper treble and better extension would help. In addition to above-average width, the soundstage has decent depth and layering. Admittedly the soundstage of the MS01 is less 3-dimensional than that of the VSonic GR06 but the overall presentation is impressive and more to my liking than the flatter soundstage of the pricier HiSound Wooduo 2.

Value (8.5/10) – Thinksound’s formula has always been beautiful in its simplicity – combine one part enhanced bass with one part clarity, add stylish, well-crafted housings made from renewable materials, and package it all with great attention to detail. The MS01 doesn’t stray far from its predecessors – it’s not a monitoring earphone as the name seems to imply, but it delivers great sound and retains the upmarket look and feel of the other Thinksound models. As far as I’m concerned the sonic refinement alone is well worth the price hike over the older TS02.

Pros: “Green” construction; aesthetically pleasing; plentiful bass & good all-round performance
Cons: No cable cinch

(2C54) HiFiMan RE-400 Waterline

Added Mar 2013

Details: Newest entry-level earphone from one of the pioneers of accurate dynamic-driver earphones
Current Price: $99 from head-direct.com (MSRP: $99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 15-22k Hz | Cable: 3.9' 45º-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: stock bi-flange
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange (2 sizes), short bi-flange, and long bi-flange silicone tips; cable winder Updated February 2014: RE-400 now comes with 3 types of silicone bi-flange eartips, 4 types of silicone single-flange eartips, two sizes of Comply foam tips, a shirt clip, and a clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – Construction is in line with what we’ve seen from HiFiMan as of late – solid housings, long strain reliefs, and thicker cables. The top part of the cord is similar to the RE262/RE272 while the bottom part is nylon-sheathed. HiFiMan’s standard 45º-plug completes the picture. The RE-400 is single-ended – there is no option of running it balanced and no adapters are necessary to use it with standard 3.5mm jacks
Isolation (4/5) – Quite good for a dynamic-driver unit. The small housings and thick stock tips allow for a deep seal with even better isolation.
Microphonics (4/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; fine otherwise
Comfort (4.5/5) – The housings of the RE-400 are the smallest of all the HiFiMan earphones I’ve seen to date. The shape seems to favor a deeper seal, which shouldn’t be an issue for all but those with the smallest ear canals. Cable-up wear is easy though the cable slider is a little loose on the cable.

Sound (9/10) – The RE-400 takes the place of the RE-ZERO in HiFiMan’s new, more streamlined lineup. For the most part it stays true to what we’ve come to expect from the RE-series earphones--its tone is mostly neutral and the sound is about as clean and transparent as it gets. The RE-400 seems to be endowed with a slightly more robust low end compared to the old RE-ZERO--there is a slight mid-bass lift audible with the newer model. This gives its bass a little more weight and depth and tilts the overall tone slightly in the “warm” direction compared to the RE-ZERO, RE272, and Etymotic ER-4S. This is not necessarily good or bad—those who want a ruler-flat bass will likely still prefer the 272, but it will allow the RE-400 to cater to a wider audience, which is a definitely plus in my book.

I would still classify the RE-400 as a neutral earphone with just a hint of warmth. The midrange is clear and well-positioned, neither recessed nor forward in the presentation. Detail resolution is excellent and the overall sound is very transparent. The top end, similarly, is present but not overbearing. As with the other HiFiMan earphones, it is delicate and refined. For an accuracy-oriented earphone the RE-400 is rather smooth and forgiving – it is a little more tolerant of sibilance than, for example, the Etymotic ER-4S. Treble extension is quite good, which tends to be the case with HiFiMan sets – certainly on-par with other high-end dynamics such as the VSonic GR07 and Sony EX1000.

The presentation of the RE-400 is versatile and uncongested. Separation lags a hair behind the ER-4S and RE272, which seem to benefit from the lack of a mid-bass lift, but really isn’t far behind these (far pricier) flagships. The overall sense of space easily beats out similarly-priced sets such as the MEElec A161P and Ultimate Ears 600, and even offers slightly better depth than the older RE-ZERO. Like the rest of the RE-400’s sound, the presentation is very, very difficult to fault.

Value (10/10) – The latest iteration of the balanced-and-accurate dynamic-driver earphone from HiFiMan, the RE-400 offers an audible tuning change from the old RE0 and RE-ZERO models. It produces slightly weightier bass, a more well-rounded presentation, and smooth, forgiving treble while still offering accuracy on a level very rarely found at or near its price point.

Additional improvements over the previous-gen RE-ZERO include a more robust construction and better noise isolation, mostly due to the more compact, deep-sealing form factor. The RE-400 also boasts much nicer packaging, though there is still a disappointing dearth of accessories. The no-frills approach is fine by me - the RE-400, like its predecessors, is a listener's IEM. All in all, adding a hint of warmth to an otherwise neutral sound should let RE-400 appeal to the casual listener better than the models it replaces while holding very close to the HiFiMan sound many—myself included—have come to love.

Pros: Very smooth & balanced sound; small & comfortable;
Cons: Cable noise can be bothersome in cable-down configuration

(2C55) Astrotec AM-800

Added Mar 2013

Details: Beautiful wood-and-metal earphone from Astrotec
Current Price: $65 from lendmurears.com (MSRP: est $65)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: 8-27k Hz | Cable: 3.9' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), foam eartips, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The housings of the AM-800 are an extremely handsome combination of brushed metal and lacquered wood, with fit and finish deserving of a much higher price point. The cable is more plasticky and memory-prone than the excellent rubberized cord used on the AM-90 model but still resists tangling well and feels sturdy. The strain reliefs, too, are supple enough to inspire confidence in the construction
Isolation (2.5/5) – Average due to the shallow fit and vented design
Microphonics (4/5) – Decent when worn cable-down; nonexistent otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – The wood-and-metal housings are surprisingly lightweight and designed for a shallow fit. Comfort is very good with both silicone and foam tips

Sound (7.8/10) – While the cheaper DX-60 is a passable-yet-forgettable entry-level headset, the AM-800 leaves the lasting impression of a solid all-around performer. It pursues a mildly v-shaped signature with punchy bass and bright treble. The low end is similar to that of the VSonic GR06 – slightly above neutral in quantity, but far from overbearing. There is less impact and subbass depth compared to the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition but better control compared to the Brainwavz M5 and the lower-end Astrotec DX-60, with the latter sounding downright sloppy in comparison to the AM-800.

The bass is quick enough that midrange bleed is a non-issue, and the overall balance is better than with many competing sets. The AM-800 is less mid-recessed than the GR02 Bass Edition and MEElec CC51, for example. The mids are clear and open-sounding, making competitors such as the Brainwavz M5 appear a little veiled and congested in comparison. The treble of the AM-800 is smoother and less sibilant compared to the GR02 Bass Edition but can still get a touch harsh next to some higher-end sets. There is more treble energy than with sets such as the Brainwavz M5—a good thing in my book—and top-end extension is good as well.

The presentation of the AM-800 is on the large side, with an airy, out-of-the head feel. It is a little wider and more spacious than the VSonic GR02BE and similar to the GR06, albeit with a touch less depth. The treble extension helps, as does the lack of congestion typically caused by mid-bass bloat. Overall, while the AM-800 doesn’t quite have the imaging of higher-end sets, it is more than capable enough for its price bracket.

Value (9/10) – The AM-800 is one of the best-looking earphones I’ve come across in a long time, but it’s more than just a pretty face. Average isolation aside, the AM-800 is the total package – well-made, comfortable, and plenty good-sounding. The clear, mildly v-shaped sound puts the performance of the AM-800 in good company with the likes of the ECCI PR401 and VSonic GR06. All in all, there’s really not much to complain about here – the AM-800 is a great mid-range earphone for both first-time IEM users and those seeking to upgrade from an entry-level model.

Pros: Great aesthetics; well-built; impressive sound quality
Cons: Mediocre isolation

(2C56) Audio-Technica ATH-CKM500

Added May 2013

Details: mid-level Audio-Technica model with a form factor similar to the CKM99
Current Price: $60 from accessoryjack.com (MSRP: $79.99); $90 for CKM500i with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 5-25k Hz | Cable: 2' I-plug + 2’ L-plug extension
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: standard single-flanges, short bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (3/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), carrying pouch, and 2’ extension cable
Build Quality (4/5) – Plastic housings combine with sturdy cables and flexible strain reliefs to provide very solid construction. The stereo version boats a modular cable while the CKM500i headset has a 1-piece cord
Isolation (3/5) – Average due to shallow-fit design
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Cable noise can be bothersome and is difficult to eliminate as these must be worn cable-down and lack a cable cinch
Comfort (4.5/5) – The housings are not small, but are lightweight and ergonomically designed. Like the pricier CKM99, the CKM500 uses a half in-ear design with no sharp edges to provide a comfortable and secure fit.

Sound (8/10) – Like the far more expensive CKM99 I reviewed a while back, the CKM500 is a slightly v-shaped earphone with powerful bass and a wide presentation. The most noticeable quality is the strong mid-bass response – there is more mid-bass impact than, for example, with the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition or the rather bass-heavy HiSound Wooduo2. Deep bass is present as well but less prominent in comparison, resulting in sets like the Sony MH1C and Wooduo 2 appearing to have cleaner, more prominent sub-bass. The strong mid-bass response does take away from the overall finesse of the earphone but will undoubtedly find its fans.

Though the sound of the CKM500 is heavy on the bass, apparent midrange recession is mild and confined to the lower midrange, with the upper mids coming across strong and clear in typical Audio-Technica fashion. The v-shape is noticeable mostly because of the intrusive, somewhat bloated mid-bass. Note thickness is good, which is not the case with the mids of certain other v-shaped earphones, and the clarity is surprisingly great considering the bass quantity of the earphones. The CKM500 is not as clear as the thinner-sounding, more balanced VSonic VC02 but easily beats the more veiled-sounding Brianwavz M5 and most other bass-heavy dynamics in its price range.

The top end is where Audio-Technica earphones can sometimes be overly energetic but the CKM500 does pretty well. There is a good amount of treble energy and some very mild grain but nothing too harsh at reasonable volumes. The treble is not too sparkly and extension is good. The VSonic GR02 Bass Edition, while a little more crisp and clean at the top, is also more sibilant. Soundstage width is also good, as is the case with the pricier CKM99, but the midbass bloat hurts the overall presentation, causing some congestion. Despite the good width and overall sense of space, there’s not a ton of depth to the sound, though the CKM500 still performs well enough to draw comparisons with pricier sets.

Value (9/10) – The ATH-CKM500 is yet another solid offering from one of Japan’s best-known headphone manufacturers. The earphone impresses with its strong bass, good midrange clarity, and spacious presentation, all wrapped up in a comfortable angled-nozzle housing with a strong cable and good strain reliefs. The CKM500 strikes me as the perfect upgrade to the newly-popular TDK MT-300 and an alternative to other mid-level heavy-hitters such as the VSonic GR06 and Shure SE215.

Pros: Good overall sound quality with strong bass; comfortable and lightweight
Cons: Bass bloated at times; modular cable in 2’+2’ configuration may be an issue for some

Big thanks to Anaxilus for the CKM500 loan!

(2C57) Dunu DN-23 Landmine

Added Jun 2013

Details: Mid-range dynamic-driver earphone from Dunu

Current Price: N/A (MSRP: $80)

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 120 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9' L-plug

Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Hybrid-style single-flanges

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) - Single-flange regular (3 sizes), hybrid-style (3 sizes), and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, ¼” adapter, airline adapter, soft carrying pouch, clamshell carrying case, and integrated cable wrap

Build Quality (5/5) – As with the cheaper DN-22M, the construction is extremely solid. The metal housings have great finish and the cable is smoother and more tangle-resistant than with some of the other Dunu earphones

Isolation (3.5/5) – Very good for a dynamic-driver earphone

Microphonics (4/5) – Pretty good when worn cable-down; excellent when worn over-the-ear

Comfort (3.5/5) – The housings are one the heavy side and flare out to hold the drivers, which can lead to mild discomfort in the long term. The earphones lend themselves well to over-the-ear wear

Sound (7.5/10) – Like the entry-level DN-22M Detonator, the DN-23 Landmine is a warm and smooth-sounding earphone reminiscent of Dunu’s popular Trident model. The bass of the DN-23 falls in the realm of “enhanced”, with more boost compared to the Trident but not quite as much as with the Detonator. It is very satisfying in both impact and depth but also rather clean and controlled, considering the quantity. Though the DN-23 sounds a little more full-bodied than both, bass tightness is actually about on-par with the Brainwavz M5 and VSonic GR02 Bass Edition.

Due in part to the more controlled bass, the DN-23 has clearer and more prominent mids compared to the DN-22M. The midrange presentation is spot-on – not overly forward, but not as recessed as with the Brainwavz M5 and VSonic GR02 BE. Detail retrieval is good and the midrange gives way to equally smooth treble. As with the lower-end DN-22M, the treble is inoffensive, without a hint of grain or sibilance. The DN-23 is not as rolled-off, however, which again leads to improved accuracy over the DN-22M.

The presentation of the DN-23 is spacious and well-rounded. The soundstage is larger and less intimate than with the Trident and DN-22M, and the earphones have a fairly open, airy, and uncongested sound. The DN-23 still isn’t as spacious as Dunu’s flagship Tai Chi model, but it’s not too far behind and competes well with other sets in its price bracket.

Value (8.5/10) – With its stellar build quality and smooth, easy-going sound, the DN-23 Landmine is a difficult earphone to dislike. It may not be as accurate and spacious as the higher-end DN-19 Tai Chi, but it’s an easy recommendation for fans of warm and smooth sound.

Pros: Fantastic build quality; well-accessorized; smooth, enhanced-bass sound

Cons: Housings a bit on the heavy side

(2C58) Ultimate Ears 600 / 600vi / Logitech UE 600

Added July 2013

Details: Long-running staple of the UE lineup previously known as the Super.Fi 5

Current Price: $60 from amazon.com (MSRP: $119.99); $120 for 600vi w/mic & 3-button remote

Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 13Ω | Sens: 115 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4' I-plug

Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock Comply, generic bi-flange

Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (4/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply foam tips (2 sets), and hard plastic carrying case

Build Quality (3.5/5) - All-plastic construction, color-coded nozzles, and chromed housings are all reminiscent of the lower-end UE earphones. The cable is identical to the one used by the UE 700 - soft and flexible, but plasticky and not very well-relieved

Isolation (3.5/5) - Nozzles are long and lend themselves to deep insertion fairly well. Isolation is good but still lags behind many pricier BA-based earphones

Microphonics (4.5/5) - Quite low in the soft and flexible cable, and can be eliminated completely with over-the-ear wear

Comfort (4.5/5) - The curved shells and long nozzles of the SF5 allow them to be worn either cord-up or cord-down quite easily, though the position of the mic suggests over-the-ear wear. The housings are very light and rarely come in contact with the ear, much like those of the Phonak PFE and Future Sonics Atrio earphones

Sound (8.6/10) - Originally known as the Ultimate Ears Super.Fi 5, the single-armature UE 600 took its spot in the UE lineup over from the dual-armature Super.Fi 5 Pro model. Sonically, it differs greatly from its predecessor, taking on a more balanced and accurate sound. At the low end, the UE 600 sounds like a typical single-armature earphone, lacking the enhanced bass of UE’s dynamic-driver models. The bass is very level and controlled, with impact that is on-par with the Etymotic Research HF5 and lags slightly behind the MEElec A161P.

The midrange, on the other hand, is more prominent. The UE 600 places the mids front and center. It is still more neutral than the vast majority of entry-level earphones but for me sounds slightly mid-centric, albeit very clear and refined. This could be due to an impedance interaction with my sources, but it is consistent across all of the ones I’ve tried. Tonally, the UE 600 is a touch warmer than the UE 700 and other TWFK-based sets, as well as the Etymotic HF5, but detail and overall transparency are still very good.

The top end of the UE 600 is clean and smooth, if not particularly sparkly. The UE can’t quite match the delicacy and detail of the HiFiMan RE-400 but still impresses with the slightly relaxed nature of its treble. There is absolutely no grain and the earphone tends to avoid harshness and sibilance. It is also not overly critical of lower-bitrate files. I would say this was done on purpose due to its low price point, but the flagship UE 900 model has similar tendencies. Admittedly, the UE 900 does have better treble presence, energy, and extension, sounding more natural overall, but there is also a huge price gap in play there.

The UE 600 possesses an impressively wide soundstage but doesn’t keep up too well with higher-end earphones. I found it lacking overall dynamics and the separation of higher-end sets such as the quad-driver UE 900 model. As a result, the soundstage has comparatively poor depth and layering and the overall sonic image is a bit flat, much like that of the similarly-priced Creative Aurvana In-Ear 3.

Value (9.5/10) - The UE 600 is a little plasticky in build but remains lightweight, comfortable, and fairly well-isolating courtesy of the included Comply eartips. The sound is neutral to somewhat mid-centric, with very good clarity, decent bass presence, and smooth, forgiving treble. It sounds great with music and is especially well-suited for audiobooks and phone calls with its forward, highly intelligible vocal presentation. Simply put, it’s a great fit for anyone in search of a comfortable earphone with excellent mids.

Pros: Comfortable form factor; very low cable noise; smooth, yet accurate sound

Cons: Plasticky build quality and typical UE cable; prone to impedance interactions with high-OI sources

(2C59) Nuforce NE-700X / NE-700M (2013 new version)

Reviewed October 2013

Details: Dynamic-driver in-ear from California-based Nuforce

Current Price: $65 from amazon.com (MSRP: $65); $75 for NE-700X version w/mic and 1-button remote

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.5’ L-plug

Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (6 pairs in 3 sizes), shirt clip, and soft carrying pouch

Build Quality (4/5) – The metal housings are nice and solid and feature strain reliefs that grip the circumference of the shell. A small red ring around the right strain relief takes the place of L/R indicators. The cable is rubbery and equipped with beefy y-split and 3.5mm L-plug

Isolation (3/5) – The somewhat bulky housings prevent deep insertion, resulting in average isolation

Microphonics (4/5) – Decent when worn cable-down; very good with over-the-ear fitment

Comfort (3.5/5) – The shells are on the large side and may not work for those with small ears due to their barrel-like shape but the light weight keeps them comfortable once fitted

Sound (7.6/10) – The 2013 version of the Nuforce NE-700X stays true to its predecessor, delivering a rich, full-bodied sound underpinned by tactile, powerful bass. The low end extends well and provides enough impact to satisfy all listeners, even serious bass fanatics. The low end is a bit slow but bloat is kept to a minimum, which is impressive considering the quantity of bass present. However, the earphone does have a tendency to add bass to the recording. In comparison, the bass of the Sony MH1C is almost as impactful as that of the NE-700X but sounds less intrusive.

The enhanced low end gives the NE-700X some warmth and coloration. Clarity is good for a bass-heavy earphone and the midrange doesn’t sound recessed, as one might expect, reminding me of the Sony MH1C. The treble, likewise, is smooth and pleasant, and the sound is free of harshness and sibilance. It is less energetic up top but also smoother than the HiSoundAudio Crystal and dynamic-driver VSonic sets. Overall, the tone of the NE-700X is a bit dark due to the slightly laid-back treble, but the earphone remains non-fatiguing even at higher volumes, which is a definitely plus.

The soundstage of the NE-700X is average in size, but tends to be well-rounded and makes for an involving listening experience. It doesn’t have the sheer width of the VSonic VSD1 but still sounds natural, boasting good separation and layering despite the heavy bass. Worth noting also is the NE-700’s consistency across sources and good efficiency, which make it a nice set to use with a smartphone or tablet.

Value (8.5/10) – The Nuforce NE-700X is a great earphone for those who like their sound smooth and impactful. It delivers bass in spades while sacrificing little in the way of all-around sound quality, with a nice construction and all-around usability to match. The 2013 version isn’t a total overhaul, but it does help the NE-700X stay competitive in an increasingly crowded market and makes it one of the best options out there for the type of sound it pursues.

Pros: Well-built; deep, plentiful bass with good overall audio quality

Cons: May be uncomfortable for those with smaller ears; bass can be intrusive

(2C60) Moe Audio MOE-SS01

Reviewed December 2013

Details: Dual dynamic driver earphone from China-based Moe Audio, closely related to the JVC HA-FXT90

MSRP: $65 (manufacturer’s page)

Current Price: $64 from lendmeurears.com

Specs: Driver: Dual Dynamic | Imp: 12Ω | Sens: 107 dB | Freq: 8-25k Hz | Cable: 3.9' I-plug

Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges; MEElec “balanced” bi-flanges

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, and soft carrying pouch

Build Quality (4/5) – The SS01 uses plastic shells that clearly show the driver chambers and incorporate an “S” into the design. The earphones utilize a narrow flat cable that actually feels rather sturdy and is more user-friendly than most other flat cables, which tend to be either too thick and heavy, or too rubbery

Isolation (3/5) – Not bad despite the shallow-fitting shells

Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low when worn cable-down; nonexistent with over-the-ear wear

Comfort (4/5) – The drivers of the SS01 are arranged vertically, like those of the JVC FXT90, resulting in similarly-shaped housings. The earphones are lightweight, and despite their larger footprint in the ear are no less comfortable than most conventional straight-barrel IEMs, thanks in part to the angled nozzles. Over-the-ear wear is possible for those with larger ears but may require longer eartips than those provided. For me the SS01 is much more comfortable when worn cord-down

Sound (8/10) – The MOE-SS01 utilizes a driver setup similar to the pricier JVC HA-FXT90s - twin 5.8mm drivers made of different carbon composites. The sound bears some similarities to the JVCs but on the whole the discrepancies do add up to a rather different audio experience. I would summarize the sound of the SS01 as very clear, with a cool tonal character and slightly v-shaped response.

The bass of the SS01 is very impressive, perhaps second only to the earphone’s clarity in this regard. It is enhanced, but not overbearing, and has good punch and extension with virtually no bloat. The JVC FXT90, which the SS01 is closely related to, has more of a mid-bass hump and sounds warmer and fuller overall. The SS01 is a little on the thin side, especially with the way it presents male vocals, but otherwise the mids are quite good - mostly level and extremely clear.

The upper midrange and lower treble of the SS01 are quite prominent, lending guitars great presence and “crunch”. The treble is nice and energetic overall. It reminds me of the Audio-Technica ATH-CKM500 - not really peaky, but with an “edgy” character that occasionally bothers me (with a lot of heavy metal recordings, for example). At times, the SS01 can exaggerate sibilance a bit as well, but not nearly to the same extent as the average VSonic set. The FXT90, from memory, had a bit more treble sparkle but less of an edge to it.

The presentation has good width and decent imaging for something in this price range. It’s not quite as spacious and out-of-the-head as, say, a VSonic GR07, but it fares very well against similarly-priced sets. The SS01 is very efficient, too, reaching listening volume more easily than the GR07 and most other dynamic-driver sets.

Select Comparisons

VSonic VSD1S ($49)

One of my favorite sets in its price range, the VSD1S is a slightly v-shaped earphone that makes a pretty good match for the MOE-SS01 in overall performance. The VSD1S boasts a little more bass impact compared to the MOE and sounds warmer overall. The SS01 is leaner and cooler in tone but still has excellent bass presence. The earphones have similarly excellent clarity. Like most VSonics, however, the VSD1S tends to amplify sibilance. The SS01, on the other hand, is far less prone to exaggerating sibilance but sounds a little harsher in general. The SS01 also appears a touch more congested while the VSD1S is more airy and open-sounding.

SteelSeries Flux In-Ear ($50)

The Flux is another of my favorite budget-friendly in-ears and again tends to be a touch v-shaped, making it a good competitor for the SS01. The Flux has similar bass impact but boasts a touch more sub-bass weight in comparison, making the SS01 sound a little more “hollow”, or lacking footing, in the bass region. The mids of the Flux, on the other hand, are more recessed and sound veiled as a result. The SS01 is significantly clearer, but also tends to sound thinner. The added treble of the brighter SS01 also makes it harsher overall whereas the Flux by and large remains smooth, if a little grainy and unexciting.

Philips Fidelio S1 ($95)

The Philips Fidelio S1 is one of several reasonably well-balanced earphones in the sub-$100 price bracket. Like the SS01, the Fidelio S1 boasts enhanced bass and prominent, crisp upper mids and treble. As with the SteelSeries Flux, the Philips earphones boast a touch more sub-bass weight compared to the MOE, sounding more solid when it comes to bass punch. Tonally, the Philips earphones are warmer, with mids that appear a bit fuller and smoother. The MOE-SS01 is brighter and harsher and sounds a little less natural overall in terms of tone and timbre but easily keeps up in clarity and detail, which is impressive. The presentations tend to be similar, with pretty good width and average depth.

HiFiMan RE-400 ($99)

The RE-400 and MOE-SS01 are two very different takes on near-neutral sound. Despite having less bass presence, the RE-400 is warmer, sounding more mid-centric overall. Its treble is smoother and more refined. The SS01, on the other hand, tends to be more v-shaped in signature—it is bassier but also brighter compared to the RE-400. The added treble can make it sound harsh next to the HiFiMan set, but also allows it to appear clearer at times. The smoother RE-400 tends to sound more natural through the treble region but lacks the striking clarity of the MOE.

Value (9/10) – The MOE-SS01 is a dual dynamic earphone with a slightly cool tonal tilt and great clarity. There is a bit of treble harshness but for the price the performance leaves almost nothing to complain about – the SS01 can compete with the best sets in its price tier and beyond. Sound quality aside, the SS01 also boasts a nice construction with an excellent, low-noise cable and is surprisingly comfortable thanks to its light weight. Call me crazy but I don't mind the look of it, either – at the very least I won't mistake this earphone for anything else in my collection. For fans of clear, punchy earphones, the SS01 is nothing short of an excellent buy.

Pros: Fantastic clarity, great bass quality; low cable noise

Cons: Large footprint may not be comfortable for those with small ears

(2C61) HiSoundAudio BA100

Reviewed February 2014

Details: HiSound’s first Balanced Armature earphone with a driver of their own design
MSRP: $99 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $75 from ebay.com
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 36Ω | Sens: 109 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ 45°-degree plug with mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, MEElec M6 single & bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), cable winder, shirt clip, and zippered carrying case
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The design of the BA100 seems similar to that of the aging HiSound Crystal, yet is different in a couple of ways. First, it uses two-step nozzles – a solution I haven’t seen for a while which allows two different positions for the eartips. The nozzles are flared at the front and show off the copper construction of the earphone housings. The BA100 also has a different cable compared to the Crystal, which feels a bit less durable but is holding up admirably so far. There is no cable cinch
Isolation (4/5) – Can be very good but varies depending on where the eartips are positioned as well as how deep the earphones are inserted
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Can be bothersome, but greatly reduced with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4.5/5) – As noted above, the BA100 allows eartips to be either pulled all the way on to the nozzle, or positioned further out using the additional lip. I ended up preferring to keep the tips on the outer notch, but the difference it made wasn’t huge. I quite like the BA100 for comfort – the housings are very light and slim, kept entirely away from the outer ear. They are easy to wear over-the-ear and can be very comfortable with the right eartip configuration

Sound (7.9/10) – The BA100 is HiSoundAudio’s first balanced armature earphone and its drivers are said to be designed by, or at least built to specification from, HiSound themselves. For those not intimately familiar with balanced armatures, this is a pretty big deal as most balanced armatures, especially those used by Western brands, come pre-tuned from one of two major balanced armature OEMs – Knowles or Sonion. This is why, for example, it can be said that the Ultimate Ears 700, Brainwavz B2, and VSonic VC1000 (among many others) “share” a driver – they all use the Knowles TWFK armature, although potentially different variants of it.

The driver in the BA100 has a rather unique voicing and most likely does not come from either Knowles or Sonion. What surprised me most at the outset, however, was its low efficiency. For a BA it’s really not very efficient despite the rather high stated sensitivity. This is not an issue other than making volume-matched comparisons against other earphones a bit more difficult, and of course requiring a notch or two of extra volume from the source.

On to the sound – what HiSound has created here is a balanced-sounding earphone with a rather neutral tonal character. Bass quantity is low-to-medium – it is not the most impactful, but certainly good for a single balanced armature. The extension is there but the earphone just lacks the rumble and air movement at the lowest lows compared to many dynamic-driver and multi-BA sets. Bass control is quite good – for example the VSonic VSD1S and Astrotec AM-800, two of my favorite sub-$100 dynamic-driver earphones, sound bassier – but also more boomy – compared to the BA100.

The mids of the BA100 are not very prominent but the earphone can’t be accused of having a recessed midrange, either. The VSD1S, for example, sounds noticeably v-shaped in comparison. The BA100 has similar clarity to the VSD1S and lags just behind the brighter AM-800 and VSonic VC02. Compared to the BA100, the Ultimate Ears 600, another solid sub-$100 BA earphone, sounds more forward in the midrange and also a touch cleaner, as if lifting a slight veil or bit of distortion that’s present over the BA100. This is not at all noticeable on EDM tracks, for example, but rather with rock and metal, especially with the presence of distorted guitars.

At the top, the BA100 has strong enough treble presence, albeit with only moderate extension. Its treble is not particularly peaky, but with an “edgy” character that on occasion manifests in a bit of harshness, especially since the neutral bass quantity and lack of brightness make it easy to inadvertently raise the volume. The VSD1S, AM-800, and VC02 all have more sibilance compared to the BA100 while the UE600 is smoother than the HiSound unit.

The presentation of the BA100 is good – more spacious compared to the majority of sub-$100 BA sets, especially those based on the Knowles SR driver. The BA100 doesn’t have great dynamics but definitely doesn’t sound as small as the SR-based earphones. It lacks some air compared to the UE600 and some width compared to Astrotec’s rather spacious-sounding AM-800 but overall puts up a good performance for the price.

Select Comparisons

Astrotec AM-90 ($44)

Seeking a good example of Knowles’ entry-level SR armature, better known as the “Siren”, to compare to HiSound’s freshman BA effort, I selected the Astrotec AM-90, one of the best SR implementations I’ve tried alongside the MEElectronics A151 and Rock-It Sounds R-20. SR-based earphones tend to struggle a little at the bottom and up top but generally produce nice mids with a warmer tone compared to many other BA earphones. Indeed, the AM-90 sounds mid-centric next to the HiSoundAudio set, with a more intimate midrange and a touch more mid-bass presence for a warmer overall tone. The BA100 has more capable subbass and less forward mids with no loss in clarity. The AM-90 has smoother, more relaxed treble whereas the BA100 is a little brighter and more balanced overall. It also has a more spacious presentation than the somewhat intimate-sounding Astrotec unit.

Moe Audio MOE-SS01 ($65)

The MOE-SS01 is a very unique earphone in its price bracket, utilizing twin 5.8mm dynamic drivers to deliver a crisp, bright, and somewhat v-shaped sound. Compared to the BA100, the SS01 has greater deep bass emphasis and sounds more effortless when it comes to subbass rumble and slam. Its dynamic drivers produce a more natural bass presentation. Despite its bass presence, however, the SS01 has excellent clarity. Both earphones have strong presence in the upper midrange and lower treble and can sound a bit edgy, even approaching harsh, but the SS01 has a little more energy overall, which gets it in more trouble on occasion. However, the greater treble energy and extension of the SS01 also give it a more open and clear sound overall.

HiFiMan RE400 ($99)

One of my most-used benchmarks in the sub-$100 range, the RE-400 is an accuracy-oriented dynamic-driver earphone with a near-neutral sound signature. To the BA100’s credit, it can keep up with the RE-400 in bass depth but the dynamic-driver HiFiMan unit provides greater bass impact. The midrange is the focus of the presentation with the RE-400, and the HiFiMan sounds stronger and a touch clearer than the BA100 there. At the top, the RE-400 is extremely smooth and slightly relaxed while the BA100 has a more prominent – and harsher – upper midrange and lower treble region. The RE-400 also has excellent treble refinement and extension, and sounds more natural to me on the whole as a result.

MEElectronics A161P ($100)

The A161P utilizes a different balanced armature driver from Knowles than the Astrotec AM-90 – the ED. Compared to the BA100, the A161P offers up punchier bass and mids that are stronger and clearer. The BA100 lacks some of the midrange forwardness and clarity, appearing to have a slight veil, or perhaps even a bit of barely-audible distortion – in the midrange. In the upper midrange the A161P begins to appear a little grainy while the BA100 is a touch harsher, likely in the 3-5k range, and neither has a major advantage over the other in treble quality. Neither earphone has a very large soundstage, either. Worth noting also is the enormous difference in efficiency between these two earphones, the A161P reaching ear-splitting volumes almost too easily, and the BA100 requiring quite a push.

Value (7.5/10) – HiSoundAudio’s first BA-based earphone is a solid entrant in the sub-$100 price bracket. I love the small size, light weight, and comfortable fit of the earphones, as well as the solid noise isolation. I like the balanced and neutral sound, too, though there is a bit of room to grow and the overall performance can be somewhat genre-dependent. It is a step above most entry-level BA-based earphones but also requires more power than much of the competition. Still, the BA100 is a compelling buy at current pricing, especially for those outside the US.

Pros: small and lightweight form factor; good noise isolation; balanced sound signature
Cons: less sensitive than most BA earphones; treble quality could be better

(2C62) Astrotec AX-35

Reviewed May 2014

Details: sub-$100 hybrid in-ear from China-based Astrotec
MSRP: est $87 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $70 from ebay.com
Specs: Driver: BA+Dynamic hybrid | Imp: 12Ω | Sens: 107 dB | Freq: 12-23k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Comply T-400, Stock foam, Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), foam tips (1 pair), over-the-ear cable guides, and metal carrying tin/case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – Very solid, as with the other Astrotec sets I’ve tried. The AX-35 uses machined aluminum housings and nozzle filters, and the brushed metal aesthetic is very appealing. The strain reliefs are flexible and the sturdy cable is covered with a translucent sheath. It’s a very nice cable – quiet, flexible, and highly tangle-resistant
Isolation (3/5) – Average noise isolation despite the earphones having housings suitable for a relatively deep seal
Microphonics (4/5) – Low when worn cable-down and nonexistent when used cord-up
Comfort (4/5) – The elongated nozzles and rounded edges of the AX-35 make it one of the more comfortable straight-barrel designs I’ve tried. The shells stay farther out of the ear, preventing fatigue, and also allow for a deeper seal. They might be a bit long for those with steeply-angled ear canals but for most they should be very comfortable

Sound (8.5/10) – The Astrotec AX-35 is a dynamic + single BA hybrid earphone that utilizes a Knowles ED armature driver and competes with the likes of the T-Peos H-100 and Dunu DN-900, albeit at a significantly more attractive price point. The signature of the AX-35 is somewhat v-shaped thanks the combination of bright, energetic treble and the mild mid-bass emphasis of the dynamic driver.

Though I wouldn’t call it bass-heavy, the AX-35 does have good low-end presence and punch. Its bass is not the deepest but the mid-bass emphasis is greater compared, for example, to the dynamic-driver VSonic GR07. The GR07’s bass is a bit tighter but less emphasized in the mid-bass region, and less impactful as a result. In fact, the overall bass quantity of the AX-35 is closer to that of the GR07 Bass Edition. This does result in the low end being less tight compared, for example, to the MEElectronics A161P, which is also based on the Knowles ED balanced armature, or the VSonic VC1000, but it also means that the bass quantity will suit a wider range of listeners. Indeed, improving on the bass response of single BA systems is one of the usual motivations behind hybrid designs such as this one, and the AX-35 does succeed in delivering bass.

The enhanced bass of the AX-35 combines with the thinner note presentation of its midrange to give the earphones a slightly v-shaped sound. Clarity is limited by the mid-bass but the AX-35 still manages to keep up with the more mid-forward Ultimate Ears 600. It lags behind VSonic’s higher-end GR07 and VC1000 models, both of which are more balanced-sounding and neutral in tone. The VC1000 especially makes for a stark contrast to the AX-35, with its strong mids making the Astrotec unit sound withdrawn and distant in the midrange.

At the top, the AX-35 has good presence and energy, falling a bit on the bright side of neutral. The treble sounded better to me at lower volumes but the mids aren’t quite strong enough at those same volumes for my liking, so I ended up taming the top end with foam eartips instead. The treble character is not unlike that of the MEElectronics A161P, which is based on the same BA driver – a little harsh and unrefined, but overall not far behind popular higher-end sets such as the VSonic GR07. What sibilance does show up can be tamed with the right eartips.

The presentation of the AX-35 is wide, with good air and separation between instruments. Earphones such as the Ultimate Ears 600 and MEElectronics A161P, which have more forward presentations, sound overly intimate next to the AX-35 and lack both soundstage depth and separation in comparison.

Mini Comparisons

VSonic VSD1S ($49)

VSonic’s entry-level VSD1S is a dynamic-driver earphone with a slightly v-shaped sound signature. It has more bass, especially mid-bass, than the AX-35, which gives it a warmer tonal character but takes away from the midrange clarity. As a result, the AX-35 is clearer. It’s also brighter in tone, though the VSD1S is by no means dark-sounding. The VSD1S tends to be a little more sibilant while the AX-35 is a little splashier. The AX-35 has a slightly wider presentation, though the VSD1S is no slouch.

Philips Fidelio S1 ($95)

The Fidelio S1 offers up a more balanced sound while the AX-35 tends to be more v-shaped in response. The Astrotec unit has more bass but the extra enhancement comes in the mid-bass region, so it doesn’t have an advantage in bass depth. The Fidelio S1 is more mid-centric in comparison and has fuller, more fleshed-out mids while the AX-35 is a little thinner-sounding. Neither unit is especially smooth in the treble – the S1 has some emphasis in the lower treble region, which gives guitars a characteristic crunch, while the treble emphasis of the AX-35 comes in higher up, resulting in a slightly more sibilant sound. The AX-35 has a slightly more 3-dimensional presentation with better layering compared to the Philips, and is also noticeably more efficient.

HiFiMan RE-400 ($99)

The sound of the HiFiMan RE-400 is more midrange-focused compared even to the Philips Fidelio S1, so it provides a very striking contrast to the more v-shaped Astrotec AX-35. The AX-35 is bassier, but the RE-400 has a tighter, more controlled low end. The slightly looser bass and more recessed midrange of the AX-35 together cause it to sound more veiled than the HiFiMan set. The RE-400 is also very smooth at the top, whereas the significantly brighter and more energetic AX-35 can sound both harsh and sibilant in comparison. The AX-35 has a wider presentation than the RE-400.

T-Peos H-100 ($120)

Compared to T-Peos’ pricier H-100 hybrid, the AX-35 has a more conventional sound signature that should be less polarizing among listeners. It sounds fuller and has more bass than the H-100, albeit with a little more bloat as well. The H-100 sounds thinner and more scooped-out in the midrange, appearing a little clearer but also less natural from a tonal standpoint. The AX35 is more neutral and its presentation is less distant with better depth/layering. Its treble is surprisingly a little less forgiving than that of the brighter H-100, but overall I still think the majority of listeners will prefer the more inexpensive Astrotec unit.

Dunu DN-900 ($120)

Dunu’s DN-900 is another dual-driver hybrid, one that boasts fantastic deep bass but has only so-so clarity. The AX-35 can’t match the sub-bass prowess of the DN-900 but has similar overall bass impact. The DN-900 sounds a little thicker throughout but that doesn’t do its midrange any favors – it’s significantly muffled compared to the leaner AX-35. The Astrotec unit sounds more detailed and has brighter, crisper treble. The presentation of the two is about on-par but there’s just no making up for the comparatively poor overall clarity of the Dunu set.

Value (9/10) – Not only is the Astrotec AX-35 one of the most reasonably-priced hybrid designs on the market, it manages to skimp on none of the qualities that made me a fan of the lower-end Astrotec earphones – a polished design with great attention to detail, sturdy construction, and excellent user-friendliness. It makes for a very enjoyable listen, too, and the slightly v-shaped signature seems to particularly excel with electronic music.

Pros: Comfortable, well-built, and good-sounding hybrid earphones
Cons: Treble can be peaky in stock configuration; would have preferred a standard case to the included tin

(2C63) Rock Jaw Alfa Genus

Details: Variable-tuning earphone from England-based Rock Jaw

MSRP (UK): £49.99; MSRP (US): $79.95
Current Price: $72 from amazon.com; £46 from amazon.co.uk
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 108 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, MEElec M6 single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), interchangeable tuning nozzles (3 pairs), and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The Alfa Genus is made of wood and aluminum and uses a variable tuning system with interchangeable metal nozzles. The cable is internally braided, more flexible than others of its type, and has very soft strain reliefs – so soft that care should be taken not to bend them at too sharp an angle. No cable cinch is present and L/R markings can be quite hard to see, but the skinny L-plug is great – it works with fat phone cases and recessed jacks while providing ample strain relief
Isolation (3/5) – Average for an earphone of this type
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Present when worn cable-down but can be eliminated with over-the-ear wear, which is made easy by the soft strain reliefs and compact housings
Comfort (4/5) – The housings of the Alfa Genus are slim and lightweight, allowing for excellent wearing comfort, and the earphones are easily worn cable-up or cable-down

Sound (8.1/10) – The Rock Jaw Alfa Genus utilizes a tuning system in the form of threaded nozzles, which can be swapped to alter the sound. Variable tuning earphones are not a novel concept but in my experience interchangeable nozzles are more effective in changing the sound of an earphone than rear ports or tuning screws. The last earphone I encountered with this kind of setup was the Torque t103z. The three settings of the t103z were extremely varied, but none impressed me very much, which is not the case with the Alfa Genus.

Three pairs of color-coded nozzles are included with the Alfa Genus – the silver and black were original “enhanced bass” and “reference” configurations, respectively, while the gold (aka champagne) nozzles were added later, meant to fit between the other two in sound tuning.

There are sizable differences in sound between the nozzles. The silver pair delivers a v-shaped, enhanced-bass sound along the lines of a Brainwavz S1. The bass is powerful and very deep, but also a bit intrusive and boomy. For an earphone with plentiful bass it’s quite good, but also leaves some room for improvement on the fidelity front.

The black nozzles follow the original “reference” tuning, which is much flatter-sounding. It lacks the powerful bass of the silver nozzles and has better clarity with no bass bloat at all. Unfortunately, severing the bottom end of a v-shaped signature means that what remains is bright treble. Indeed, with the black nozzles the Alfa Genus sounds somewhat bright and a little harsh, partly because there is no longer that heavy bottom end to counterbalance the prominent treble.

The third and final option are the gold (champagne) nozzles, which were not present in older batches of the Alfa Genus. The tuning of these is positioned between the other two, but closer to the black “reference” setting. The gold configuration provides a warmer, smoother, slightly bassier sound and could be nicknamed the “natural” setting – while the black tuning sounds a little clearer, it is also brighter and harsher. Compared to the enhanced-bass silver nozzles, the gold ones sound clearer, tighter, more balanced and neutral, and again more natural. Interestingly, the gold nozzles raise acoustic impedance noticeably compared to the other two, resulting in a slightly quieter sound.

As always, the sound score provided is given with preferred tuning (gold nozzles). The silver enhanced-bass nozzles are also very good and would score maybe 0.2 less. The black nozzles are the one setting I am not a fan of with gold as an alternative.

Because of the wide variation in audio performance between the nozzles, I thought it best to split them up when putting the audio performance in context.

The silver configuration of the Alfa Genus boasts more bass than the average in-ear, sounding deeper and more impactful at the expense of being a little boomy. In this configuration the Alfa Genus is bassier – and more v-shaped on the whole – than sets like the Ostry KC06, Philips TX2, and T-Peos Rich200, but also not as clear.

The gold nozzles, on the other hand, have very well-measured bass response. They are not as bassy as the TX2, Rich200, Ostry KC06, or even the Havi B3 Pro I. The bass is also quite tight – more so, for example, than that of the mid-bassy KC06. Compared to more analytical earphones such as the BA-based MEElectronics A161P and the VSonic VC02, which have rather flat bass with good extension, the Alfa Genus has a little more mid-bass and sounds less neutral.

Through the midrange and treble, the gold tuning of the Alfa Genus is balanced and smooth – more so, for instance, than the TX2 and Rich200. It is brighter than the Havi B3, but also a touch clearer thanks to having slightly greater upper midrange presence and less warmth. In fact, clarity lags just a hair behind the pricier, BA-based MEElectronics A161P. The black nozzles make the Alfa Genus brighter and introduce a bit of harshness, for me sounding a little too sharp in the treble and colored in terms of overall tonality.

The presentation of the Alfa Genus doesn’t change much between the silver and gold nozzles – both put the Rock Jaw unit ahead of the somewhat congested-sounding Rich200 and behind the TX2 and KC06 in soundstage size. With the black nozzles you get a more forward sound that gives up some soundstage width and imaging ability.

Select Comparisons (Note: in each comparison the tuning nozzles with the best sound signature match were selected)

VSonic VSD1S ($40) (Silver nozzles)

Its enhanced-bass tuning fashions the Alfa Genus into a strange beast, one that maintains a rather lean note presentation through the midrange and treble while delivering gobs of deep, powerful bass. Compared to VSonic’s VSD1S, the Alfa Genus has slightly more potent bass punch but sounds less warm and full-bodied overall. Treble is a little more present with the Rock Jaw set, but still less sibilance-prone than that of the VSonic. The Alfa Genus also sounds a little clearer thanks to the thinner note presentation and extra treble sparkle whereas the VSD1S has a more spacious and out-of-the-head soundstage.

Brainwavz S1 ($60) (Silver nozzles)

Brainwavz’ venerable S1 is the best all-around signature match I could find for the silver nozzles of the Alfa Genus. Both are v-shaped IEMs with heavy bass and prominent treble. The Alfa Genus is a touch boomier at the low end and less full-bodied in the midrange. As a result, its mids sound a touch more recessed, but also clearer. It is also smoother at the top and has marginally better imaging.

MOE-SS01 ($65) (Silver/Gold nozzles)

The dual-driver MOE-SS01 makes for an interesting comparison as its mildly v-shaped signature falls right between the silver and gold tunings of the the Alfa Genus. Next to the silver configuration, the SS01 is lighter on bass (mid-bass, mostly – there’s still plenty of deep bass), a little clearer, and more aggressive through the upper midrange and treble. The Rock Jaw has a deeper v-shape to its sound signature, sounding bassier but more bloated in comparison. Its midrange is more recessed and overall it is slightly warmer and smoother. In this configuration I preferred the more balanced SS01.

Switching the Alfa Genus to the gold tuning nozzles instantly turns the tables on the SS01. With the gold nozzles in place the Rock Jaw sounds more balanced and natural. It has stronger mids, less prominent bass, and smoother treble than the SS01, making the MOE seem overly bassy and a little too edgy up top in comparison. With the gold nozzles in place, I found the sound of the Alfa Genus preferable to that of the SS01.

HiSoundAudio BA100 ($65) (Gold/Black nozzles)

As with the MOE-SS01, the HiSound BA100 made for an especially interesting comparison as its sound fits between the gold and black nozzles of the Rock Jaw Alfa Genus, though in this case I preferred both configurations of the Rock Jaw unit.

With the gold nozzles in place the Alfa Genus sounds a little warmer and more natural than the BA100. Its bass is more full-bodied and realistic. The BA100 is a little closer to neutral tonally, but also harsher and more forward, intimate, even congested in terms of presentation.

Switching the Alfa Genus to black nozzles levels the field a little – in this configuration the Alfa Genus is brighter than the BA100, but also a little clearer. In my experience the brightness is a little excessive and makes certain things sound sharper than I like. The BA100 is again a little more neutral, this time not as bright as the Rock Jaw unit. It still sounds more intimate and congested than the Alfa Genus.

Value (8.5/10) – Rock Jaw scores a value win with their first official US release, the Alfa Genus. I quite liked the compact design, flexible cable, and slim plug of the earphones, but found myself wishing for slightly firmer strain reliefs and a cable cinch. The Alfa Genus is especially noteworthy for using a functional tuning system that actually changes the sound in a very obvious way. Both the silver and gold tunings are well worth the money, and two different sound signatures in a single earphone are always more interesting than one.

Pros: Sound tuning system allows both capable bass-heavy and balanced sound profiles; very comfortable form factor
Cons: Cable noise when worn cord-down; some design nitpicks

(2C64) UBSOUND Fighter

Added Feb 2015

Fighter In-Ear Earphone from Italy-based UBSOUND

MSRP: $69.90 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: UK: £49 from Amazon UK; Italy: EUR 65 from Amazon.it; $85 from ebay.com (US distribution coming soon)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 92 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug w/mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down (preferred) or over-the-ear

Accessories (2/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and drawstring carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The Fighter is a lightweight, aluminum IEM with a flat cable. There is a mic and 1-button remote on the cable, and the earpieces and I-plug are properly relieved. The raised L/R markings on the strain reliefs are difficult to see in low light
Isolation (3/5) – Average for an earphone of this type
Microphonics (3/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; good over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The housings are longer than we’ve seen with other earphones that share this sort of flared shape, such as the RHA MA350 and Dunu Trident, but are surprisingly lightweight and comfortable. In smaller ears the outer diameter may be tricky to fit properly, but for most these should be just as comfortable as any other lightweight, straight-barrel IEM. Over-the-ear wear can be tricky because the flat cable lacks a cinch

Sound (7.6/10) – The UBSOUND Fighter is a bass-heavy in-ear earphone with a warm and smooth sound signature. The low end is well-extended, with a nice balance of sub-bass and mid-bass – exactly the kind of thing I like to hear from basshead IEMs. Control is also pretty good considering the bass quantity and mid-level price tag.

The midrange sounds somewhat recessed, as expected with this level of bass, and has only average clarity. A contributing factor on top of the dominant bass and midrange recession is an upper midrange dip. A dip like this is not uncommon among higher-end Balanced Armature-based earphones, as those often have detail and clarity to spare and just need to sound a little smoother, but it is not something often seen with bass-heavy dynamic-driver sets.

As a result, the Fighter has lower vocal intelligibility than similarly bass-heavy sets with a more v-shaped response – for instance the Brainwavz S1 - though there are many lower-end earphones that sound still muddier and more veiled through the midrange. The dip in the upper mid region has another effect – the Fighter sounds very smooth, which is most noticeable when comparing it to earphones that aren’t normally considered harsh, such as the Nuforce NE-700X. At higher volumes, its inherent smoothness can make the Fighter sound more natural despite sacrificing some clarity.

In fact, that’s the real asset of the Fighter – it is smooth and non-fatiguing even at high volumes, yet carries decent overall treble energy. The Fighter is far from the crispest, clearest-sounding IEM in its price range, but there are earphones with even warmer sound that - at reasonable listening volumes – tend to sound downright treble-deficient compared to the Fighter. The presentation of the Fighter, likewise, doesn’t have the greatest depth or air but is not small or overly congested.

Narmoo S1 ($45)

Compared to the NarMoo S1, an enhanced-bass earphone currently included in my Earphone Buyer’s Guide, the Fighter is similar only in the general sense of being quite bass-heavy. The S1 follows a more v-shaped sound signature with even punchier bass and brighter – but also harsher – treble. It is clearer and has a wider soundstage while the Fighter is smoother, which at times makes it sound more natural. The Fighter has more recessed mids, especially upper mids, and vocals sound less clear and intelligible as a result. However, it is much more forgiving of sibilance and maintains composure better at louder volumes.

Tekfusion Twinwoofers ($50)

The Twinwoofers from India-based Tekfusion are a better sound signature match for the Fighter than the NarMoo S1 but are not able to keep up with the UBSOUND in performance. The Twinwoofers have more bass, but also more bloat, sounding boomier as a result. The Fighter, while less bassy, is still quite impactful and has a similarly warm tone. Its mids are a little recessed compared to those of the Twinwoofers, but overall the Fighter is clearer, smoother, and more refined, making the Twinwoofers sound a little harsh in comparison. Overall, the Fighter is quite a bit better.

Beats by Dre Tour 2.0 ($150)

The second-generation Beats by Dre Tour is a respectable bass-heavy IEM, but does not have much of a performance advantage over the less expensive Fighter. The Tour is a little warmer overall thanks to a slightly larger mid-bass hump, whereas the Fighter is a little more balanced and neutral. The Fighter has better treble energy, yet is even less harsh and more forgiving than the Beats thanks to its upper midrange dip. The tuning is a two-sided sword, however, as the Fighter is also less clear as a result of that same dip. Overall, I ended up preferring the Beats at low-to-medium volumes but at highest volumes the smoother nature of the Fighter was a strong asset, allowing it to remain more natural-sounding.

Value (7.5/10) – The UBSOUND Fighter is a unique-looking, lightweight, surprisingly comfortable earphone with the caveat of a slightly microphonic flat cable. The performance of the earphones hinges on plentiful bass – not unusual in this price range – but sets itself apart with a smooth (perhaps even smoothed-over) sound courtesy of a recessed upper midrange. It is not a hallmark of balance and accuracy, but it was nearly impossible to extract any sort of harshness from the earphones, and just for that it’s likely to be a great match for many bass-loving listeners.

Pros: Bass-heavy and extremely smooth sound; lightweight and comfortable
Cons: Upper midrange dip leads to mediocre clarity; can be microphonic when worn cable-down; packaging and accessories pretty basic for the price

(2C65) Sennheiser Momentum In-Ear

Added March 2015

Details: In-ear model from Sennheiser’s Momentum line

MSRP: $99.95 Available in 3-button iOS remote (MOMENTUM In-Ear i) and 3-button Android remote (MOMENTUM In-Ear G) versions
Current Price: $100 from Amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 18Ω | Sens: 118 dB/Vrms | Freq: 15-22k Hz | Cable: 4.3′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges; trimmed Monster triple-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips with cross-brace (4 sizes) and large carrying case with removable cable winder
Build Quality (3.5/5) – Sennheiser touts that no plastic was used in the acoustic components of the Momentum In-Ear. This is externally seen in the form of stainless steel sound tubes, but the actual housings of the earphones are still mostly plastic. Attention to detail is excellent, however, and the construction quality is good despite the apparent fragility. The Momentum uses a narrow two-tone flat cable with built-in 3-button remote (both iOS and Android versions are available) and slim L-shaped plug
Isolation (3.5/5) – Good
Microphonics (4/5) – Noticeable in the flattened cable but kept at bay by the “floating” cable attachment
Comfort (4/5) – Though it is not a small earphone, the Momentum In-Ear is comfortable thanks to the extremely light weight and smooth curves of its housings and the slim, angled nozzles. In addition, the cable attachment keeps the strain relief and cord farther out of the ear, preventing them from causing discomfort

Sound (8.6/10) – The Momentum In-Ear offers a rather unusual sound signature for Sennheiser, closest perhaps to the flagship IE800 model. It is v-shaped, with enhanced bass and energetic treble, and not as sensitive and ear-splittingly loud as one may expect from a consumer-oriented earphone.

The overall tone of the Momentum In-Ear is slightly warm, thanks to a generous amount of bass enhancement. Bass depth is excellent and the overall impact, while short of “basshead”, is plentiful, falling just between the bassier RHA MA750 and the more balanced VSonic GR07 Bass Edition. The bass enhancement is well balanced between sub-bass and mid-bass, and offers a minimal amount of bloat for the quantity.

The midrange of the Momentum is mildly recessed, in keeping with a v-shaped sound signature. However, due in large part to the plentiful bass, it does not sound overly thin. Clarity is limited slightly by the recession and bass boost, but on the whole it is more than respectable. Likewise, detailing is good for an enhanced-bass model but falls short of some flatter-sounding earphones. For instance, the popular Havi B3 Pro 1 has mids that are clearer and significantly more forward. However, it also sounds somewhat anemic and gutless at the low end compared to the Momentum, thanks to the far greater bass depth and power of the latter.

Starting with the upper midrange, the Momentum In-Ear again picks up steam, maintaining a rather high level of energy through the highs. It is still tilted towards the low end on the whole, but the treble presence provides a sound very different from most mainstream enhanced-bass earphones (such as the Beats by Dre Tour 2.0, for instance). The top end of the Momentum has a slightly splashy character that is not especially forgiving of either harshness or sibilance, but is still significantly less sibilance-prone than the similarly-priced VSonic GR07.

Like many earphones with v-shaped sound signatures, the Momentum In-Ear boasts a rather wide soundstage – on-par in size with the formidable VSonic GR07. Depth is, as with the GR07, lacking a bit in comparison to the width, but the combination of clarity and strong presence the highs and lows results in good dynamics and a very competent overall presentation.

Select Comparisons

HiFiMan RE-400 ($79)

The RE-400 is far flatter than the v-shaped, moderately bassy Momentum In-Ear. Its sound is more mid-focused, with less bass and treble presence compared to the Sennheiser set. The Momentum delivers more powerful and significantly deeper bass at the expense of a bit of bloat, while the tighter, flatter bass and lack of midrange recession in the RE-400 help it sound clearer and a touch more detailed overall. However, that same forward midrange makes the presentation of the RE-400 appear lacking in depth and dynamics compared to the Momentum.

The top end of the Momentum is more prominent and less smooth than that of the RE-400. There is more treble sparkle, but the Momentum is also prone to a bit of splashiness. On the whole it’s tough to determine the better earphone between these two – the RE-400 offers smoother, more natural treble and better midrange presence, while the Momentum delivers deeper, more impactful bass and a larger soundstage.

Fidue A71 ($90)

Compared to the Sennheiser Momentum In-Ear, the dual-driver A71 is less feature-rich and more finicky when it comes to fit, but offers a similar level of audio performance. Its bass is a little boomier – the tighter, more controlled lows of the Momentum leave a better impression and help the Sennheiser set sound a bit clearer despite its recessed midrange.

The mids of the A71 are not quite as clear, but a lot more forward, which balances out the intelligibility of vocals against the Momentum and makes the A71 sound richer and more full-bodied. The midrange of the more v-shaped Momentum tends to be a little thin and dry in comparison, but can sound more detailed and resolving than as well. The top end of the Fidue unit is smoother and its tone – warmer and arguably more natural. The A71 is also much more sensitive.

VSonic GR07 Classic ($99)

The GR07 Classic follows a more balanced and neutral sound signature than the warmer, more v-shaped Momentum In-Ear. The bass of the Sennheiser set is significantly deeper and more impactful, but also a little boomier and less refined than the tighter, flatter lows of the GR07.

The midrange of the Momentum is slightly more recessed while the GR07 is clearer and more detailed thanks to its flatter, more accurate response. The top end of the Momentum is less sibilant and not as bright, but otherwise the two earphones are in the same boat when it comes to highs – both tend to be energetic and at times a bit splashy. Both have wide soundstages with only average depth.

RHA MA750i ($130)

RHA’s MA750i model offers functionality similar to the iOS Momentum In-Ear, but in a very different form factor and with a warmer sound. The MA750 is bassier, boasting a bit more mid-bass emphasis but maintaining bass quality similar to the Momentum. Its sound signature can also be called v-shaped, but its mids are not quite as recessed as those of the Momentum.

The Momentum is a little brighter and at times can sound clearer, but also tends to be a little less full-bodied. The MA750 sounds slightly smoother overall, but actually has a bit more lower treble presence than the Momentum. Still, the Momentum is more v-shaped and has a greater tendency to sound splashy up top. The soundstage of the MA750 is also slightly larger.

Beats by Dre Tour 2.0 ($150)

This comparison is made very simple by the fact that the Momentum In-Ear is miles ahead of the Beats Tour 2.0 in fidelity. The Tour is more sensitive/efficient and much bassier, but its bass is significantly more bloated and boomy. The midrange is quite a lot muddier as well, though more forward than that of the Momentum. Despite its v-shaped sound sig and more recessed midrange, the Momentum sounds more balanced, clear, and refined with its tighter bass and superior treble energy. The treble presence and energy of the Momentum do make it less forgiving, but still not harsh even next to the dull-sounding Beats.

Value (9/10) – Sennheiser’s on- and over-ear Momentum models have been highly praised for successfully combining form and function, bringing Sennheiser audio performance to the style-focused headphone segment. The Momentum In-Ear follows in the same footsteps, boasting a unique design, comfortable, lightweight construction, and impressive audio performance. Combined with the choice of full-featured iOS or Android remotes – the latter still a relative rarity – this makes the Momentum an excellent value.

Pros: Lightweight and comfortable design; 3-button Android remote available; plentiful bass and solid overall performance
Cons: Midrange is a bit recessed

(2C66) NHT SuperBuds

Brief: First in-ear earphones from loudspeaker manufacturer NHT

MSRP: $129.99
Current Price: $70 from Amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 96.5 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ 45-degree plug w/ mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges; MEElec M6 single-flanges; Comply T200 (included)
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)

Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (5 sizes), Comply T200 memory foam tips (3 sizes), and zippered clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The SuperBuds’ earpieces are decidedly large and hefty, but also feel rock-solid. The cables are fabric-sheathed, and while the combination of heavy earpieces, fabric cords, and lack of external strain relief worries me a little, they’re holding up fine five months in. The cable features a mic with single-button remote on the left side and 45-degree termination. No cable cinch is present
Isolation (4/5) – Impressive, especially with the included Comply eartips
Microphonics (4/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; good otherwise. Very good considering the cloth cable
Comfort (3/5) – Heavy, wide housings will cause problems in smaller ears but the SuperBuds attempt to make up for it with a strong eartip selection – 5 sizes of good-quality silicone tips (including always-welcome XL and XS sizes) and 3 pairs of Comply memory foam tips. The SuperBuds can also be worn cable-up to mitigate the weight

Sound (7.7/10) – The NHT SuperBuds follow a surprisingly bass-heavy signature with a warm tone and smooth highs – perhaps a bit more Beats by Dre than I expected, but a bass fan’s delight to be sure. The bass is deep and powerful, with a slight mid-bass bias and relatively slow attack and decay resulting in a very full-bodied sound.

The SuperBuds’ bass quantity falls north of just about any IEM I’ve tried recently except maybe JVC’s Xtreme Xplosives line, and their slower bass presentation acts to further accentuate the low end. This sort of bass “bloom” also means the majority of less bassy earphones, even those with strong punch like Brainwavz’ similarly-priced S5, sound tighter and quicker at the low end but ultimately lack the sheer power and fullness of the NHTs.

The SuperBuds have a warm tonal character and sound thick and rich through the midrange. The mids of the SuperBuds are slightly veiled, but not recessed. As expected, they don’t reach the clarity or detail levels of less bass-heavy earphones like the Brainwavz S5, but the clarity is not bad at all for this type of sound. Sets with more v-shaped, mid-recessed signatures – again, like the S5 – tend to sound a little thin and “hollow” in comparison.

The top end of the SuperBuds is smooth and non-fatiguing at the expense of sounding a little darker and less crisp than the average $100 in-ear monitor. It does an excellent job of killing whatever harshness and sibilance may be present and maintains smoothness even at higher volumes, which makes it perfect for sensitive ears. The soundstage is also good for a bass-heavy earphone – spacious enough to digest all the bass and not overly prone to congestion.

Interestingly, the SuperBuds have lower than average sensitivity – they’re not quiet or anything, but listeners who equate volume with sound quality may prefer the more efficient Beats by Dre Tours or JVC Xtreme Xplosives. I found this aspect of the performance interesting – on one hand the SuperBuds have a sound signature that’s perfect for the mainstream, and on the other they act more along the lines of enthusiast earphones when it comes to the volume war.

Select Comparisons

JVC HA-FR301 ($40)

The intent of JVC’s Xtreme Xplosives headphone line is simple – to deliver as much bass as possible. The FR301 succeeds in matching the SuperBuds there, offering up a hair more mid-bass punch to boot, but lacks refinement. The overall response of the JVCs is much more v-shaped, with a ton more treble presence compared to the NHT set. The FR301 can sound a little clearer and more dynamic thanks to the extra treble energy and crispness, but the midrange is recessed and the top end is brighter and harsher, with occasional bouts of sibilance. The NHT set is muddier and more veiled, warmer in tone, and more dull in the treble, but its smoother sound is more natural and never unpleasant, which is more than can be said for the JVC unit.

UBSOUND Fighter ($75)

The Fighter from Italy-based UBSOUND can be thought of as a bargain Beats by Dre – a flat-cabled headset with flashy colors and enhanced-bass sound. Next to the SuperBuds, however, its bass response seems rather tame. The SuperBuds boast greater mid-bass presence for a more impactful and full-bodied sound, offering true basshead performance and a richer, warmer overall audio experience. The Fighter puts up less mid-bass and sounds more balanced, which should give it a clarity advantage over the SuperBuds, but doesn’t, most likely due to the Fighter’s upper midrange dip.

RHA MA750i ($130)

RHA’s pricier MA750i, like the NHT SuperBuds, is a metal-shelled earphone with a hefty construction and bass-heavy sound. Compared to the basshead-worthy SuperBuds, the low end of the MA750i is less impactful, but tighter and not as intrusive. It still has good punch but with quicker note attack and decay, which makes it sound leaner and short on slam next to the NHT set. The SuperBuds, with their more full-bodied note, are boomier and more veiled, but also more powerful.

The MA750i offers a brighter overall tone compared to the SuperBuds, with significantly more presence in the upper midrange. This also makes it sound a little “tizzy” and far less tolerant of harshness in comparison to the smoother NHTs. The MA750 is more spacious thanks to its brighter sound and better overall resolution.

Beats by Dre Tour 2.0 ($150)

The Tour 2.0 is a sizable improvement over the original Beats Tour, but still doesn’t offer very good value for money in sound alone. It is, however, very user-friendly and ergonomic. The plastic-shelled Beats are much lighter than the SuperBuds, for instance, and tend to be more comfortable and secure in the ear with their angled nozzles and optional ear fins.

Coming back around to sound, it almost seems like NHT set out to out-Beats the Tour 2.0 by tuning the SuperBuds to be slightly bassier, warmer, and richer-sounding. The SuperBuds’ bass is a little slower and its midrange – a little more veiled – but the smoothness can sound more natural and the presentation is a little less compressed. The Tour 2.0 is marginally clearer, a bit less full-bodied, and less forgiving at the top. It is also worth noting that the Beats are significantly more sensitive – potentially an issue for the SuperBuds with listeners who wrongly equate loudness with sound quality.

Value (7.5/10) – The NHT SuperBuds are substantial in both sound and design, with hefty metal housings to match the basshead-worthy performance. Indeed, these warm and smooth-sounding earphones are unashamedly bassy, reminding me of the pricier, now-defunct TFTA 1V. The 1V was another large, solidly-built, and very bassy earphone that I’m still itching to recommend when someone asks for the most explosive bass you can get in a decent-sounding in-ear package. Happily, I can now recommend the SuperBuds in its stead, and to anyone else in search of a basshead earphone without the extra spend – and stigma – of a Beats Tour 2.0.

Pros: Solidly built, good eartip selection, smooth sound with tons of bass
Cons: Large, hefty housings not ideal for small ears; tons of bass

(2C67) Alpha & Delta AD01

Reviewed July 2015

Brief: First offering from Lend Me UR ears’ new house brand

MSRP: approx. $98
Current Price: $91 from lendmeurears.com; $98 from Amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 9Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 10-25k Hz | Cable: 4.3′ L-plug, detachable w/ 2mm DC plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down (preferred) or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Sony Hybrid-style silicone tips (3 sizes), short double-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), foam tips (1 pair), and spacious zippered case with detachable wrist strap
Build Quality (4/5) – Thanks in large part to their size and heft, the metal housings of the AD01 feel very solid. The cables are detachable, with replacements available via Lend Me UR ears’ website. The earpieces are sold separately as well – always a big plus with detachable-cable earphones in case one is lost or damaged. Cable quality is nice enough – the stock cable is internally twisted and then covered with a smooth sheath. A more premium upgrade cable is available as well
Isolation (3/5) – Good for an earphone of this type
Microphonics (4/5) – Easily tolerable even when worn cable-down
Comfort (3.5/5) – The AD01 is a large straight-barrel earphone and fits similarly to most others. The smooth housings help prevent sore spots but the housing size, together with the strain relief length and angle, is less than ideal for over-the-ear wear

Sound (8.7/10) – The AD01 is the first earphone from Singapore-based headphone shop Lend Me UR ears’ new house brand, Alpha & Delta. It is a dual dynamic driver earphone with an interesting sound tuning – a mild v-shape with a bass bias. As a result, it falls somewhere between V-shaped and warm-and-smooth on my sound-o-meter. This is a pretty versatile signature that makes the AD01 a strong alternative – and potential upgrade – to some of my favorite sub-$100 earphones; the now-defunct SteelSeries Flux, for instance.

The bass of the AD01 is moderately enhanced, with impact and quality similar to the popular Sony MH1C. Both of these earphones can be a touch boomy compared to higher-end, less bass-heavy sets, but the bass also gives them a warmth and richness that, when combined with good clarity, makes for a very likable listening experience. Compared to the rather bass-heavy RHA MA750, on the other hand, the AD01 is decidedly more balanced, with tighter bass and a slightly more neutral tonal character.

Despite its v-shaped sound signature, the AD01’s midrange is not thin-sounding or significantly recessed. In this way it reminds me of the JVC HA-FXT90, another mildly v-shaped dual dynamic that doesn’t sound very mid-recessed. The slightly boosted upper mids and lower treble give the AD01 an advantage in clarity over the Sony MH1C, which has similar bass quantity and warmth. Clarity is on-par or slightly better than with the pricier RHA MA750, though it is impressive that the MA750 can keep up at all considering its greater bass emphasis.

In addition to the midrange being more full-bodied and prominent than could be expected, the AD01 sets itself apart from more conventionally v-shaped earphones with treble that’s neither harsh nor sibilant under normal conditions. Sure, it is brighter and less smooth than the golden standard of the Sony MH1C and HiFiMan RE-400, but compared to other v-shaped sets, especially those in the sub-$100 range, the AD01 strikes a good balance between “lively” and “overbearing”. At the very least, treble quality won’t be a constant caveat with every mention as it is, for instance, with VSonic earphones.

The AD01’s presentation maintains a pretty good sense of depth and width, sounding dynamic and engaging. It’s good for the type of warmer, more bass-biased sound it delivers, but naturally not as out-of-the-head compared to brighter, more airy-sounding sets such as the Ostry KC06, VSonic GR07, and DUNU DN-2000.

Mini Comparisons

SteelSeries Flux In-Ear ($50)

With a warm, clear, and relatively smooth sound, the Flux immediately became one of my favorite sub-$100 in-ears when it was released in late 2012. However, its durability left something to be desired and it was discontinued two years later. The Alpha & Delta AD01 is the most suitable Flux replacement I’ve come across so far, though it places a bit more emphasis on its bass and treble for a more v-shaped sound. The extra bass results in a slightly more full-bodied sound, yet the AD01 is still clearer than the Flux on the whole.

The Flux still has an advantage in overall balance/accuracy and maintains slightly tighter bass. However, its upper mids and treble, despite being less prominent, are a bit grainier compared to the smoother AD01. The AD01 is also quite a bit more efficient.

HiFiMan RE-400 ($79)

The RE-400 and AD01 fall on different sides of “neutral” in sound – the RE-400 is focused on the midrange while the AD01 is somewhat v-shaped, with boosted highs and lows. The AD01 has quite a bit more low-end power than the RE-400. Its bass is more boomy and intrusive, and the overall sound is warmer. The stronger highs of the AD01 are a little more metallic but at times can seem a touch clearer compared to the more laid-back, smooth, and dull RE-400.

The RE-400 has tighter bass, less full-bodied mids, and more neutral overall tone. Surprisingly, though, despite its brighter tone and thinner note presentation, it is not significantly clearer than the AD01. On the whole, while the RE-400 may offer a more refined and smooth sound, these two earphones are similar enough in performance and so different in sound tuning that each makes the other sound quite “off” in an A:B comparison.

VSonic VSD3S ($50)

Thanks to VSonic’s accelerating product release cycle as of late, the VSD3S is just one of several latest-gen, sub-GR07 models in the company’s lineup. However, to date it rates among my favorite sub-$50 IEMs. The AD01 offers a warmer, smoother, more full-bodied sound compared to the brighter VSD3S. Clarity is generally similar between the two earphones but on tracks with more bass the slightly more controlled low end of the VSD3S pays dividends. The VSD3S is more sibilant, however, and on the whole appears to be a touch more v-shaped. This is also mirrored in its slightly wider presentation, which puts more distance between listener and performance than does the more intimate AD01.

VSonic GR07 Classic ($99)

The GR07, in one form or another, has been around for nearly five years now and remains the IEM to match for admittance to the high-end IEM caste. At first listen, the GR07 compares to the AD01 just as the VSD3S does – the AD01 is again the warmer, bassier, and fuller-sounding earphone. It is smoother and less sibilance-prone than the brighter GR07, but also more intimate and not as out-of-the-head in terms of presentation.

Where the difference come in are the little details – the GR07 is just that little bit more balanced, poised, and refined than the VSD3S, which really shows when comparing both of the VSonics to a highly capable set like the AD01. The bass boost of the AD01 – and the slight boominess that comes with it – is much more noticeable when pitting the AD01 against the more balanced GR07 than against the VSD3S. The bass of the GR07 is tighter and more controlled. Clarity is better, too, though the difference is natural considering the AD01’s higher bass quantity – in fact, for such an impactful earphone the AD01 keeps up surprisingly well here.

Sennheiser Momentum In-Ear ($99)

Sennheiser’s latest and greatest factors into any conversation where v-shaped ~$100 earphones are involved. It is a great example of the breed, combining deep and powerful bass with a slightly withdrawn midrange and crisp treble for a textbook example of a v-shaped sound profile. The AD01 is slightly warmer than the Momentum and remains more full-bodied and rich through the midrange. The bass of the AD01 is a little boomier while the Momentum’s is tighter, but otherwise the Alpha & Delta unit tends to be a little clearer. This surprised me as I was expecting the thinner-sounding Momentum to pull ahead here, but the more recessed mids don’t do it any favors. The Momentum does have a slightly wider presentation while the bassier and more upfront AD01 has slightly better depth.

Value (9/10) – The first earphone from Lend Me UR ears’ Alpha & Delta brand offers a desirable sound tuning and very strong performance at a mid-tier price point. The mildly v-shaped sound delivers good bass punch and warm tone while avoiding most of the caveats of inexpensive v-shaped earphones. Additional perks include replaceable cables and a nice accessory kit. In many ways it reminds me of a 1^st-gen HiFiMan release – not in sound tuning, but in the way that the sound and a few other selling points make an earphone that’s a bit rough around the edges recommendable over many established brands.

Pros: Very impressive warm, slightly v-shaped sound; solid construction with replaceable cables
Cons: Bulky and not particularly sleek; L/R markings can be hard to see in low light

(2C68) Philips Fidelio S1

Reviewed July 2015

Brief: One of the two in-ears Philips deems worthy of the flagship “Fidelio” badge

MSRP: $99.95
Current Price: $90 from ebay.com; $110 from Amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 107 dB | Freq: 5-25k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug w/mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Comply T/Ts200, Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply S200 memory foam tips, and zippered clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (3/5) – The build quality of the Fidelio S1 and S2 earphones is extremely similar but the S1 features a cheap-looking plastic baffle at the front, in contrast to the all-metal S2. Issues have been reported with the seal around the front baffle on the S1. While this has not been the case with either of the two units I have, a nozzle filter detached on one of my units and had to be glued back in place. The S1 utilizes good-quality flat cables with an in-line microphone and single-button remote
Isolation (3/5) – Average, not as bad as could be expected from a shallow-fit design
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Good
Comfort (3.5/5) – The Fidelio S1 and S2 are built around 13.5mm dynamic drivers – large for IEMs, but definitely not unheard of. Philips chose a half in-ear form factor for the earphones, placing the driver enclosure in the outer ear with an angled nozzle fitting into the ear canal. This sacrifices some noise isolation for the comfort of a shallow seal, but the wide housings fitting 13.5mm drivers put a lower limit on the size of ears that will tolerate these earphones – smaller ears just won’t fit the housings comfortably

Sound (8.9/10) – Philips did a spectacularly good job with the tuning of their new high-end Fidelio line, both the two Fidelio in-ears and the on/over-ear models I tried at CES 2015. The Philips Fidelio in-ears sound clear and accurate with just the right amount of bass kick. The low end extends nicely, with very mild overall boost and medium impact reminiscent of the popular VSonic GR07.

The mids are crystal clear, with resolution to rival accuracy-oriented IEMs from VSonic and HiFiMan. The lack of bloat helps, allowing the bass of the Fidelio earphones to shine and keeping the midrange completely clear of bleed. Treble presence is good too – the earphones aren’t lacking at the top end for my tastes, and I’ve been known to enjoy a more energetic sound. At the same time, the treble is free of grain and harshness, though there is some upper midrange lift affecting the tone of guitars and vocals. In comparison, the VSonic GR07 sounds a little peaky and sibilant at the top end while the HiFiMan RE-400 is smoother and more laid-back.

The presentation boasts good width with average depth, reminding me of a slightly more mid-focused and less broad-sounding VSonic GR07. Curiously, the Fidelio earphones are not super efficient for a portable audio product and take more power to reach listening volume than much of the competition. This isn’t a problem except for those who gauge sound quality by maximum attainable volume – there’s still plenty of headroom with portable players. The earphones aren’t picky with sources, either, and sound decent enough from a sub-par Android phone.

There is one small caveat with the both the S1 and S2: they require a very good acoustic seal to perform their best. This is true for almost all IEMs but because of the shallow fit and near-neutral tuning of the Fidelios, there’s not much room for error. The large size of the housings and limited insertion depth play a factor as well. Without a good seal the bass quantity drops, the treble sounds a touch hot and spitty, and the presentation loses its depth.

Select Comparisons

Philips Fidelio S2 ($100)

The Philips Fidelio S1 and S2 really don’t differ much, especially when it comes to sound. In addition to its better build quality and fit kit, the pricier S2 model has a slightly more full-bodied sound with a touch more bass. Both can sound a little hot in the treble, especially without an optimal seal, but the S2 is a touch smoother with stock tips. At the same time, it maintains a marginally more airy sound than the lower-end model.

Moe Audio MOE-SS01 ($65)

Like the dual-driver MOE-SS01, the Fidelio S1 boasts mildly enhanced bass and prominent, crisp upper mids and treble. The Philips earphones boast a touch more sub-bass weight compared to the MOE, sounding more solid when it comes to bass punch. Tonally, the Philips earphones are warmer, with mids that appear a bit fuller and smoother. The MOE-SS01 is brighter and harsher. It sounds a little less natural in terms of tone and timbre but easily keeps up in clarity and detail, which is impressive. The presentations tend to be similar, with pretty good width and average depth.

Astrotec AX-35 ($70)

The Fidelio S1 offers up a more balanced sound while the hybrid BA + dynamic-driver AX-35 tends to be more v-shaped in response. The Astrotec unit has more bass but the extra enhancement comes in the mid-bass region, so it doesn’t have an advantage in bass depth. The Fidelio S1 is more mid-centric in comparison and has fuller, more fleshed-out mids, while the AX-35 is a little thinner-sounding. Neither unit is especially smooth – the S1 has some emphasis in the upper mid/lower treble region, which gives guitars a characteristic crunch, while the treble emphasis of the AX-35 comes in higher up, resulting in a slightly more sibilant sound. The AX-35 has a slightly more 3-dimensional presentation with better layering compared to the Philips, and is also noticeably more efficient.

HiFiMan RE-400 ($79)

Compared to HiFiMan’s similarly-priced RE-400 model, the S1 has better bass depth and more bass overall. However, it still sounds a little less full-bodied and not as warm. Its upper midrange and treble are more energetic whereas the RE-400 is smoother and more laid-back up top with a more forgiving treble character. The S1 also has a wider soundstage while the RE-400 is more intimate, but also more even in terms of depth and width.

VSonic VC1000 ($125)

The S1 is a balanced-sounding dynamic-driver earphone that reminds me in many ways of VSonic’s pricier dynamic-driver sets. Compared to the balanced armature-driven VC1000, it boasts more bass, especially deep bass, and has a warmer overall tone. While less powerful, the low end of the VC1000 is tighter and a bit clearer. Its midrange is more prominent in comparison, and on the whole the VC1000 sounds more mid-centric next to the Fidelio S1. Interestingly, while the VC1000 boasts similar, or even slightly greater, treble energy, it actually does a better job of keeping its treble smooth. The Fidelio S1 appears a little harsher and peakier, and tends to be even less forgiving than the VC1000, which itself is not exactly smoothed-over.

Value (8.5/10) – The Philips Fidelio S1 earphones are well-designed, user-friendly, and have good fit and finish. Offering a flat and level signature with a bump across the bass range, the Fidelio models also feature tangle-resistant cabling and a built-in microphone and remote. The semi-open design makes them great in situations where the higher noise isolation of most other high-end earphones is undesirable—and a great choice for those who don’t like the more intrusive fit of most other IEMs. The only thing that would steer me away from recommending them is the price of the higher-end Fidelio S2 dropping ever close in today’s market.

Pros: Shallow-fit design; balanced and capable sound
Cons: Mediocre isolation; housings on the large side

Edited by ljokerl - 12/30/15 at 1:59am

post #5 of 16444

3/19/10 at 6:21pm

Thread Starter

ljokerl
Trader Feedback: +103
Portables Reviewerus Prolificus
offline

10,212 Posts. Joined 3/2009
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Select All Posts By This User

Tier 2B ($100-150)

(2B1) Monster Turbine

Reviewed Nov 2010

Details: First ever IEM from Monster Cable, which they dubbed an “In-Ear Speaker”
Current Price: $149.95 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $179.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 3.8’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock Single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (4/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes), silicone tri-flange tips (2 sizes), and buttoned hard leather case
Build Quality (4/5) – Weighty metal housings exude an air of quality and solidity. Unfortunately the same can’t be said for the cabling, which is only a little thicker than the Klipsch S4s’. I do really like the discrete L/R color markings that are nevertheless very easy to see
Isolation (3.5/5) – Very good isolation for a dynamic IEM
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Low when worn over-the-ear; bothersome otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – I have no comfort issues with these. They feel heavy but don’t ever break seal and I can forget about them when worn over-the-ear

Sound (7.5/10) – Right out of the box the sound of the Turbines exceeded my expectations (which, I concede, may have been fairly low). The most striking aspect is the bass – it is deep, smooth, and textured – exactly as advertised by Monster, for once. There’s quite a good amount of it - fast, natural, dynamic bass that doesn’t bleed into the lower mids. While not as tight as some other earphones, the quality of the lows produced by the Turbines is top notch and balances well with the quantity. Moving up, we come to the midrange, which is neither recessed nor forward but quite effortless and very dynamic. The treble is equally natural, with moderate extension and surprising accuracy. On the whole, soundstaging is about average, perhaps a little narrower than the Klipsch S4, but the entire signature is very smooth, extremely dynamic, and surprisingly balanced.

Value (7/10) – I went into this test fearing that the Turbines would end up being Skullcandy’s big brother, offering overblown “subwoofer” bass and little else. I am extremely glad that I was wrong. I feel that these would be great phones at the $99 price point. Don’t get me wrong – they are very competitive IEMs and my first recommendation for something fun and dynamic. What the Turbines excel at is offering a popular signature while at the same time pleasing the audiophile in me with their speed, depth, and texture. However, I still feel that the Turbines would be more comfortable at the $100 price point, especially now that the improved Turbine Pros are pushing the $200 mark.

Pros: Excellent fit and finish, excellent bass, very smooth, fun, and dynamic sound
Cons: Cables don’t inspire confidence, can be too bass heavy for some

(2B2) Digital Designs DD DXB-01 EarbuDDs

Reviewed Mar 2010

Details: Upmarket tunable earphones from car audio manufacturer Digital Designs
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $119)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 93 dB | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock Single flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), adhesive foam tape (2 strips), and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – Metal housings sheathed in rubber feature long integrated strain reliefs and seem to be shared with the rare Sony Qualia MDR-EXQ1 canalphones. The plastic cabling is thick and sturdy. Oddly, the 3.5mm plug has 4 contact points despite the earphones having no microphone
Isolation (2.5/5) – Rather poor due to the massive vents
Microphonics (3/5) – Cable is too energetic and tends to bounce around a lot. Lack of cord cinch and the difficulty of wearing these over-the-ear doesn’t help matters
Comfort (3.5/5) – Hard to get a good insertion depth wearing these cord-down due to the short housing and massive strain relief. The strain relief and unwieldy cord also make them a bit difficult to wear over-the-ear so cable guides are highly recommended

Sound (6.2/10) – The distinguishing feature of the DD-DXB01 is the tunable bass response. Unlike the usual implementation using a knob or even interchangeable filters or ports, Digital Designs’ solution is rather crude – the two supplied strips of foam tape can be cut into pieces and used to cover some or all of the vents on the front of the earphone.
With the vents open the earbuDDs drown in massive amounts of medium-quality bass. In this configuration they remind me of the V-Moda Vibe II – smooth, dynamic, warm, and slightly muddy at the low end. Cover up the vents, though, and they improve dramatically, tightening up and exhibiting surprising bass control. With the vents obstructed the DD-DXB01 becomes a much more controlled earphone with very little bass bleed and a slightly warm midrange. There is still plenty of bass to go around but it takes on a rather tame character. The mids are airy and articulate but slightly distant and missing a bit of detail compared to competitors like the RE0 and Phonak PFEs. Because of this the DXB01 works pretty well with low-bitrate mp3 files. The 93dB sensitivity also means that hissy sources won’t be much of an issue Treble extension is average and with the vents obstructed the treble does lose some of its smoothness, but not enough to be fatiguing. All-in-all the DXB01 is a good-sounding phone; I just can’t help feeling that the tuning feature detracts more value than it adds.

Value (5/10) – Though there are many bass-heavy earphones in its price range, the DD-DXB01 stands out with its rock-solid build quality and ‘tuning’ feature. Unfortunately the implementation of the latter is rather crude and feels more like an afterthought and less like true functionality. I only really like the sound these produce with the vents fully closed and so would prefer them to be sold that way (and at half the price). As it stands there are far better options at the price.

Pros: Tank-like build, surprisingly clean bass with the vents obstructed
Cons: Foam tape ‘tuning system’ is akin to a bad joke, no cord cinch, 4-pole plug

(2B3) Denon AH-C710

Reviewed Jul 2010

Details: Denon’s newest mid-range entry meant to replace the aging C700/C751 models

Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $149.95)

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 110 dB | Freq: 5-25k Hz | Cable: 2.3’ I-plug + 2.6’ L-plug extension

Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: UE Single flanges, Comply T400

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Single flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply foam tips, extension cord, shirt clip, and hard carrying case

Build Quality (4/5) – The large metal shells with plastic nozzles feel very solid. Cabling is modular but thin and tangle-prone. The extension connector is sightly bulky in comparison to those used by Jays and others

Isolation (3/5) – The housings are fairly large and don’t really allow for deep insertion but isolation is passable nonetheless

Microphonics (4/5) – Quite low although wearing these over-the-ear is not as easy as I would have liked

Comfort (3.5/5) – The shells of the AH-C710 are large but not too heavy and boast an ergonomic angled-nozzle design. They are very comfortable to wear in the conventional manner but the large housing diameter makes them problematic for cord-up fit – more slender housings such as those of the Klipsch S4 and Auvio Armatures fare far better in this regard

Sound (7.7/10) – The Denon AH-C710s are lively but not downright aggressive earphones. The bass is strong and smooth, extending nearly deep enough to compete with the likes of the FA Eterna. Bass power is impressive and the impact tends towards ‘boomy’ rather than ‘punchy’, but not in a bad way. The Denons do have a slight mid-bass emphasis but no Kilimanjaro-sized hump as with the Senn IE8. The low end carries some warmth up into the midrange and can be too heavy at times but remains well-layered, aided by the large soundstage and relatively transparent midrange.

The mids are clear and detailed, neither too thick nor too thin, and quite transparent in comparison to the more upfront and aggressive top end. Despite the AH-C710 being a bass- and treble- heavy earphone, the midrange is not easily overshadowed and blends well in to the rest of the sound signature. The treble, on the other hand, is very prominent and sparkly. It can be a touch harsh and sibilant at first but settles down with time. The C710 does lack that last bit of extension that earphones like the Hippo VB and RE0 revel in, making it sound slightly less effortless and accurate. Still, the treble remains well filled-out and quite lively, if somewhat colored.

The presentation of the AH-C710 is spacious and well-separated, with above-average soundstage width and depth and solid, though not pinpoint-accurate, positioning. The Denons never sound too intimate (a-la JVC FXC80) or too spread-out (a-la IE8). The overall presentation is quite immersive and works well with the dynamic sound signature. They may not be as outrageously large-sounding as the Eterna or IE8 but they are engrossing and enjoyable. Indeed, vivaciousness is a recurring theme with these earphones – they aren’t relaxing to listen to and may be too intense for long listening sessions but they certainly do carry great energy and score high on the fun factor. Remarkably, the fun factor is something the Denons maintain even at low listening volumes, which is rare for dynamic-driver IEMs. The fact that the 16-ohm C710s are very sensitive doesn’t hurt either, though minor hiss may be present with some sources.

Value (7.5/10) – The Denon AH-C710 is a competitive entry from one of Japan’s best-known audio firms, offering a convenient and user-friendly form factor, solid build quality, and low microphonics. However, some of the design choices, especially in the cabling, are baffling. The cord is quite thin and very prone to tangling and its length is several inches too short without the extension and quite excessive with it. A shorter or longer cord would have made more sense to me. And then there is the included carrying case, which is very frustrating to use, especially on the move. It makes the Sennheiser IE8 and Phiaton PS200 cases seem sensible in comparison. Usability complaints aside, there is plenty to like about both the sound signature and presentation of the AH-C710. The earphones are lively and spacious, with powerful bass, smooth mids, and sparkly treble. The current $130 price tag is slightly excessive for those who don’t find added value in the Denon brand, putting the C710 in the same price category as the Panasonic HJE900, Klipsch Custom 3, and even Radius DDM, but those who can find them for less or are stuck paying import duties on competing products could do much, much worse than the Denons.

Pros: Powerful, spacious, and lively sound, comfortable to wear cord-down, well-built, low microphonics

Cons: Over-the-ear fit not for everyone, tangle-prone cabling, quirky cord lengths

(2B4) Westone 1

Reviewed Nov 2010

Details: Entry-level model from Westone’s consumer series
Current Price: $129 from earphonesolutions.com (MSRP: $199.00); $129 for T1 model w/mic
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 30Ω | Sens: 117 dB | Freq: 20-16k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single flange (Shure Gray Flex), Shure Olive
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange conical (3 sizes) and rounded (3 sizes) silicone tips, triple-flange silicone tips, Comply foam tips (3 sizes), ¼” adapter, in-line volume control, filter and tip cleaning tool, and hard clamshell carrying case with carabiner
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The housings are plastic and extremely lightweight, as is the sturdy multi-strand twisted cable. The y-split, housing entry, and 3.5mm L-plug are all very well-relieved. Although the construction of the Westone 1 just doesn’t seem as solid as that of the higher-end UM3X, it’s still far above average in its price tier
Isolation (3.5/5) – Good due to the ergonomic shells
Microphonics (5/5) – The W1 can only be worn over-the-ear and microphonics are nonexistent
Comfort (4.5/5) – The shells are extremely lightweight and ergonomic but don’t fill my ears quite as nicely as those of the larger UM3X or even Meelec M6, requiring re-adjustment every once in a while. Cabling is very light and flexible, as with all Westone earphones

Sound (7.6/10) – Although the Westone 1 is undoubtedly one of the top earphones in its class when it comes to overall usability, the sound leaves a different impression. The general signature is a balanced one, with a very slight downward slant resulting from top-end roll-off. As is the case with many single-armature earphones, the transducer of the W1 struggles to cover the entire frequency range, giving up a slight bit of extension at the bottom and a more noticeable amount at the top compared to most of my similarly-priced dynamics. The bass of the Westones is relatively flat and carries decent impact for a single-armature earphone. It won’t keep up with the Q-Jays or DBA-02 in fullness but doesn’t fare quite as poorly as the Ety ER6i or Apple dual-drivers, either. It is fast and tight, but not overly so. Texturing is also good but not on-level with my VISang R03, Fischer Audio Eterna, or even RE-ZERO. Put simply, the dynamic-driver earphones in the W1’s price bracket are just more effortless when it comes to reproducing low notes.

The slightly forward midrange of the Westone 1, on the other hand, is definitely an asset. It is quite smooth and transparent and works especially well with female vocals. Vocal sibilance is completely absent and the tonal character is quite neutral. Clarity and detail are good but not on the same level as those of the cheaper HiFiMan RE-ZERO. The same goes for the treble – aside from the top-end roll-off, the Westone suffers from a lack of treble sparkle. The high end is very smooth but lacks the crispness of earphones such as the RE-ZERO - as with the low end, the treble of the Westones sounds a bit constrained next to a good dynamic-driver IEM.

When it comes to presenting audio, the Westones again leave me wanting just a bit more out of them. Though rather neutral and transparent overall, I found the W1 a bit bleak in coloration, not unlike the UM3X and RE-ZERO. This sort of desaturated coloration is an acquired taste and can definitely be a positive trait for those used to it, but can also be somewhat boring with the wrong tracks. The soundstage is reasonably wide and deep and tends to distance the listener from the performance, with the exception of vocals, which again come through quite strong and intimate. The separation is good and the earphones do sound fairly well-layered, but not nearly as much so as the UM3X. The W1 is also more forgiving of less-than-stellar sources, bitrates, and mastering. As indicated by the physical specifications, the Westone 1 also doesn’t mind having a bit of extra juice to play around with, making small gains in balance and resolution when amped.

Value (8/10) – The Westone 1 is an extremely well-rounded mid-range product by virtue of its excellent pack-ins, solid build quality, and impressive isolation and fit. It is the sound that can make or break an earphone, however, and the sonic qualities of the single balanced armature used by the Westone 1 are polarizing. On the one hand, the earphone is refined, smooth, and neutral. On the other, it lacks the crispness and clarity I’ve come to expect from mid-range BA-based models and even certain dynamics. Put simply, as far as single-BA designs go, I don’t feel that the sound of the Westone 1 is worth nearly $100 more than that of the budget-oriented Soundmagic PL50. The HiFiMan earphones pose a problem as well - both the RE0 and RE-ZERO offer a similarly neutral and somewhat bleak sound with fewer drawbacks and at a lower price. For those who value the Westone name, the superb user-friendliness of the W1, or their particular sound signature, these earphones make a very good mid-range buy. For audio performance alone, they are simply outclassed by some of the other options on the market.

Pros: Impressive fit, isolation, build quality, and accessory pack; pleasant overall sound, great with female vocals
Cons: A bit rolled off on either end, not as crisp or clear as some of the competition

(2B5) HiFiMan RE262

Reviewed Nov 2010; 2010 single-ended version shown

Details: Latest dynamic-driver offering from one of Head-Fi’s favourite brands
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $149)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 150Ω | Sens: 95 dB | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Large stock bi-flange, Meelec ‘balanced’ bi-flange
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips, replacement filters (5 pairs), and shirt clip; latest version adds storage case,balanced extension cable, single-ended extension cable, and single-ended channel swap extension cable

Build Quality (4.5/5) – The glossy plastic housings of the RE262 are far more to my liking than the gummy shells of the RE252 not only in ergonomics but in general usability. The RE262 doesn’t collect dust and features proper strain reliefs as well as metal nozzles with replaceable mesh filters. The new cable, too, is thicker, sturdier, and less tangle-prone. The modular system adds an extra layer of protection and the new beefy 45º L-plugs and proper strain reliefs all around inspire confidence
Isolation (3.5/5) – The channel swap adapter allows the RE272 to be worn cable-up, which should help provide a deeper fit. With the stock bi-flanges or other deep-sealing tips the isolation is surprisingly good

Microphonics (4.5/5) – With the new cord cable noise is very low when worn cable-down and nonexistent cable-up

Comfort (4.5/5) – There are now a total of four ways to wear the 262 with the additional cord configurations provided by the included adapters. I find three of them to be quite comfortable and would imagine most people won’t have trouble finding at least one that works

Sound (9.1/10) – HIFiMan has long been trying to perfect the high-end ‘neutral and balanced’ dynamic-driver earphone, starting with the RE2 and RE0 and then moving to the RE252 and RE-ZERO. I have owned all four of the above and, with slight reservations about the RE2, loved them all. To be fair, until very recently there was little competition for the HiFiMan sound in the dynamic segment and I had a feeling that the company may venture outside its comfort zone with the new flagship. Venture they did, and what a departure it is – at first listen the RE262 is a vastly different animal from the more analytical Head-Direct earphones with no thinned-out midrange or desaturated tonality anywhere in sight.

At the heart of the RE262 is still an impressively clean and quick dynamic driver with plenty of headroom – more so due to the 150Ω impedance and low sensitivity. Indeed, the RE262 is a power-hungry beast of an IEM – and one that drains the battery in my much-abused Cowon J3 in less than 8 hours when running unamped. Though still very impressive right out of the J3, I do feel that the RE262 benefits from a dedicated amp, sounding tighter, cleaner, and bigger with added power (more on that later).

At the base of the RE262’s sound signature is a smooth and articulate low end. The bass is plentiful for my tastes and has better depth and impact than on any of the other HiFiMan earphones I’ve tried (which is all of them except the RE1). Attack and decay are also more naturally extended than with the RE262’s siblings – the earphone easily has the most fleshed-out lows of the HiFiMan range (again, cannot speak for the RE1). The core driver speed is still there, however, and the earphones never miss a beat. They also aren’t as rumbly or textured at the lowest of lows as one would expect from a high-end dynamic-driver set from any other manufacturer. The Sennheiser IE7 has comparable subbass quantity but the IE8, the Monster Turbine range, and even the Denon C710 place significantly more emphasis and weight on the lowest lows. In terms of presentation the bass is soft and notes come out warm and somewhat ‘rounded’ – those who like aggressive, edgy bass will likely be disappointed by the RE262’s tactfulness.

It is the midrange, however, that is the true meat of the RE262’s sound. The mids – especially the lower mids - are forward, warm, and very smooth, always remaining at the focal point of the sound signature. ‘Fluid’ is the best word I can think of when it comes to comprehensively describing the mids of the 262. There is none of the thinness commonly associated with the RE0 and, to a lesser extent, the RE-ZERO and RE252, but the RE262 is not a thick-sounding earphone. Excessively thick mids can sound a little sloppy and opaque on a dynamic-driver earphone but the RE262 suffers from none of that - it is a fairly transparent earphone with great detail despite being less crisp compared to, say, the Ety ER4S or DBA-02. Interestingly, excessive midrange ‘bloom’ actually works well for certain armature-based earphones such as the Earsonics SM3, but that’s a matter for another discussion. On the whole, the bottom-skewed midrange balance of the RE262 may not be to everyone's liking but it is what it is - for those in search of an earphone that emphasizes no particular frequency range and has relatively 'flat' mids there's always the DBA-02 or RE252.

The treble of the RE262 is laid-back but not rolled-off - smooth and completely inoffensive but not missing altogether. The RE262 isn’t a particularly dark earphone despite the lack of treble emphasis and even carries a bit of sparkle at times. Treble detail is good but not RE-ZERO-good and the RE262 doesn’t quite have the airy feel of the RE-ZERO at the top. It is still competent and highly resolving but the energy just isn’t there compared to brighter earphones. I’m not one to pass judgment on a particular sound signature and won’t claim that a brighter presentation is more natural on the whole. I do, however, know that cymbal crashes are supposed to be slightly startling and I don’t get that sense from the RE262. In that respect, too, the RE262 is in good company – its treble is no less prominent than that of the Monster Miles Davis or Westone UM3X – just don’t expect them to match any of the other Head-Direct earphones in top-end presence.

Aside from the seductively fluid midrange the biggest strength of the RE262 for me is the presentation. The earphones boast both and excellent soundstage and headstage – still a relatively rare occurrence in the IEM realm. Compared to my RE-ZERO, the RE262 is decidedly out-of-the-head –sounding. It really gives a great sense of ambient space without losing track of individual instruments or diluting other location cues. Positioning is helped by good -- perhaps even excessive – layering; the RE262 really leaves no doubts as to what is in a track’s foreground and what is in the background. When amped, the RE262 sounds even bigger and the soundstage seems to lose its outer limits – something even the stadium-sized sonic space of the IE8 can’t quite pull off. In addition, an amped RE262 needs less volume to shine, revealing more detail and texture at lower output levels. Naturally the effortless dynamics of the earphone are an asset here as well. Tonally, the RE262 makes no attempts to hide its coloration from the listener, but then that’s part of its charm. The RE262 really is a very basic and honest earphone – it doesn’t pretend to be neutral or analytical, nor does it pretend to be a conventional high-end dynamic with loads of subbass power and heavy midbass emphasis – and I like that.

Value (9.5/10) – Despite being enough of a sonic departure for HiFiMan to cause some die-hard fans to feel left out, the RE262 is an incredibly capable earphone with a fairly unique sound signature. There is no doubt in my mind that the older RE252 is the more neutral and accurate set, but it is also the more boring one. The RE262, on the other hand, is quite captivating with its greater (albeit not too great) bass weight, smooth and forward mids, and laid-back, non-fatiguing treble. The lower-end RE-ZERO, too, is crisper-sounding and brighter but lacks the liquidity of the new flagship and its soundstage is quite claustrophobic in comparison. HiFiMan went back to the drawing board with the design as well, which shows with the RE262 being both more durable and more ear-friendly than the RE252. As always, do make sure that the sound signature of the earphone is the right one for you before dropping $150 but aside from that the folks at HiFiMan have done a great job reducing the list of caveats usually attached to their earphones.

Pros: Immersive presentation, seductive midrange, smooth and effortless sound; can be worn over-the-ear
Cons: Still no carrying case included, cable-down fit not for everyone

(2B6) Monster Beats by Dr. Dre Tour

Reviewed Dec 2010

Details: In-ear model from Monster’s Beats by Dr. Dre line
Current Price: $150 from amazon.com (MSRP: $179.95); $170 for ControlTalk version w/mic
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and triple-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips and hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The housing construction is a combination of different materials, with the driver chamber made of aluminum and attached to a plastic nozzle and stem. The flat cable seems reasonably sturdy and remains tangle-free but unfortunately has no strain relief to protect it from the edges of the stems, y-split, or 3.5mm plug casing
Isolation (3/5) – The long, angled nozzles allow for deep insertion of the Tours. Isolation is very reasonable with correct fitment
Microphonics (4/5) – The flat cable carries less noise than the majority of conventional cords but the Tours are difficult to wear over-the-ear to eliminate microphonics completely
Comfort (3.5/5) – The tours are ergonomically-designed but rather large and limited in versatility by the long and wide stems. In addition, they sound very poor with a shallow fit so deep insertion is pretty much required with the earphones.

Sound (6.1/10) – Being familiar with Monster’s Turbine line as well as the Jamz & Lil’ Jamz, I was hoping that the Beats Tour would stick closer to the original Turbines in signature, especially since the two earphones share a price point. Unfortunately, the Tours, with their highly colored, aggressive signature, are far more similar to the Lil’ Jamz than any of the other Monster earphones. Also like the Lil Jamz, the Beats are less forgiving of a poor seal or shallow insertion than the Turbines or regular Jamz and do not sound their best with the narrow-channel silicone tips that Monster includes – aftermarket silicones such as Sony Hybrids are better. With good tips and a proper fit, the beats are still brighter and more colored-sounding than the Turbines but at the very least show improvement over the signature of the Lil’ Jamz.

The low end of the Beats is extremely strong, putting out more mid-bass than the Turbine but with a touch less impact than the Eterna. The Turbine is slightly more controlled and textured as well but the difference isn’t great. Sub-bass extension is there but the sheer amount of mid-bass often overshadows the low rumble that earphones such as the Hippo VB portray accurately. Detail is closer to other mainstream bass-heavy earphones, such as the Thinksound TS02, but lags behind the Eterna and VB. Ironically, though the Beats are marketed as ‘High Resolution’ earphones, resolution is one of the many things they could use more of.

There’s a small amount of bass bleed distinguishable in the lower midrange but on the whole the mids are crisp and clear. Clarity is slightly better than that of the Turbine and Thinksound TS02 – two earphones that are also significantly warmer than the Beats. Detail is lacking slightly in comparison to the Turbine but the Beats are fairly aggressive and push the detail they do have on the listener, appearing more revealing than they actually are. There is unevenness in the upper midrange and lower treble, resulting in a lot of treble sparkle but also quite a bit of harshness and occasional bouts of sibilance. The Turbine actually has slightly more emphasis on the upper midrange but maintains its composure better and sounds far smoother than the Beats on the whole. Expectedly, the Beats can be fatiguing at times, especially for those with a low treble tolerance. Upper midrange peaks aside, the Beats have surprisingly competent treble – not particularly detailed or textured but with good presence across the range and surprising clarity.

Presentation, however, is where the Beats fall quite flat for me. Despite the plentiful treble sparkle, there’s a slight lack of air, making the Beats sound stuffier than the Thinksound TS02 or Phiaton PS 20. Soundstage width is average but the Turbine still sounds a bit less closed-in. Of course next to an earphone with a truly out-of-the-head soundstage, such as the Eterna or PS 20, the Beats sound quite narrow, but that’s expected. Soundstage depth is average for an earphone in the Beats’ price bracket as well but the separation leaves a lot to desired – layering is quite poor and the presentation of the Beats is somewhat similar to the ‘wall of sound’ that I ran into recently with the Skullcandy FMJ, albeit not as forward and far less offensive on the whole. As a result, the Beats are not ideal for busier, denser tracks – classical, big-band jazz, and heavy metal are clearly not genres Monster had in mind when tuning the earphones. In addition, the heavy coloration of the earphones throws off the timbre – the Thinksound TS02, Turbine, and Eterna all make instruments sound more natural. Lastly, it should be noted that the Beats Tour are more sensitive than either the Jamz or the Turbines and exhibit hiss with some of my more poorly-matched sources, which came as a bit of a surprise as even the top-of-the-range Turbine Coppers do a good job of suppressing hiss.

Value (5.5/10) – The Beats Tour by Dr. Dre were one of the first in-ears released under the Monster brand and remain a practical set for day-to-day use two years later. With a proper fit, which can be more difficult to achieve than with the Turbine and Jamz models, the Beats are fairly comfortable, have decent isolation, and carry little cable noise. Sonically, the Beats Tour are ‘shouty’ earphones, lacking the dynamic range and separation needed for the proper portrayal of musical nuances, but have lots of clarity, bass impact, and treble sparkle. There are genres that they perform relatively well with but even then the signature and presentation of the Beats fatigue me fairly quickly. Those looking for a colored, bass-heavy sound may be better off with cheaper models such as the Thinksound TS02 or Fischer Audio Eterna, or the Turbines for the same money. Additionally, if a deal on the Beats Tour seems too good to be true, it probably is – eBay and most Chinese deal sites are completely flooded with fakes, though I cannot be sure that the real thing sounds significantly better than the counterfeits.

Pros: User-friendly cable, 3-year warranty, impressive clarity, heavy but not offensively bloated bass
Cons: Heavily colored sound; can be harsh & fatiguing; poor separation & layering

(2B7) Etymotic Research HF5 / ACS Custom Tips

Reviewed May 2011

Details: mid-range single-armature consumer earphone from the pioneer of universal IEMs
Current Price: $120 from amazon.com (MSRP: $149); $140 for HF2 with microphone
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-15k Hz | Cable: 4’ 45º-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: ACS Custom 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 velour carrying pouch; ACS Tips: cleaning tool, insertion lubricant, and zippered leather carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – The HF5 is similar in design to Etymotic’s other models and features slim, tubular housings and Kevlar-reinforced cabling. Unlike the aluminum-shelled MC5, the body of the HF5 is all-plastic. The nozzles are quite thin so care should be taken when changing eartips. The cord is slightly thicker than that of the MC5 but also carries a bit more memory character, preserving its shape for some time after being coiled up. Small strain reliefs are used to protect the cable on housing entry and the hockey stick-shaped 3.5mm plug is designed to withstand a good amount of abuse; ACS Tips: The tips are made out of soft medical-grade silicone and molding quality is excellent - no cracks or bubbles are visible in the material. The color of the ACS logo on each tip differentiates which earpiece they go on (red for right, blue for left)
Isolation (4.5/5) – The combination of a slim, deep-insertion design and sealed housings gives the HF5 mind-bogglingly good isolation – passive attenuation just doesn’t get much better than this with universal-fit earphones; ACS Tips (5/5): Amazingly, the ACS custom tips are an improvement over standard Ety sleeves when it comes to isolation, which makes them dangerously isolating. Wearing them around traffic or anywhere lack of auditory awareness may be a safety concern is not recommended. The consistent, deep-ear seal of the custom-molded tips means that there is absolutely no way for significant amounts of ambient noise to leak in. Of course low frequencies will still be audible in via bone conduction but when inserted properly the ACS Etys isolate about as much as in-ear earphones can
Microphonics (4/5) – Quite low when worn cable-down, nonexistent with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) – The balanced armature drivers used in the HF5 are smaller than the dynamic transducers used in the MC5, allowing the earphones to be lightweight and extremely slim in diameter. Like all Etymotic in-ears, the HF5 are deep-insertion earphones, which can feel intrusive at first, but with the right tips they can be very comfortable; ACS Tips (5/5): As with full-shell customs, there is a slight learning curve to inserting custom-fitted Ety earphones. Once mastered, however, it is much quicker than putting on a full-shell acrylic custom. When inserted correctly, the tips should press very lightly in all directions against the ear canal, providing the same comfort level as a soft foam tip but noticeably greater isolation. For the HF5, the ACS custom silicone sleeves provide the best of both worlds – the consistent, deep-insertion fit of triple-flange silicone tips with the long-term comfort and stability of foamies. As with most customs manufacturers, ACS offers a 30-day fit guarantee - if the tips do not fit comfortably and securely, by all means have them re-fitted until perfect

Sound (8.8/10) – For Etymotic Research, the sonic ideal has always been neutrality and accuracy. Those familiar with other Ety models will not be surprised to learn that the low end of the HF5 will do little to satisfy a basshead. The bass put out by the single balanced armature is extremely tight and controlled but the tiny drivers don’t move a whole lot of air - those looking for eardrum-quaking gobs of impact will be sorely disappointed. Instead, the bass is quick and highly detailed. The speed and clarity of the earphones allows them to texture notes in ways lower-end sets simply cannot but opinions will undoubtedly be split on whether such a presentation is ‘natural’. For those who think ‘natural’ sound hinges on realistic attack and decay times as well as note weight and presence, a dynamic-driver earphone will provide more satisfactory bass response. On if the other hand if ‘natural’ means hearing all of the nuances on the the track down to the tiniest detail (including mastering and compression flaws), the HF5 leaves little to be desired. No matter how dense the track, the HF5 never misses a beat. Low end extension is quite linear down to around 30Hz - no exaggerated sub-bass or mid-bass bloat to be found here. Interestingly, the dynamic-driver Etymotic MC5 responds to equalization a little better than the HF5 does but in both cases even the best equalizer can only do so much - those looking for rumbling, full-bodied bass will want to stay away from Etys.

The midrange of the HF5 is again typical Etymotic – clear, detailed, and quite neutral in tone. The mids are smooth and free of grain, though a poor seal can result in vocal sibilance. Of course if the sibilance is present on the track, the HF5 will be relentless in pointing it out. Those looking for an earphone that will make 128kbps mp3s sound better should probably look elsewhere or at the very least consider the MC5 as an alternative. The treble is balanced with the rest of the signature, as tends to be the case with analytical earphones, but not so overly prominent that it becomes fatiguing. It is crisp and very highly-detailed, with excellent extension across the audible range and impressive definition. These earphones, like all Etymotics, are not for those who prefer laid-back, smoothed-over treble.

The presentation is perhaps where the HF5 is most similar to the MC5 – both do a good job of separating out individual instruments but neither provides the type of highly immersive three-dimensional listening experience one may get from a top-tier earphone. The soundstage has good width but mediocre depth and height. That said, the highly accurate and impeccably detailed HF5 still sounds plenty convincing and easily relates the differences between foreground and background instruments to the listener – it just doesn’t give the same three-dimensional sonic image as, for example, the ATH-CK10 or Westone 2. Tonally, the HF5 is quite neutral, foregoing the warm accented lower harmonics of cheaper earphones for bright and crisp treble. Its timbre might seem slightly ‘off’ to those used to warmer signatures and dynamic drivers, but instruments are no more difficult to differentiate with the HF5.

ACS Tips: The sound quality of the HF5 depends heavily on the integrity of the acoustic seal between the drivers and the listener’s ear canal. Now, this is true for all in-ear earphones but because the HF5, like all Etys, is tuned for maximum accuracy and realism, a good seal is arguably even more important with it than with most other in-ears. Bass response, especially, is at risk with a mediocre seal.

Expectedly, the custom tips are not capable of radically changing the sound signature of the earphone but they do provide a consistently perfect seal, bringing out the absolute best in the HF5. The sound quality is very similar to what I got when inserting the triple-flange silicone tips as far into my ears as I could tolerate – not a comfortable proposition for long-term listening enjoyment. If there are any sound quality improvements brought about by the custom tips, they are mostly tiny changes in imaging and sub-bass extension and response. Of course if poor seal quality led to shrill treble or recessed mids with universal tips, the ACS custom sleeves will remedy that as well, but they will not affect the core signature of Etymotic earphones in any major way.

Value (9/10) – The Etymotic HF5 is a thoroughly modern take on the classic Etymotic design philosophy. The single balanced armature transducer produces clear and detailed sound that never misses a beat, conveying every nuance of an audio track with impeccable accuracy and no added coloration. As is the case with many high-end armature-based earphones, the HF5 lacks the enhanced bass response, warmth, and thickness of mainstream competitors. The slim, deep-insertion form factor, eerie levels of isolation, and subdued aesthetics all make the HF5 a quintessential Etymotic earphone. For those who are simply looking to dabble in entry-level audiophile sound, the cheaper and sturdier MC5 may be a better match but if absolute fidelity is a priority, the HF5 is hard to beat for the money.

Pros: Stellar noise isolation; impeccably clear, detailed, balanced, and accurate sound; comes in three flavours of varying smartphone functionality
Cons: Deep-insertion form factor takes getting used to; sound signature not for everyone; lower-end MC5 is built better

ACS Tips (8/10): The Etymotic Custom Fit program is a collaboration between Etymotic Research and UK-based customs manufacturer ACS to provide custom-molded eartips for Etymotic’s universal-fit models – for an additional charge, of course. The tips carry an all-inclusive $100 price tag, making them one of the cheapest products of the sort. The total cost of a custom-molded Etymotic earphone runs somewhere between $180 and $330, depending on the starting model - still a fairly low price in the customs realm. Furthermore, while full-shell customs with smartphone controls are still very rare, the custom-fit HF2, HF3, and MC3 models provide all of the functionality of a stock headset with the sound of a custom-fitted audiophile-level listening device. Combine that with the comparative ease of use, superb noise isolation, and faultless comfort of silicone custom sleeves and the investment starts making more sense.

Pros: Stellar noise isolation and long-term comfort; consistently perfect seal; easier and quicker to insert than full custom earphones
Cons: Proper insertion takes a bit of practice; will not improve sound quality for those who get a very good fit with stock triple-flanges

(2B8) Audio-Technica ATH-CKM99

Reviewed Aug 2011

Details: Audio-Technica’s priciest dynamic-driver earphone
Current Price: $150 from buy.com (MSRP: $229.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 104 dB | Freq: 5-28k Hz | Cable: 2’ I-plug + 2’ L-plug extension
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges; generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), 2’ extension cable, cleaning cloth, and magnetic clasp carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The housings of the CKM99 are made of equal parts sturdy plastics and sturdier titanium. The design is of the half in-ear type, with flexible strain reliefs all around and a modular cable. Unfortunately, the cord is not as thick as with the higher-end CK10 and CK100 models, lacks a sliding cinch, and has a greater tendency to tangle. Color-coded left/right markings on the inner side of the housings are a nice touch
Isolation (3/5) – Despite being a half in-ear design, the ear-filling CKM99 provides surprisingly good isolation
Microphonics (4/5) – Low despite cable-down form factor
Comfort (4/5) – Despite their size and heft, the 14mm housings fit snugly and securely. The excellent molding quality and a design that completely avoids sharp edges are partly responsible though those with smaller outer ears may find the CKM99 too bulky

Sound (8.6/10) – The ATH-CKM99 is Audio-Technica’s flagship dynamic and the company’s take on a high-end consumer-class earphone. The signature of the earphone strikes a balance between the typical high-end dynamic-driver IEM and Audio-Technica’s bright-and-shiny house sound. The end result is lively and versatile. The bass is plentiful but never excessive. It is deep and controlled but a little soft in character. A mild mid-bass hump is present, giving the low end greater overall quantity than either the VSonic GR07 or the Sennheiser IE7. The IE7 really isn’t very far behind in slam or power but its forward midrange causes the low end to stand out less. The GR07, on the other hand, is clearly quicker and tighter than the CKM99. Though it lacks most of the mid-bass boost, the GR07 manages to be both more resolving and more immediate in impact. Those who value bass body and fullness of note over speed and accuracy will likely prefer the bass of the Audio-Technicas by a margin. Coming from the GR07, however, the CKM99 sounds a bit too boomy.

The midrange of the CKM99 is slightly recessed next to the emphasized bass and abundant treble. There is a touch of warmth imparted by the bass hump but the CKM99 is still a neutral-to-bright earphone on the whole. Clarity and detail are good - similar to the Sennheiser IE7 and very respectable for a dynamic-driver earphone. The mids are extremely smooth and very fluid – occasionally too much so, leading to a slight loss of texture. The GR07 sounds slightly dryer, less smoothed-over, and not quite as polite as Audio-Technica’s flagship.

The treble is where the CKM99 attempts to revert to Audio-Technica’s house sound. There is a fair bit of emphasis starting at the upper midrange that, in contrast to the VSonic GR07, doesn’t seem to flatten out a whole lot with burn-in. As a result, the CKM99 is a bright-sounding earphone and can be a touch hot and spitty with certain tracks. The treble peaks seem to be far broader and lower down than with my ATH-CK10, so a much wider range of source material is affected. Compared to the GR07, the sibilance of the ATH-CKM99 seems a little more widespread and a whole lot more violent. My GR07, post burn-in, simply has far shallower treble peaks. Aside from the sibilance added to some recordings, the treble sounds very clean and refined. Extension is good, a-la GR07, and there is no excess (and certainly no lack) of sparkle. Like the VSonics, the Audio-Technicas aren’t ideal for high volume listening but work well otherwise with their solid detail, clarity, and bass impact.

Presentation is an area where most higher-end Audio-Technica earphones I’ve heard shine, and the CKM99 is no exception. The emphasized treble gives the sound an airy, lightweight feel. The stage is above average in size and extends well in all directions. Dynamics are quite good and the earphone has no trouble with separation or positioning. The similarly-priced Sennheiser IE7 has a larger soundstage but, like the higher-end IE8, has some trouble portraying intimacy. The CKM99 has significantly better on-center feel and sounds a bit more convincing on the whole. The GR07 has slightly better layering but otherwise doesn’t score any points on the CKM99 either.

Value (7.5/10) – Audio-Technica’s CKM99 is an exquisitely well-built earphone that exemplifies an angled-nozzle design done right. Despite the huge 14mm drivers used, the CKM99 fits comfortably in the ear and isolates better than many other high-end dynamics. It also sounds good, competing well with similarly-priced offerings from Sennheiser and Monster. VSonic’s similarly-priced GR07 monitor will probably be a constant thorn in the CKM99s side but the earphones have different purposes. The GR07 is fast, neutral, and balanced. The CKM99 is lively, colored, and liquid. In typical Audio-Technica fashion, it breaks from the warm sound of most similarly-priced dynamics and captures some of the company’s ambient and euphonic house sound. Not being priced up in the $250+ range with Audio-Technica’s BA-based flagships helps the CKM99 stay competitive and availability outside of Japan is nice to see as well.

Pros: Excellent build quality; comfortable angled-nozzle design; good overall sound quality
Cons: Cable not as nice as with CK10/CK100; can be sibilant

Huge thanks to Inks for the CKM99 loan!

(2B9) Fischer Audio Tandem

Reviewed Oct 2011

Details: Fischer Audio’s vertical dual dynamic in-ear
Current Price: $129 from gd-audiobase.com (MSRP: $129)
Specs: Driver: Dual Dynamic | Imp: 36Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.1’ 45º-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: stock wide-channel single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) – Narrow-tube (4 sizes) and wide-tube (3 sizes) single-flange silicone tips, bi-flange and tri-flange silicone tips, soft drawstring carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The housings of the Tandem are made entirely of matte and glossy plastics, with red and blue trim taking the place of L/R markings. Metal nozzle filters and somewhat tangle-prone nylon-sheathed cables are shared with a few of Fischer’s other models. The lack of strain relief on housings entry is worrisome but not a deal breaker
Isolation (3/5) – The Tandem is vented at the rear and can’t be inserted too deeply due to the large housings. Isolation is moderate even with longer eartips
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Reasonable despite the nylon-sheathed cord and lack of shirt clip; good when worn cable-up
Comfort (3/5) – The drivers of the Tandem are oriented parallel to the nozzle, one above the other, resulting in a housing that is elongated vertically. Ergonomics are good considering the size and it can be worn over-the-ear easily but tends to be sensitive to insertion depth and may cause long-term comfort issues for those with smaller ears

Sound (8.6/10) – The sound of the Tandem is extremely smooth and liquid, reminding me in many ways of the Sunrise Xcape IE. The bass has plenty of punch and carries realistic weight. It’s not as deep and powerful as with the Radius dual dynamics but the reach is good and there is a bit more impact compared to the Xcapes. While the overall note presentation is a touch soft and the Tandem doesn’t seem to have the ability to become hard and aggressive the way crisper-sounding IEMs like the HiSound Crystal can, the absence of distracting mid-bass bloat keeps the low end clean and controlled. The Tandem may be a bit slower than the VSonic GR07 and HiSound Crystal but it is quick and resolving enough to make Sennheiser’s IE6 and IE7 - as well as Beyerdynamic’s DTX 101 iE - sound loose and flabby in comparison.

The midrange is lush and very smooth, sharing the liquid and slightly warm character of the Xcape IE. It is not too clear from the specifications but as far as I can tell no crossover is used by the Tandem, meaning that both drivers cover the entire frequency spectrum, and the overall smoothness of the sound may be a testament to that. Balance is good compared to the Radius DDM2, with the Tandem’s mids being more prominent and never becoming overshadowed by the low end. The DDM2 does have an edge in clarity and tends to sound more airy and open but the clarity of the Tandem is still very reasonable. The detail level, too, while not quite a match for Fischer’s own similarly-priced BA-based SBA-03, is good for a mid-range dynamic. Like the Xcape IE, the Tandem really isn’t for those who prefer an analytical edge.

The treble of the Tandem, while not noticeably lacking, is not particularly prominent or energetic. As with the midrange, the overall smoothness is excellent, with no hint of grain or harshness. Extension is not bad but the treble becomes increasingly laid-back towards the top of the spectrum. I won’t say that the Tandem sounds dark but the treble quantity lags slightly behind that of the DDM2 and misses out completely on the upper midrange lift present in so many clarity-focused earphones. As a result, the sound of the Tandem is extremely non-fatiguing and very forgiving – so much so that it makes even the Sennheiser IE7 sound edgy and unpleasant.

The presentation, too, is spacious but not overly enveloping. The soundstage has better width and depth than that of the Sunrise Xcape IE but lags slightly in overall size behind the DDM2. Layering is good and instruments are reasonably well-separated. Despite leaning towards a softer note presentation overall, the Tandem has above-average dynamics and experiences no problems portraying distance or intimacy. Worth noting is one side effect of using dual dynamic drivers – the Tandem is not the most efficient earphone out there and will require a few extra volume notches than many competing earphones to reach listening volume. Sensitivity isn’t an issue, however, and the Tandem will still satisfy at moderate volumes.

Value (7.5/10) – The Fischer Audio Tandem may be the most versatile dual dynamic I’ve used so far but it still lags behind modern single-driver designs slightly in user-friendliness. The large, toy-like housings do not sit well enough in smaller ears and the included assortment of eartips, while certainly good considering the sensitivity of the Tandem to insertion depth, doesn’t quite make up for the lack of other pack-ins. In terms of sound quality, however, there isn't much to complain about with the Tandem – its signature is not one that impresses immediately but it is very likable and easy to appreciate, especially over long listening sessions. It really is a case of the end result being superior to the sum of its parts and an easy earphone to recommend for those who value balance and smoothness over analytical clarity or monstrous bass.

Pros: Extremely smooth & forgiving sound
Cons: Large housings, mediocre accessory pack

(2B10) Fischer Audio SBA-03 / MEElectronics A161P

Reviewed Dec 2011

Details: BA-based IEM second to the DBA-02 in Fischer's monitor lineup; the MEElec A161P is identical in sound quality but differs in construction and packaging, as well as price

Current Price: $129 from gd-audiobase.com (MSRP: $129); $100 for MEElectronics A161P w/mic

Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 106 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.1' I-plug

Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: MEElec triple-flanges

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), cord wrap, and soft carrying pouch (MEElec version (4.5/5): Single-flange (3 sizes), double-flange, and triple-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips, over-the-ear cable guides, PC headset adapter, smartphone adapter, shirt clip, and clamshell carrying case)

Build Quality (3.5/5) - The shiny plastic housings seem nicely-made and feature metal nozzle grilles and long, flexible strain reliefs on housing entry. The cable is rubbery, below average in thickness, and lacks a cinch, which may make over-the-ear wear more difficult for some (MEElec version: cable is plasticky instead of rubbery. Thickness is the same but a cable cinch is present)

Isolation (4/5) - Above average and even better with aftermarket eartips (MEElec version: double- and triple-flange tips provide good isolation out of the box)

Microphonics (3.5/5) - Moderate when worn cable-down; low otherwise (MEElec version: cable is not quite as noisy but over-the-ear wear is made less practical by the microphone)

Comfort (4/5) - Extremely lightweight housings with slightly angled nozzles provide excellent ergonomics. The cable is less excellent, however, and a shirt clip or cable cinch should have been included (MEElec version: both a cable cinch and shirt clip are included but over-the-ear wear is made less practical by the presence of mic/remote)

Sound (8.7/10) - Until just a few years ago, the majority of single balanced armature earphones fell victim to shortfalls in frequency range and performance at the limits when compared to their dual- and triple-driver counterparts. Advertising a mid-tier single-BA earphone meant disclaimers such as 'full range' were an absolute necessity. This perception has since been seriously challenged by the reasonably-priced but extremely capable single-BA models released by Etymotic Research, Phonak, and now - Fischer Audio.

The SBA-03 is an impressive all-around performer, not just ‘for a single BA’ or ‘at its price point’, but overall. The bass is fast and resolving, as expected from a BA-based earphone, but it is also surprisingly punchy, even aggressive at times. Impact is greater than with the Etymotic ER-4S and ACS T15 but not quite a match for the VSonic GR07 or Fischer's own dual-dynamic Tandem. It has good depth and body but is also tight and controlled, with great clarity and good detail, though the latter lags slightly behind the pricier Ety ER-4S and ACS T15, partly due to the average dynamics and aggressive nature of the SBA-03.

The midrange is slightly forward but still balances out very well with the punchy low end. Detail level is good - not quite as impressive as with the Etymotic HF5, but then the SBA-03 doesn't sound as lean, either. It is still a crisp, very slightly dry earphone with good resolution and a fairly neutral tone. The aggression from the bass carries over - the midrange of the SBA-03 is anything but laid-back. Vocals are very prominent and guitars have good bite. Compared to the Tandem and VSonic GR07, the SBA-03 is a bit less smooth and much less full-bodied but also more raw and transparent, with no sense of distancing or veiling between the listener and the music.

The lower treble of the SBA-03 is reasonably prominent but not too peaky. With the wrong tips it can be a touch splashy but with a deep seal there is just some sparkle. Grain is mild. Gentle roll-off at the top completes the picture. Admittedly, the Etymotic HF5 is cleaner and again slightly more detailed in the treble but the two earphones have opposing profiles for a pair of single BAs, with the SBA-03 emphasizing the bass and midrange more so than (much of) the treble region.

The presentation of the SBA-03 is competent but not flawless Most noticeable when switching over from a higher-end monitor such as the GR07 or ACS T15 is the in-the-head positioning of all the sonic cues. The SBA-03 does have very nice instrument separation and accurate positioning across its stage but the sheer expanse of earphones such as the GR07, ACS T15, Sony EX600, or JVC FXT90 is just not there. The soundstage of the SBA-03 is average or even slightly above-average in size but the earphone achieves neither the air nor the ambience of the pricier monitors in my collection.

One last point worth noting - the SBA-03 is a very efficient earphone with high sensitivity and low impedance. Powerful sources such as the Cube C30 can be too loud even on the lowest volume settings and computers and other sources with a less-than-black background or high output impedance will be noisy. For a set of general-purpose computer earphones the similarly-priced Tandem does a much better job - it is less sensitive and more forgiving.

Value (8.5/10) - When a mid-level earphone performs as well as this one does, it draws comparisons with top-tier earphones, as in the review above, and those rarely play in its favor. The SBA-03, however, holds its own in many ways against higher-end products from the likes of JVC, ACS, and VSonic. Aside from the smallish headstage and average dynamics, the SBA-03 is easily a top-tier performer. What detracts from its value are the surrounding bits – the cable, which is stringy and microphonic, and the small selection of tips, none of which showcase what the SBA-03 is really capable of. Those willing to overlook these minor flaws will find a direct competitor to the Ety HF5 and Phonak PFE with more emphasis on the bass and midrange and less on the top end – a versatile signature and a great introduction to higher-end BAs. (note: the MEElec version corrects the tip issue by including an extra 3 pairs).

Pros: Wonderfully versatile BA sound

Cons: Mediocre cable, sub-optimal stock tips

(2B11) Creative Aurvana 3

Reviewed Dec 2011

Details: Third-gen enthusiast-oriented IEM from consumer electronics giant Creative Labs
Current Price: $150 from amazon.com (MSRP: $149.99)
Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 28Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: 10-17k Hz | Cable: 4' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: MEElec triple-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), foam eartips (2 sets), cleaning tool, airplane adapter, and hard-shell carrying case with removable cable winder
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The glossy, reflective housings are plastic and feature matte dual-bore nozzles and very, very flexible strain reliefs. The rubbery cable is extremely soft and thin. It never gets in the way but also tends to tangle and doesn’t inspire much confidence in the earphones’ longevity
Isolation (3.5/5) – Ergonomic housings and fully-sealed design result in above-average isolation
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent in the soft, featherweight cable
Comfort (3.5/5) – The housings are very well-designed – lightweight, smooth, and rounded at the edges; the nozzle is angled well and the soft strain reliefs never make themselves known. However, the sheer size of the housing is uncharacteristic for a dual-BA – it is larger than that of a Westone 4. Those with smaller outer ears may experience discomfort quickly as a result

Sound (8.5/10) – Creative’s third-gen armature-based earphone takes some pages out of the Shure playbook when it comes to more than just design – the sound may be familiar to the Shure faithful as well. The signature is mid-centric and slightly warm. The bass is accurate and controlled but not prominent or aggressive. It is fairly punchy but made to sound less so by the midrange emphasis. Gentle roll-off at the bottom also means that even certain single-armature earphones - the Fischer Audio SBA-03, for example - offer better bass depth.

The midrange is the focal point of the Aurvana’s sound signature – forward compared to the bass and treble, warm, and very smooth. Note thickness is good but the presentation is a bit dry, reminiscent of the ill-fated Klipsch Custom 3. The Fischer SBA-03 has similarly forward mids but sounds leaner, with more crispness and slightly better detailing, while the Aurvana is smoother, thicker, and warmer in tone. It’s a pleasant sound but clearly not one for those in search of a balanced, neutral, highly detailed monitor. Even the dual-dynamic JVC HA-FXT90 has better transparency than the Aurvana 3, as well as more natural tone and timbre.

At the top, the Aurvana 3 is laid-back and very non-fatiguing. Compared to earphones with crisp, prominent top ends – the VSonic GR07, for example – the Creatives sound a bit veiled and even a touch dark. As with the bass, the top end is not so much rolled-off as it is overshadowed by the attention-grabbing midrange. The presentation, too, is defined largely by the balance of the earphones - the Aurvana 3 is not particularly dynamic and rarely sounds aggressive or even energetic. The soundstage is about average in size, albeit quite well-rounded. The space is larger than that of the Fischer Audio SBA-03 and the layering is more convincing. Still, the Aurvana 3 lacks air and openness next to dynamic-driver competitors such as the JVC FXT90 and doesn’t have the same imaging prowess. On the upside, it is very, very efficient – clearly designed for use straight out of a portable player.

Value (8/10) – The Creative Aurvana In-Ear 3 is a solid mid-range monitor that could pass for a consumer-oriented product from Shure or Westone. Aside from the mid-centric sound, which won’t be to everyone’s liking, the Aurvana 3 also filters potential listeners by ear size with its large plastic housings. Sonically, the Creatives have few weaknesses but also offer few memorable traits – a sound that fails to impress at first listen but may just be a cheaper - albeit slightly less balanced - alternative to something like a Klipsch Custom 3 or Ortofon e-Q7.

Pros: low cable noise; competent mid-centric sound
Cons: large housings not comfortable in smaller ears; thin cable

Big thanks to kidcharlemagne for the Creative Aurvana 3 loan

(2B12) PureSound ClarityOne

Reviewed Jan 2012

Details: First release from Canada-based ClarityOne Audio, said to provide the perfect sound experience
Current Price: $129.99 from clarityoneaudio.com (MSRP: $129.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 8Ω | Sens: 110 dB | Freq: 15-20k Hz | Cable: 4' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: trimmed MEElec tri-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and hard clamshell carrying case with carabiner
Build Quality (3.5/5) – Straight-barrel metal shells feel very solid and the smooth clear-coated cable is similar to those used by MEElectronics and Fischer Audio. The housings lack proper strain relief as well as nozzle filters
Isolation (3.5/5) – Above average, especially with aftermarket eartips
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low with cable-down wear; nonexistent when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (3.5/5) – Straight-barrel metal housings are average in weight and fit. Earphones sound best with deeper insertion or longer aftermarket eartips

Sound (7.9/10) – In contrast to the marketing efforts of most mainstream brands, the ClarityOne website concentrates largely on sound quality. The earphones are promised to deliver, among other things, “the clearest, truest, best sound on the market today” and “the ultimate in 3-dimentional (sic) listening experience”. A company that promises “perfect sound quality” and focuses on audio rather than cosmetics and endorsements certainly gets my attention, but separating expectations from reality can be rather difficult.

There are some potential pitfalls, including the low impedance of the earphones. Claimed to increase battery life despite the higher current draw, the 8-ohm impedance of the C1 can be problematic when coupled with sources that have high output impedance - the earphones will exhibit varying amounts of bass roll-off, though the effects will likely be mild with most portable players. Hiss is a bigger problem – when using a source with moderate background noise levels, hiss is very evident and background electrical noises can be audible as well.

Source matching issues aside, the bass is probably the best aspect of the C1’s sound. Bass response is punchy and well-measured, with good depth and power – visceral, but not overblown. There is a mid-bass hump but nothing that affects resolution or causes the low end to sound bloated – the bass may not be as quick as that of the average armature-based earphone but it performs very well among similarly-priced dynamic IEMs. The C1 offers up both more impact and better control than the MEElectronics CC51 and HiSoundAudio Crystal, for example, though its aggressive bass is not quite as tight as with the higher-priced VSonic GR07 and JVC FXT90.

The midrange of the C1 is clean and detailed. Despite the mid-bass lift, bleed is nearly nonexistent and the mids are only slightly warm. The bass and treble stand out in relative emphasis but the slightly recessed mids are still plenty aggressive. Peaks in the upper midrange and treble regions tend to exaggerate the clarity – an effect akin to using a treble-boosting equalizer. Natural clarity is good for a mid-tier dynamic – on-par with Sennheiser’s IE6 and IE7 - but certainly not revolutionary as the name may imply. It trails armature-based sets such as Fischer’s SBA-03 and Etymotic HF5, as well as pricier dynamics such as the VSonic GR07 and Sony MDR-EX600. The abovementioned earphones are also a touch more detailed than the C1, though none place nearly as much emphasis on the bass.

The top end unevenness does more than affect the clarity of the C1 – the upper midrange has a tendency to sound a touch shrill. Vocals also seem a tad ‘nasal’ at times and timbre doesn’t particularly impress, especially with stringed instruments. ‘Colored’ is clearly a term applicable to the C1’s sound. Cymbals are very prominent, even dominant at times. The treble is shimmery, aggressive, and energetic, but also fatiguing on occasion. With the wrong tips, the C1 can be sibilant and even with a good aftermarket set, such as Comply T400s or a deep-fitting tri-flange, sibilance-prone recordings can be problematic. It doesn’t help that the note thickness of the C1 is on the low side compared to sets like the JVC HA-FXT90.

The presentation of the C1 is far less enigmatic than the sound signature. It gives a good sense of space – better than the MEElec CC51 or HiSound Crystal – but stops short of the ambient, 3-dimensional soundstages offered by some higher-end models. Instrument separation is good and the positioning is adequate but compared to sets such as the Sony EX600 and VSonic GR07 it all sounds quite in-the-head. Imaging lags slightly behind the JVC HA-FXT90 but dynamics are well above-average despite the sound of the C1 being rather aggressive. Again, it puts on the best show at lower volumes, though due to the high sensitivity of the earphones certain players are too loud even at minimum output.

Value (7/10) – The ClarityOne is a competent mid-range dynamic-driver earphone in a conventional form factor. Minor omissions such as nozzle filters, molded strain reliefs, and alternate types of eartips are mostly made up for by the noise-free cable, sturdy shells, and mic/remote unit. PureSound’s marketing sets expectations for the earphone’s sound a bit high, however – the C1 is neither revolutionary in audio quality nor aimed at absolute fidelity with its sound signature. Instead, it is a fun-sounding IEM with few claims to accuracy or neutrality, but one that will be instantly impressive to fans of crisp, punchy, aggressive sound as well as anyone coming from stock earbuds or entry-level headphones.

Pros: Low cable noise; punchy, aggressive sound
Cons: No nozzle filters; aftermarket tips required for best sound; peaky treble leads to issues with timbre and tone

(2B13) JVC HA-FXT90

Reviewed Jan 2012

Details: JVC’s high-tech take on the dual dynamic earphone
Current Price: $105 from ebay.com (MSRP: est. $149.99)
Specs: Driver: Dual Dynamic | Imp: 12Ω | Sens: 107 dB | Freq: 8-25k Hz | Cable: 4' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges, short bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, cable winder, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The plastic housings of the FXT90 may be rather ordinary-looking compared to the metal FX300 and wooden FX500/FX700 shells but it feels very well put together, in typical JVC fashion. The strain reliefs are long and the L-plug is beefy. The cord itself is reasonably thick, soft, flexible, and – best of all – not modular as it is with JVC’s FX500/FX700 models
Isolation (3/5) – Quite good with the ergonomic but shallow-fitting shells
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low when worn cable-down; nonexistent with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) – Despite the vertical arrangement of the dual dynamic drivers, the FXT90 is no less comfortable than most conventional straight-barrel IEMs. The ergonomic nozzle angle helps, as do the smooth surface and rounded edges of the housings. Over-the-ear wear is possible but may require longer eartips than those provided

Sound (8.9/10) – The FXT90 is JVC’s first attempt at a dual-dynamic earphone. Utilizing no crossover, the FXT90 relies on the differences between the materials of the two drivers to create a natural variance in their response. Like Fischer Audio’s similarly-priced Tandem, the FXT90 positions the drivers vertically in the ear. Unlike the Tandem, it offers up impressive presence across the frequency range without straying too far from the sound of JVC’s higher-end wooden in-ears.

The low end of the FXT90s is strong but not overly dominant, with a mild mid-bass hump and excellent note thickness – similar in quantity to the Sennheiser IE7, but quicker and more controlled. Impact is good and the bass sounds full and fleshed-out. Compared to JVC’s FX500, the bass of the FXT90 is less prone to overshadowing the midrange, partly because the note presentation is thicker in the midrange and partly because the FXT90 exercises better control over its bottom end. The bass may not be as fast and tight as that of the VSonic’s GR07, but it is more forward and has both greater body and more impact. The GR07 boasts shorter decay times and tends to be quick and punchy, but not as powerful in comparison. Fischer’s dual-dynamic Tandem, too, is flatter through the bass and midrange but yields to the FXT90 in both bass impact and depth.

The midrange of the FXT90 is strong and prominent – not as forward as the mids of the Sennheiser IE7 or Fischer SBA-03, but not in the least laid-back. The good note thickness of the low end is retained, as is a bit of warmth. Despite the presentation being airy and nicely layered, the mids tend towards intimacy. They are smooth and full, with excellent timbre and good transparency. Clarity is good – better than with the Sennheiser IE7 and Fischer Audio Tandem but not quite as impressive as with the more neutral-sounding GR07 or the armature-based ACS T15. Detail levels are nearly on-par with the GR07.

At the top end, the FXT90 is again prominent, yet very competent. The mild emphasis tends to point out and even exaggerate sibilance present on a track but the edginess of the FX500 is all but absent. The energy is still there, however, as it is with all of the higher-end JVC in-ears I’ve heard. Compared to the similarly-priced FA Tandem, the FXT90 is significantly brighter and more sparkly but - luckily - has quality to make the treble work. Treble detail is excellent and the resolution and transparency give the GR07 a run for its money. In comparison, the similarly-priced PureSound ClartyOne lacks separation and sounds both thinner and peakier while the Sennheiser IE7 sounds plasticky and lacks smoothness. Absolute extension at the top is decent but trails both the ClarityOne and the IE7 slightly.

Presentation is yet another strength of the FXT90 – the earphones are airy, well-separated, and nicely layered. Soundstage width is about average but the depth is quite good. Compared to the GR07, the FTX90 sounds narrower and less spacious but has slightly better imaging. Its presentation is more intimate compared to the GR07 and Tandem and more well-rounded than those of the similarly-priced ClarityOne and Fischer SBA-03. Dynamics are good and the efficiency is very impressive. That’s not to say there’s no upgrading from the FXT90 – there is a noticeable gap in detail, refinement, and soundstaging when moving to a higher-end set like the HiFiMan RE272, but for the asking price the FXT90 is a very impressive all-around performer.

Value (9/10) – JVC’s FXT90 is not the first dual-dynamic earphone to hit the market, but it may just be the first one you’ll actually want to live with. From a usability standpoint it is clearly the best of the bunch, foregoing not only the awkward fit and questionable design of the dual-dynamic competition but also the modular cable and open-back housings of the other high-end JVC monitors. The sound of the FXT90 is balanced in an aggressive sort of way, with the intimate midrange giving up only a bit of emphasis to the prominent bass and sparkly treble. The sound is strengthened by good timbre and a nicely layered presentation – the same qualities that make the FX700 a cream-of-the-crop top-tier. Simply put, at $135, the FXT90 is one of the best deals in portable audio.

Pros: Lively, competent sound; solidly built; low microphonics
Cons: N/A

Huge thanks to Inks for the HA-FXT90 loan!

(2B14) Sony MDR-EX600

Reviewed Feb 2012

Details: Sony's mid-range dynamic-driver monitor
Current Price: $131 from provantage.com (MSRP: $199.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 107 dB | Freq: 4-28k Hz | Cable: 4' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrids, generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) - Sony Hybrid silicone tips (6 sizes), Hybrid silicone+foam tips (3 sizes), and carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) - Though not made out of magnesium like those of the EX1000, the housings of the EX600 share the vertical-driver design and still feel just as sturdy. The detachable cable is held in place by a threaded bit and I still found myself unscrewing the connectors a bit each time I took the earphones off. The cord itself is very flexible but not particularly thick. The "memory wire" section doesn't hold its shape well. The termination is a slim 3.5mm L-plug
Isolation (2.5/5) - The nozzles of the EX1000 seem rather long but the earphones are not well-designed for deep insertion. Isolation is mediocre with the standard Hybrid eartips and very slightly better with the supplied foam-stuffed tips. Wind noise can be an additional issue when used outside
Microphonics (5/5) - The native wear style is over-the-ear and cord noise nonexistent in the soft cable
Comfort (4/5) - Though housings designed around vertically-positioned drivers often feature angled nozzles or other ergonomic improvements, the EX600 is actually a straight-barrel earphone. It is quite large and tends to protrude farther than most earphones when worn, looking a bit like the ridiculous PFR-V1. On the upside, the long nozzles position the driver far enough away from the ear not to cause discomfort. The fit is not as secure as with most other high-end monitors but the soft memory wire works well enough in conjunction with the cable cinch

Sound (9/10) – The MDR-EX600 closely resembles Sony’s dynamic-driver flagship, the EX1000, not only in design but also sound. As with the EX1000, the low end of the EX600 is accurate and controlled. It sounds clean and detailed, but not at the expense of note thickness. Rather, the bass is smooth and lacks the aggression of something like the JVC HA-FX500, which easily offers more depth and weight but loses out to the EX600 in control and accuracy. The similarly-priced VSonic GR07 is a little quicker and flatter in response, with better bass depth but similar punch, while the EX600 is more dynamic and at times presents a touch more bass power, though neither leans heavily on lower frequencies. Similarly, the EX600 itself loses just a bit of depth, resolution, and control compared to the pricier EX1000 model.

The midrange of the EX600 is neutral-to-bright, with a slight gain in emphasis towards the lower treble. Bass-midrange balance is good - the EX600 doesn’t share the warmth of an FX500 or Sennheiser IE7. There is no bass bleed, just clear and detailed mids. Like the EX1000, the EX600 is very smooth and liquid in presentation – more so than the GR07, T15, or FX500. The slight treble tilt also tends to create an illusion of better clarity compared to sets such as the warmer, darker FX500. However, next to more resolving earphones - the HiFiMan RE272, for example - it is noticeable that the EX600 lacks a bit of microdetail and overall refinement.

The top end of the EX600 is emphasized, but controlled. As with the EX1000, the EX600’s treble tends to be a bit sharper than that of the VSonic GR07 but still manages to remain refined and reasonably forgiving. On some tracks the EX600 does exaggerate sibilance a bit compared to the GR07 (or even JVC FX500), but those are few and far between. There is no grain or harshness and no sacrifices made in crispness or resolution. Best of all, the treble energy that is often lacking with consumer-friendly dynamic-driver sets is conveyed realistically. Top end extension is not quite a match for an RE272’s but keeps up with the GR07 and other similarly-priced sets.

The presentation, too, mimics the EX1000 closely – the EX600 sounds just as spacious and open as the flagship. Dynamics are excellent and both sets tend to sound rather effortless. Soundstage width is impressive and there is not a hint of the confined, closed-in feel prevalent among stage monitors. The similarly-priced VSonic GR07 also feels wide and spacious but gives up a bit of air, as well as some depth and imaging prowess to the EX600. The EX600 also has a wider soundstage and better layering than the JVC FX500. The VSonics and JVCs do provide a slightly more 3-dimensional presentation compared to the heightened left-right separation of the Sonys, making all three sets are very impressive in their price bracket. Those looking for a wider, more headphone-like presentation compared to the more typical in-the-head feel of an IEM should be especially impressed with the EX600.

Value (9/10) – A much more reasonably priced alternative to Sony’s flagship MDR-EX1000, the EX600 is a perfect look into the law of diminishing returns. At about 1/3 the price, the EX600 delivers all of the flagship’s functionality and most of the sound quality, easily competing with the very best earphones in its category. The sound signatures of the two Sony sets are remarkably similar - clean, quick, airy, and dynamic – and the same isolation and wind noise caveats apply to both. Those willing to embrace the design will discover the EX600 to have one of the best price/performance ratios in its class.

Pros: No cable noise; clear, detailed, open, and spacious sound
Cons: Average isolation; fit can be frustrating; wind noise can be an issue

Huge thanks to Inks for loaning me the EX600 for review

(2B15) Paradigm Shift E3m

Reviewed Apr 2012

Details: Flagship of speaker manufacturer Paradigm’s new IEM line
Current Price: $129.99 from paradigm.com (MSRP: $129.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 18Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 8-19k Hz | Cable: 4' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Trimmed MEElec triple-flanges; Head-Direct bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and faux leather clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) - The E3m is built around a single piece of machined aluminum housing the driver chamber. A second, plastic piece flares outward at the rear and presents a rather large Paradigm Shift logo. The nozzle is protected by a metal filter and the entire construction feels nice and solid. The cabling is nylon-sheathed but seems to resist kinks and tangles very well. The biggest issue is the lack of strain relief on housing entry and at the y-split, which may result in the nylon cable sheath fraying over time. A mic/remote unit with an unusually small single button is located on the right-side cable.
Isolation (3/5) - Good for a dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics (4/5) - Mild when worn cord-down and pretty much nonexistent with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (3.5/5) - The housings use an ergonomic, off-axis design (a-la AKG K3003) and the stock tips are of good quality and easy to get a good seal with. The E3m can be worn both cable-up and cable-down but the sharp rear corners of the housing and stem tend to contact the outer ear, potentially causing discomfort for some users. This is easily remedied by using longer aftermarket eartips that position the housings farther out in the ear

Sound (6.9/10) - The general sound signature of the Paradigm Shift E3m is bass-biased, with a laid-back midrange and similarly relaxed treble. The low end is full and deep, easily reaching down into the subbass frequencies and offering great rumble and impact. Paradigm claims that the tuning of the E3m was inspired by their Signature Series loudspeakers, and it is easy to imagine speakers putting out the same sort of powerful, visceral bass the earphones produce. Relative to the midrange and treble, the quantity of the bass borders on ‘basshead’ and despite the lack of mid-bass bloat lacks a little texture, speed, and resolution, sounding boomy at times. For comparison purposes I grabbed another in-ear headset recently released by a different speaker manufacturer – the Velodyne vPulse. While the bass of the Velodynes did not have quite as much impact, it was pleasantly cleaner and more controlled, resulting in a more accurate, less colored overall sound.

The midrange of the E3m – and pretty much everything following – is recessed compared to the prominent bass. Though there is not much of a mid-bass hump per se, the bass level is so inflated that the low end bleeds into the midrange anyway, resulting in noticeable veiling of vocals and instruments and a lack of clarity compared to many cheaper in-ears. Bumping everything above 200 Hz up on the EQ helps, allowing the mids to shine - with the bass out of the way detail and texture levels are actually quite good and the earphones sound enjoyable. Notes have good weight and thickness, giving the E3m a full-bodied feel that works well with the warm tone.

The treble transition is smooth and uneventful. The top end is just as laid-back as the midrange, with the resulting ‘dull’ sound reminding me of the new Dunu Crater and Hawkeye. There is no treble sparkle and crispness is mediocre at best. On the upside, top-end extension is decent and the E3m adds no harshness or sibilance into the mix. The sound remains smooth and non-fatiguing, even at higher volumes, but the dullness does make cranking up the volume tempting. A more accurate set - a VSonic GR06, for example - will extract the same amount of musical detail at lower volumes and may even encourage some listeners to turn down their devices.

The presentation of the E3m is probably its best trait – it is wholesome and well-rounded. The soundstage is above-average in size and has very good on-center feel compared to sets like the Velodyne vPulse. While the bass tends to dominate the sonic space when present, the E3m doesn’t sound particularly congested and has good instrument separation and layering. In comparison, the Dunu Hawkeye and Velodyne vPulse both sound flat and a bit uninvolving. Dynamics are quite decent as well – closer to the mid-fi level of a MEElec CC51 or Shure SE215 than the Velodyne or Dunu sets.

Value (6.5/10) - Paradigm’s flagship in-ear is less of a shift and more of a paradox, promising sound akin to high-end speakers but delivering a bass-heavy signature saddled with veiled vocals and dull treble. The drivers are certainly very capable, producing high detail levels, good dynamics, and a spacious presentation, and the E3m is a solid headset – well-built, comfortable, and low on cable noise. As it stands, however, the balance makes it one to recommend only for lovers of warm, full-bodied sound with forward bass and recessed mids and highs.

Pros: Nice construction; smooth sound with decent presentation
Cons: Housing shape may not be comfortable for everyone; bass-biased balance results in midrange and treble deficiencies

Full review of the E3m, complete with more photos, can be found here

(2B16) Yamaha EPH-100SL

Reviewed June 2012

Details: Yamaha’s flagship in-ear, built around a dynamic microdriver
Current Price: $150 from amazon.com (MSRP: $199.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 104 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) - Bi-flange silicone tips (5 sizes), ¼” adapter, 6.5’ (2m) extension cable, and soft zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The EPH-100 boasts a nozzle-mounted microdriver and sturdy machined-aluminum housings. The cable is average in thickness but well-relieved on housing entry and at the L-plug. Driver flex is nonexistent
Isolation (4/5) – Some of the best among all dynamic-driver earphones with the stock bi-flange tips
Microphonics (4/5) – Reasonable when worn cord-down; nonexistent otherwise
Comfort (4.5/5) – Those with narrow ear canals may want to give these a pass due to the nozzle diameter but for everyone else the small, lightweight shells should be ergonomic and extremely unobtrusive. Stock eartips are surprisingly comfortable

Sound (8.9/10) – Taking Yamaha’s flagship spot away from the EPH-50, the EPH-100 utilizes a dynamic microdriver in a form factor much like that of Monster’s Miles Davis Trumpets. Like the Trumpets, the EPH-100 is an excellent all-rounder, but it is tuned differently from the mildly v-shaped Monsters. The bass is strong – deep and punchy, with a mild mid-bass lift giving it significantly more impact compared to most BA-based earphones and leaner dynamics such as the VSonic GR07 and Sony EX600. At the same time, the EPH-100 is far from overly bassy in the conventional sense – while not the most detailed or textured, its bass always remains clean and controlled. Like the Miles Davis Trumpet, which is a touch heavier on mid- and sub-bass in comparison, the EPH-100 is noticeably less boomy than Sennheiser’s IE7 and the older Miles Davis Tribute.

The mids of the EPH-100 are balanced very well with the low end – not recessed, but not quite forward. They are smooth, veil-free, dynamic, and more prominent compared to those of the slightly v-shaped Monster Trumpet. Clarity and detail are good and the note presentation is excellent – the EPH-100 is not overly thick or full-bodied but definitely cannot be called lean, either. The sound is very liquid but lacks a touch of crispness compared to the GR07 and many armature-based sets. The EPH-100 is what many would consider ‘musical’ - it sounds warmer, fuller, and more dynamic compared to sets such as the GR07 but is occasionally less adept at portraying fine details and texturing.

At the top the EPH-100 sounds somewhat smoothed-over compared to the more energetic Monster Miles Davis Trumpet, VSonic GR07, and JVC HA-FXT90, but also has the least potential for treble fatigue. Indeed, it’s difficult to imagine the treble of the Yamahas being overbearing for any listener. The downside is that it is not the most resolving – the highs are more refined than those of the Sennheiser IE7 but not as crisp and clean as those of the GR07. Top end extension is good, however, and the EPH-100 doesn’t lack air.

The presentation of the EPH-100 is befittingly well-rounded – soundstage size is above average, though it doesn’t quite keep up with the GR07 or Ultimate Ears TF10 in absolute width and out-of-the-head feel. Depth is good, as are the instrument separation and dynamics, which allow for better layering compared, for example, to the more flat- and distant-sounding GR07. At the same time, the EPH-100 is not as forward and intimate as the FXT90 and yet sounds open and uncongested, avoiding the more closed-in feel of many lower-end monitors.

Value (9.5/10) – Yamaha’s latest flagship makes a clean break from the company’s unremarkable lower-end models, offering up a comfortable, well-built, highly-isolating earphone in a compact, microdriver-based package. The sound quality is far above average as well, with strong bass, lush mids, and smooth – albeit slightly docile – treble. The EPH-100 is easily one of the best-sounding earphones – and one of the best overall packages - in its price class.

Pros: Great isolation; small and comfortable; smooth and dynamic sound
Cons: Nozzle-mounted driver not great for those with narrow ear canals

Big thanks to Gilly87 for the EPH-100 loan!

(2B17) JVC HA-FXD80

Added Sep 2012

Details: JVC’s carbon nanotube microdriver earphone
Current Price: $105 from ebay.com (MSRP: est $80); $120 for HA-FRD80 with mic & 1-button remote
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 20Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 8-25k Hz | Cable: 3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: generic single-flanges; generic bi-flanges; MEElectronics ‘short’ bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), cable winder, shirt clip, and drawstring carrying pouch
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The housings of the FXD80s are solid-feeing stainless steel, with nozzle-mounted microdrivers and unique-looking but sturdy strain reliefs. Cabling is typical JVC – soft and flexible. Mild driver flex is present.
Isolation (3.5/5) – Very good with the right tips and moderate insertion
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low when worn cable-down; nonexistent otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – Quite comfortable except for those with narrow ear canals. The housings are heavier and a bit larger than those of the Yamaha and Monster microdriver sets but not enough so to cause fit issues

Sound (8.7/10) – JVC’s previous microdriver earphone, the FXT90, featured a carbon nanotube driver alongside a second transducer. The new FXD80 uses a single carbon nanotube microdriver. Interestingly, the FXD80 is not as efficient as the dual-driver FXT90, requiring a few extra notches to reach listening volume. The power handling of the FXD80 is rather strange in that it is actually sensitive enough to be used at low volumes, yet happily accepts quite a lot more power before passing comfortable listening thresholds. Due to the slightly recessed mids, being able to bump up the volume without the sound becoming shrill or boomy is very welcome with many tracks.

The bass of the FXD80 is punchy and has good depth. Mid-bass boost is very mild – not as heavy as with the FXT90 and lower-end FX40 model but more substantial than with the VSonic GR07 and HiFiMan earphones. Like the FX40, the FXD80 leans slightly on the thin side in note presentation and as a result its bass reminds me of the Shure SE535 – great in extension but perhaps not as full and rumbly as the response warrants. The slight bass elevation causes the JVCs to sound a little less controlled compared to the GR07. Certain similarly-priced armature sets such as the Fischer SBA-03/MEElectronics A161P and Rockit R-50 also sound quicker and tighter, as expected. The bass of the FXD80 is also not quite as effortless as the dynamic, highly versatile low end of the Monster and Yamaha microdriver earphones but is certainly respectable considering the lower price of the JVCs.

The midrange is clear and detailed but, like the low end lacks a bit of thickness. The mids seem to take a step back compared to the bass and treble. Male vocals especially sound somewhat recessed – the GR07, for example, provides a flatter response with fuller, thicker, more natural male vocals. The RE-ZERO and MEElectronics A161P are more similar to the FXD80 in note presentation but both feature much more forward mids.

The response starts gaining emphasis in the upper midrange and the top end is prominent, yet somehow not fatiguing. The overall tone of the JVCs is a little on the cool side, which is certainly unusual for a mid-level dynamic earphone. Detail and top-end extension are good and the sound is nice and airy on the whole. The treble curve adds some perceived clarity to the sound in a way reminiscent of the lower-end FX40 model and the similarly-priced PureSound ClarityOne. The treble response does tend to exaggerate cymbal ringing a little and can throw timbre off slightly but – happily - doesn’t have the sibilant tendencies of the VSonic GR07. The pricier HiFiMan RE272, on the other hand, does a much better job of controlling sibilance without losing air but will not work for those who crave the extra treble energy.

The presentation of the FXD80 is less straightforward. The earphones sound spacious in a way reminiscent of the $300 Monster Miles Davis Trumpets and yet seem to have an average-sized headstage and layering. The FXD80 doesn’t throw sonic cues as far out of the head as a VSonic GR07 and Rockit R-50 and the presentation seems a little less well-spaced and linear. The HiFiMan RE272 is also more open-sounding and spacious, but the fact that the FXD80 draws comparisons to these far more expensive sets speaks volumes of the overall level of its performance.

Value (9/10) – JVC’s latest microdriver design is solid performer, combining deep bass, a clean midrange, and prominent treble for a crisp and energetic sound. As with the lower-end FX40 model, the FXD80 can’t be recommended without some reservation – the sound signature seems to work best with electronic music and male vocals disappoint compared to the pricier FXT90 model and other competing sets. Still, with its stainless steel shell, above-average isolation, and versatile, no-frills cabling, the FXD80 is one of the better buys in its price range.

Pros: Very solid build, flexible and quiet cabling, highly proficient sound
Cons: Fit may not work for those with narrow ear canals

Big thanks to mcnoiserdc for the FXD80 loan!

(2B18) HiSoundAudio Wooduo 2

Added Oct 2012

Details: Wooden flat-cable earphone from HiSound
Current Price: $105 from ebay.com (MSRP: $129)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 110 dB | Freq: 16-23k Hz | Cable: 4.1' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges, Comply T400
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes), double-flange (3 sizes) and triple-flange silicone tips, hard shell carrying case, and shirt clip
Build Quality (4/5) – The Wooduo 2 utilizes wood and metal housings with flat cables. Everything is very well put together and the cables seem sturdy and are tangle-resistant, though the strain reliefs are a bit stiff for my liking and no cable cinch is present
Isolation (3/5) – Good for a dynamic-driver design
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; better when worn cable-up
Comfort (4/5) – The housings are fairly small and fit comfortably but the flat cable a little stiff and, combined with the lack of a cable cinch, can make over-the-ear wear difficult

Sound (8/10) – The Wooduo 2 is a bass-heavy earphone that manages to retain solid all-around performance by keeping its low end in check and maintaining good clarity and treble presence. Bass impact is excellent and depth is very good – on-par with pricier sets such as the JVC HA-FX500 and FutureSonics Atrio MG7. Listeners who find heavy bass fatiguing will want to stay away but it’s doubtful that even die-hard bassheads will find the Wooduo 2 lacking in low-end presence. Sets such as HiSound’s own Crystal and the VSonic GR06, which are not exactly bass-light, are absolutely trampled by the Wooduo’s visceral, domineering bass. At the same time, while the Wooduo is among the bassier IEMs I’ve heard, its the low end remains surprisingly controlled and clean. It does lack some tightness and detail when compared to an armature-based set such as the Rock-It Sounds R-30 or the higher-end VSonic GR07 but not when pitted against other bass monsters, especially ones in its price bracket.

The midrange of the Wooduo is not as recessed as one might expect from such a bassy earphone – only a little more so than that of the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition. Midrange clarity is very good and the detail level is again respectable, though not as good as with HiSound’s more balanced-sounding Crystal model. Some loss of refinement is expected with this much bass and the Wooduo handles complexity well for an earphone with the sound signature equivalent of a steamroller.

The treble of the Wooduo is more emphasized that the midrange, likely in an attempt to balance out the heavy low end. There is a good amount of sparkle and the Wooduo doesn’t sound as dark as the Atrio earphones or the many other bass-heavy sets with severely recessed treble. The top end of the Wooduo 2 is crisp and well-defined – not in the least bit smeared – and the treble emphasis results in a bit of added clarity compared to sets such as the Rock-It R-30 and HiSound Crystal. The treble does sound a little edgy and can be harsh, especially at higher volumes, but lacks the sibilance-inducing peak of the VSonic GR02 Bass Edition. Extension at the top is good as well, surpassing the GR02 BE slightly.

The soundstage of the Wooduo 2 is above average in size and boasts good air and impressive instrument separation. There are sets with better 3D imaging, such as the Thinksound MS01 and VSonic GR06, but the Wooduo 2 still has good width and decent depth--better, for example, than HiSound’s Crystal model. Interestingly, the sensitivity of the Wooduo is higher as well – the Crystal requires quite a bit more power to reach the same listening level.

Value (8/10) – The HiSoundAudio Wooduo 2 is a dream earphone for the bass lover, combining a very deep and powerful low end with good midrange clarity and crisp, if slightly hard-edged treble. Its brute, visceral sound makes it a great signature upgrade for something like a MEElec M9 or JVC FX1X. In addition, the form factor is small and lightweight, and though I am not a fan of the flat cable, it does feel sturdy and resist tangling. Overall, the Wooduo 2 a solid alternative to HiSound’s excellent Crystal model for bass fans in search of a good all-rounder.

Pros: Great bass impact and depth; good clarity
Cons: Treble is a bit edgy; will be too bassy for some; over-the-ear wear can be a challenge with flat cable

(2B19) Dunu I 3C-S

Added Nov 2012

Details: Single-armature earphone from Dunu
Current Price: $108 from ebay.com (MSRP: $108)
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 10Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 16-22k Hz | Cable: 4' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 3.5mm | Preferred tips: MEElec A151 single-flanges; Shure gray flex
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) - Single-flange standard (3 sizes), Hybrid-style (4 pairs in 3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, cable guides, ¼” adapter, airline adapter, impedance adapter, cleaning cloth, drawstring carrying pouch, and crushproof metal carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The construction of the I 3C-S doesn’t feel as heavy-duty as that of the other Dunu earphones but is still above average. In contrast to other Dunu models, the housings of the I 3C-S are made out of lightweight plastic and the cables are only average in thickness. In addition, the strain reliefs are too hard for my liking and the nozzle filters come off too easily. The L-plug is well-relieved, however, and the cable features all of the usual Dunu enhancements including sliding cinch and integrated cable wrap
Isolation (3/5) – The housings seem to favor a relatively shallow insertion. Isolation is average for a BA-based earphone.
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very little cable noise is present
Comfort (4/5) - The housings are lightweight and comfortable but on the large side for a single BA. Also, while I like the wide tip selection in theory, some of the eartips provided with the I 3C-S didn’t stay on the nozzles well enough for my liking

Sound (8.1/10) – Dunu’s first proper armature-based earphone, the I 3C-S is a mid-centric affair with sound characteristics typical of a mid-tier single-armature setup. Dunu includes an impedance adapter with the I 3C-S for a reason – the earphones benefit from the extra impedance, and not only because the output impedance of a source can interact with the low impedance of the earphones. Even with my Fiio E7, which has notably low output impedance, the I 3C-S sounds better when the adapter is used. The bass response is better in quality, appearing tighter and flatter, and the overall balance is improved with slightly brighter, better-defined treble and less dominant mids.

In general, the sound of the I 3C-S is hardly unique in the world of single-driver monitors. The bass is quick and clean, with mild deep bass roll-off. As expected, it can appear a touch lean next to many dynamic-driver monitors, including Dunu’s own DN-19 Tai Chi, but lacks some crispness and definition next to more analytical armature-based sets such as the MEElec A161P (Fischer SBA-03) and the dual-BA Rock-It Sounds R-50. Tonally, the I 3C-S is very slightly warm – warmer, for example, than the HiFiMan RE-ZERO but not quite as warm as the bassier Rock-It Sounds R-30.

The midrange of the Dunus is clean-sounding and very prominent. The I 3C-S is a mid-centric earphone but the mids are not pushed forward as much as with the Rock-It R-30, resulting in better overall balance (better still when the impedance adapter is used). Detail levels are good and the background is darker compared to the R-30, with the I 3C-S sounding clearer and more transparent. It’s clearer, more forward, and more intelligible also than Dunu’s DN-19 model, which sounds veiled in comparison. Note thickness is rather good for a single BA.

At the top, the I 3C-S remains clean and resolving. It sounds smooth, but is still more revealing than the Rock-It single-armature earphones, making both the R-20 and R-30 sound smoothed-over and lacking in refinement. The I 3C-S is still rather light on treble sparkle and less extended at the top than the HiFiMan RE-ZERO and MEElec A161P, but also not as grainy as the latter. The presentation is wide with good instrument separation. The I 3C-S is more spacious compared to the Rock-It R-30, though it can sound rather intimate with some tracks due to the forward midrange.

Value (8/10) – The Dunu I 3C-S is more unique in name than design, with clean if slightly mid-centric sonic performance delivered by a single balanced armature driver. There’s quite a bit of competition among armature-based earphones at and below its price point, however, and while it is one of the better single BA tunings I’ve heard, the I 3C-S has trouble pulling itself above similarly-priced dual-armature designs. All in all, the earphones do make for a well-rounded, non-fatiguing introduction to BA sound and are redeemed as a total package by a well thought-out accessory kit, good build quality, and the lightweight, over-the-ear design.

Pros: Clear, slightly mid-centric sound; great accessory kit; very low cable noise
Cons: Sounds best with included impedance adapter

(2B20) Dunu DN-19 Tai Chi

Added Nov 2012

Details: Dunu’s current dynamic-driver flagship featuring a vent tuning system
Current Price: $133 from ebay.com (MSRP: $133)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 16-26k Hz | Cable: 4.2' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Stock silicone (gray)
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes) and Hybrid-style (4 pairs in 3 sizes) silicone tips, shirt clip, cable guides, ¼” adapter, airline adapter, 10 pairs of vent plugs, cleaning cloth, plastic eartip/accessory organizer, drawstring carrying pouch, and crushproof metal carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The housings of Dunu’s new flagship are plastic but still convey the same solidity as the company’s metal-shelled earphones. The quality of the materials is excellent and the Yin-Yang design on the faceplate is very discreet. The housings have protruding tuning ports that can be left open or plugged with the included dampers. The tiny plugs are plastic and feel a bit low-grade compared to the rest of the earphone, especially considering they can become loose with use. Mercifully, 10 pairs are included for when they get lost or damaged. The cables are thicker than those of the I 3C-S model and the L-plug is well-relieved
Isolation (3.5/5) – The ergonomic housings allow for a reasonably deep seal to be attained and isolation is good
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Some cable noise is present in the slightly stiff cord but a shirt clip, cable guides, and sliding cinch are all included to help mitigate microphonics
Comfort (4/5) – The DN-19 is designed for an over-the-ear fit, with good overall ergonomics reminiscent of the Sennheiser IE6. The housings contain 10mm drivers but aren’t too large. However, though the tuning vents were designed to exit the ear comfortably, their location may still cause issues for those with smaller ears

Sound (8.1/10) – First, a note on the tuning system. The Tai Chi has only two inherent configurations – closed-vent and open-vent. Dunu recommends tip rolling for even more extreme results and, as advertised, the thicker narrow-channel Hybrid-style tips are good for a bassier sound while the softer wide-channel gray tips provide lesser bass quantity. The tips do make a difference, but for those already familiar with tip rolling that shouldn’t come as a surprise.

The vent system is interesting, however. It is very obvious that more air is moved when the vent is left open, resulting bass that is deeper and fuller but also looser and softer of note. The difference in bass quantity is quite large – the DN-19 can go from sounding relatively accurate, with bass quantity slightly lower than that of the VSonic GR06, to an earphone that’s very hard-hitting, deep, and rumbly, a competitor for Monster Turbines and the like. I vastly preferred the vents closed in all of my listening but those willing to live with boomier, albeit more powerful, bass may prefer to keep the vents open.

In general, the bass of the DN-19 is full and impactful but far from overwhelming with the vents closed. Like all of the Dunu dynamics, it’s not a very quick-sounding earphone—definitely no match for Dunu’s I 3C-S model—but sounds natural and pleasant. With the vents closed the bass is quite linear—compared to the VSonic GR06, for example, the Tai Chi has slightly more deep bass and less mid-bass. As a result, the Tai Chi is slightly more neutral in tone and boasts a very easy-going bass presentation.

The midrange of the Tai Chi is rather level but a bit laid-back in terms of emphasis, in stark contrast to the forward mids of Dunu’s similarly-priced I 3C-S. It doesn’t have the greatest clarity, sounding veiled compared to Dunu’s I 3C-S and sets such as the HiFiMan RE-ZERO but still slightly clearer than that of the VSonic GR06. Overall, the mids of the Tai Chi are smooth and rather natural-sounding, with good note thickness and only a slight lack of clarity.

The treble, likewise, is smooth and forgiving. There is no harshness or sibilance with either vent configuration. Compared to the more revealing I 3C-S and other sets such as the HiFiMan RE-ZERO and HiSound Crystal, the treble of the Tai Chi is laid-back and very easy-going. Top-end extension is good but again the note presentation just isn’t very crisp or energetic, as is the case with the DN-17 and DN-18 models.

The presentation of the DN-19 is expectedly a touch laid back, but with good overall space and a coherent presentation. The DN-19 is capable of placing vocals front and center when necessary, especially when the vents are closed and the bass isn’t overwhelmingly powerful. Not being a particularly quick earphone, it can get congested at times but otherwise manages an airier and more spacious sound than, for example, the VSonic GR06 and HiSound Crystal.

Value (8.5/10) – Dunu’s new flagship is an impressive all-rounder, easily the company’s best-sounding and most distinctive earphone. In typical Dunu fashion it provides a very thoughtful accessory kit and great build quality, but also adds an ergonomic fit and variable-bass sound tuning system, all wrapped up in a unique design. The tuning system of the DN-19 doesn’t quite provide two sound signatures in one as some may hope, but it does greatly affect the way bass is presented. Overall sound quality is good, with variable bass quantity underscoring the capable mids and smooth, extended treble. It may not have the clarity of the armature-based I 3C-S model, but the smooth and forgiving signature should work for a variety of genres and listening preferences.

Pros: Tuning system makes a difference in bass performance; good build quality; great accessory kit; comfortable fit
Cons: Tuning dampers feel cheap compared to the rest of the kit; clarity and transparency lag behind some of the competition

(2B21) Rock-It Sounds R-50

Added Nov 2012

Details: Dual BA earphone from Rock-It Sounds
Current Price: $120 from rockitsounds.com (MSRP: $119.99); $125.99 for R-50M with mic and 1-button remote
Specs: Driver: dual BA | Imp: 31Ω | Sens: 110 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.2' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 3mm | Preferred tips: Etymotic triple-flanges, Stock single-flanges; Klipsch bi-flanges, Shure gray flex
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), airline adapter, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The R-50 utilizes plastic housings with a soft rubber sheath on the outside. Two inches of memory wire and a twisted cable identical to those found on the Rock-It R-20 and R-30 complete the picture. The memory wire is quite inflexible and makes the housings feel more fragile than they really are. Care should be taken when handling the joint between the memory wire and housing
Isolation (3.5/5) – Isolation is good even though only single-flange tips are included. Aftermarket triple-flange tips and a deep insertion help further
Microphonics (5/5) – Cable noise is nonexistent with the excellent twisted cable
Comfort (4.5/5) – The housings are small and designed for an over-the-ear fit. The nozzles are long enough to achieve a comfortable seal and the overall design is lightweight and unobtrusive. The memory wire has more memory than most

Sound (9.1/10) – The R-50 is based on the familiar Knowles TWFK dual armature driver, which puts in good company with the likes of the Ultimate Ears 700 and VSonic GR01. While not exactly unique in sound signature, the R-50 is one of the better-tuned TWFKs I’ve come across, and also one of the most reasonably-priced.

The sound signature of the R-50 is a balanced one. Starting with the low end the R-50 pursues accuracy. The bass is lean, punchy, linear, and extended, with much less mid-bass presence and than the lower-end R-30 model. The single-armature MEElec A161P has a similarly flat bass presentation but offers more punch and power than the R-50 at the expense of some of the refinement. The Audio-Technica CK10 and Etymotic ER4S are more similar to the R-50 with a hair less mid-bass providing them with even flatter bass presentations. On the whole, while those looking for rumbly sub-bass or thick, full-bodied impact won’t find it in the R-50, fans of clean and accurate bass will be pleased.

The midrange of the R-50 is near the top of the food chain when it comes to clarity and fine detailing, vastly improving on the lower-end R-30. It helps that the low end never intrudes and the note presentation is lean and crisp. The tone is quite neutral as well - the R-50 makes both the MEElec A161P and VSonic GR07 sound warm in comparison. Some may complain that it tends towards a thinner note presentation but it’s really no worse than the original Fischer Audio DBA-02 in that respect.

Moving on up, the R-50 continues to yield no real surprises. In typical TWFK fashion, the treble boasts plenty of energy. It is crisp and sparkly, but not particularly forgiving. Some treble peaks can be discerned but sound tamer with Etymotic triple-flange tips and a deeper seal, or an inline impedance adapter. With single-flange tips the R-50 can be a touch sibilant compared, for example, to the Etymotic ER4S, but not as offensive as the VSonic GR07 can be. Top-end extension is good and the presentation is quite airy. Soundstage size is impressive – the width and depth are above average and the imaging is not too far behind the venerable Audio-Technica CK10. Soundstage width is reminiscent of the VSonic GR07 but the R-50 boasts better depth. Instrument separation is excellent as well.

Select Comparisons:

Rock-It Sounds R-30 ($70)

The R-50 is not the only high bang-per-buck earphone in Rock-It Sounds’ lineup – the single-armature R-30 sounds good enough at $70 to compete with many pricier earphones. It falls far short of the flagship, however, with sound that is not nearly as clear or as refined as that of the R-50. The mid-bass of the single-armature is boosted, which results in a warmer, muddier sound less revealing of fine detail. The note presentation is fuller and softer compared to the R-50 but the overall balance is lacking. Treble energy suffers, as does top-end extension, and the presentation is more intimate and closed-in. Compared to the R-50, the single-armature model sounds congested, lacking both the excellent separation and 3-D imaging of the R-50.

Fischer Audio DBA-02 mkII ($178)

The second generation of Fischer’s bang-per-buck champion improved largely on the construction and aesthetics of the previous model, but also gained an interesting sound signature that contrasts well with the R-50. Keeping in mind that both earphones use Knowles TWFK dual armature drivers, it’s the little differences that differentiate the two. Compared to the Rock-It R-50, the DBA-02 mkII boasts a slightly bassier, warmer, and more colored sound signature that makes it better-suited for the average consumer. The R-50 sounds slightly thinner and flatter, has a larger and more spacious presentation, and beats the mkII in treble energy. It is a bit more transparent and revealing, but also less forgiving compared to the smoother Fischers.

HiFiMan RE272 ($250)

HiFiMan’s flagship is delivers well-balanced and highly refined sound courtesy of a single dynamic driver. Compared to the dual BA-powered R-50, the RE272 generally sounds slightly softer and fuller of note. Its bass, while not as crisp and punchy, decays more naturally and its treble is smoother and more forgiving. The R-50, on the other hand, is crisper and a hair more grainy. Its tone is brighter, with added treble energy which also makes the sound appear a touch clearer. The treble of the R-50 is less forgiving, however, and the earphones sometimes come across sounding hot and spitty compared to the R272.

Ultimate Ears 900 ($400)

Ultimate Ears’ new flagship is the latest and greatest in balanced armature technology, with four drivers per side providing exceptionally smooth sound. Compared to the UE900, the R-50 boasts a brighter tone with less bass emphasis and more treble energy. It has a thinner note presentation but provides better midrange clarity and more intelligible vocals. Unfortunately, the treble is also splashier and more prone to exaggerating sibilance. The UE900, on the other hand, is smoother and carries more lower midrange emphasis for fuller, throatier vocals. Its bass is deeper and significantly more powerful, though also a touch boomy in comparison. Both earphones have similarly spacious soundstages with good depth and width.

Value (9.5/10) – Rock-It Sounds’ flagship capitalizes on some of the best traits of a dual balanced armature setup – tiny size, high efficiency, good detail and clarity, and an extended, well-balanced response. It offers great comfort, low microphonics, and a clean, transparent sound that puts many pricier products to shame. Best of all, it’s just as good a value at $120 as Rock-It’s lower-end models are at their respective price points.

Pros: Tiny & comfortable form factor; excellent cable; great BA sound
Cons: Seems to perform best with aftermarket tips

(2B22) T-Peos H-100

Added Jul 2013

Details: BA-dynamic hybrid from Korea-based T-Peos
Current Price: est. $120 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est. $170)
Specs: Driver: BA+Dynamic Hybrid | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 101 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange hybrid-style (4 sizes) and foam-stuffed (4 sizes) silicone tips, foam tips, lanyard, airline adapter, cleaning tool, and padded zippered carrying pouch
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The construction is above average, with sturdy metal housings bearing engraved T-Peos logos at the rear. They don’t look particularly elegant but should last. The cables are plasticky near the housings but become much thicker and gain a nylon sheath below the y-split. Mild driver flex is present
Isolation (3.5/5) – Isolation is above average
Microphonics (4/5) – Can be bothersome with cable-down wear; nonexistent when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The metal housings of the H-100 are not particularly light or compact, but they have a smooth and ear-friendly shape that isn’t bothersome in long-term listening. The stock tips are of good quality

Sound (8.7/10) – The T-Peos H-100 is part of the still-rare breed of reasonably-priced hybrid earphones. I’ve reviewed and/or auditioned a few others in this price range – the old UE Super.Fi 5EB, the Scosche IEM856MD, and the Audiofly AF78. None of those were particularly impressive so the T-Peos H-100, with its bright, crisp sound and added sub-bass kick, sort of defaults to being the best of the bunch.

The sound of the H-100 is rather unique, with the overall tone on the cool and bright side but plenty of deep bass kick afforded by the dynamic driver. Bass depth and presence are quite impressive, but not excessive – the sub-bass extends well and affords the bright sound some footing. There is little mid-bass boost, however, and almost no mid-bass bloat. This makes the deep bass seem more prominent and also prevents veiling of the midrange.

The midrange and treble seem to be handled by the armature of the H-100, with the signature being v-shaped overall. The mids, especially the lower mids, appear a little thin and withdrawn, reminding me of JVC’s FX40 model. Many BA-based earphones, such as the VSonic VC1000, MEElectronics A161P, and Ultimate Ears 600 - not to mention dynamic-driver competitors - have more filled-in and prominent mids compared to the thinner-sounding H-100.

The treble of the H-100 is bright but not overbearing at reasonable volume levels. It sounds clean and crisp and boasts plenty of energy and sparkle, yet isn’t as harsh as may be expected. The H-100 is less prone to sibilance than several of my VSonic earphones and lacks the graininess of the MEElec A161P, for example. The bright treble gives the sound an added clarity – the same principle used by the JVC FX40 and PureSound ClarityOne. In fact, despite its bass boost and recessed mids, the H-100 has very intelligible vocals and works well at low volumes.

The presentation of the H-100 is wide and spacious, as tends to be the case with earphones that share these types of v-shaped signatures. The soundstage is good overall and the sound is very airy, making earphones such as the VSonic VC1000 and MEElec A161P sound quite intimate in comparison. Soundstage depth isn’t great, however, and the earphone doesn’t produce properly centered vocals the way a less mid-recessed set, such as the A161P, can.

Select Comparisons:

HiFiMan RE-400 ($99)

HiFiMan’s latest mid-range offering combines a balanced sound with a compact, user-friendly form factor and sub-$100 price tag. Next to the v-shaped sound signature of the H-100, the RE-400 sounds very well-balanced, perhaps even a little mid-centric. The H-100, on the other hand, lacks midrange weight and sounds a little “hollow” in comparison. It has significantly better deep bass presence but also more treble than the HiFiMan. The added treble results in a brighter overall tone compared to the more neutral and natural RE-400, but also causes the H-100 to appear clearer, akin to using a treble boost equalizer setting. Naturally, the brighter H-100 is more revealing of sibilance and overall less forgiving than the smoother RE-400.

The H-100 does have an advantage in soundstage width, appearing a lot more spacious and less intimate than the HiFiMan set. All in all, these two earphones sound vastly different and make each other sound bad in comparison – after listening to the RE-400, the H-100 sounds overly bright and hollow in the midrange. Switching back to the RE-400 after using the H-100 makes the HiFiMan sound overly intimate and lacking in bass depth.

VSonic GR07 ($179)

VSonic’s dynamic-driver GR07, like the HiFiMan RE-400, follows a rather balanced sound signature but, due to its greater bass depth and treble sparkle, does not sound like a complete antithesis to the T-Peos the way the RE-400 does. Admittedly, the GR07 is still quite a bit flatter than the H-100, offering up a sound that is less bright and more coherent, but it doesn't sound downright mid-centric in comparison.

The tone of the GR07 is warmer than that of the T-Peos due to its greater emphasis on mid-bass and less subbass quantity. It is also thicker in the midrange and again makes the T-Peos sound a bit hollow with its thinner, more withdrawn mids. The bright treble of the H-100 gives vocals good clarity and intelligibility but ultimately the sound is thin and not entirely natural. Interestingly, though the H-100 is brighter, the GR07 is still more prone to sibilance. Overall, I found the pricier GR07 to be better than the T-Peos for its more accurate and natural sound, though when listening to EDM music the H-100 makes a very strong case for itself and may even be preferable to the VSonics.

Value (8.5/10) – The T-Peos H-100 is a BA+dynamic hybrid earphone with a rather unique sound signature. V-shaped, with an emphasis on subbass and treble, the H-100 sounds bright, but with a sizable deep bass kick. It reminds me of a more refined JVC HA-FX40, and like the FX40 provides a uniquely lively experience with EDM. With very nice packaging and an all-around competent design, the H-100 is a standout in value as well, as long as its signature meshes well with the listener.

Pros: Good clarity, strong subbass, and a spacious and airy sound; packaged like a higher-end product
Cons: Lacks a bit of midrange presence and thickness

(2B23) VSonic VC1000

Added Sep 2013

Details: VSonic’s second, more reasonably-priced dual BA earphone

Current Price: $137 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est. $159)

Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 50Ω | Sens: 105 dB (@500 Hz) | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.3' L-plug

Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: MEElec M6 Bi-flange tips

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) - Single-flange (10 pairs), foam-stuffed (3 pairs), and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and soft drawstring carrying pouch

Build Quality (4/5) – The VC1000 utilizes a slim, straight-barrel form factor similar to the dynamic-driver VSonic VC02 and the pricier GR01. It lacks the detachable cables of the VC02 and removable filters of the GR01, but both of those features were poorly implemented so their exclusion is no big loss. The cable is smooth but on the thin side and lacks a sliding cinch. A bump on the inside of the right strain relief differentiates the left and right earpieces

Isolation (4/5) – Similar to that of the GR01 - good, but not at the level of an Etymotic monitor

Microphonics (4/5) - Cable noise is bothersome when worn cable-down but becomes low with over-the-ear wear

Comfort (4.5/5) - The housings are very slim and the variety of included eartips should allow the fit to work for anyone. The cable exits at an angle so those with smaller ears may have trouble wearing the VC1000 cable-up. The inclusion of a cable cinch would have helped in this regard

Sound (9.2/10) – The VC1000, like VSonic’s pricier GR01 model, is based on the popular TWFK dual balanced armature transducer from Knowles, and offers a balanced sound signature and overall performance on-par with the GR01. Its bass is tight and level, about even in quantity with the Fischer Audio DBA-02 mkII. Both depth and punch are good for a balanced-sounding BA-based earphone.

The midrange is likewise level and not clouded or veiled by the bass in any way. The VC1000 sounds a little warmer and fuller than the similarly-priced Rock-It Sounds R-50 and is again more akin to the Fischer Audio DBA-02 mkII and the VSonic GR01. Next to the R-50 its mids are thicker and more filled-in. It is still less warm and thinner-sounding than the dynamic-driver VSonic GR07, however, presenting its midrange in a decidedly BA-like fashion.

The top end of the VC1000 is a bit more forgiving compared to the DBA-02 and Rock-It R-50, again reminding me of the GR01. The R-50 especially sounds brighter and harsher in comparison unless modified with aftermarket eartips and an inline impedance adapter. The treble of the VC1000 is also a bit smoother and less sibilant than that of my first-generation GR07, and more refined and extended than that of the single-armature MEElec A161P.

The VC1000 also sounds airier than the more intimate A161P. In general, its presentation is similar to other TWFK-based sets. It lacks a bit of soundstage width next to the Rock-It Sounds R-50 but sounds plenty spacious and well-rounded overall.

Select Comparisons

HiFiMan RE-400 ($99)

The RE-400 is a dynamic-driver monitor with a neutral-to-warm sound signature. Compared to the VC1000, its sound is warmer and fuller and its balance is more mid-centric. The VC1000 carries very similar overall bass punch but sounds a bit thinner in the midrange. It is also brighter, with significantly more treble energy than the RE-400. The HiFiMan set is smoother, but also a bit dull-sounding in comparison. In a way, the VC1000 sounds more balanced and complete due to the added treble intensity, but is also less forgiving and on some tracks less natural overall. The presentations of the two earphones are equally capable, with the VC1000 having a very slightly wider soundstage. The optimal choice between the more forgiving and mid-focused RE-400 and the brighter, more crisp-sounding VC1000 will definitely depend on the listener.

Philips Fidelio S1 ($99)

Another balanced-sounding dynamic-driver earphone, the S1 reminds me in many ways of VSonic’s pricier dynamic-driver sets. Compared to the VC1000, it boasts more bass, especially deep bass, and has a warmer overall tone. While less powerful, the low end of the VC1000 is tighter and a bit clearer and its midrange is more prominent in comparison. As the HiFiMan RE-400 sounds more mid-centric compared to the VC1000, so the VC1000 sounds more mid-centric next to the Fidelio S1. Interestingly, while the VC1000 boasts similar, or even slightly greater, treble energy, it actually does a better job of keeping its treble smooth. The Fidelio S1 appears a little harsher and more peaky in comparison and tends to be even less forgiving than the VC1000, which itself is not exactly smoothed-over.

Etymotic Research ER4S ($299)

Long-renowned for its accuracy, the ER4S remains the fidelity standard for many listeners. The performance of the more reasonably-priced VC1000 falls in the same ballpark, offering up a slightly less neutral – but still well-balanced – sound. The VC1000 has fuller bass, boasting a bit more impact, while the ER4S sounds thinner. The Etys have more forward upper mids and as a result appear to be a little clearer. The upper and midrange and treble sound a little more accurate and refined with the Etys, while the VC1000 is a bit more splashy and sibilance-prone. Overall, the two earphones really aren’t very far apart - those concerned with bass will be happier with the VC1000 but otherwise it’ll come down to preference – and budget.

Value (9.5/10) – Yet another competitive monitor from VSonic, the VC1000 uses the familiar TWFK formula, taking advantage of the drivers’ small size and capacity for accurate sound. Unlike the similarly-priced Rock-It Sounds R-50, which required some minor modification, I was impressed with the sound of the VC1000 right out of the box. It has more going for it than just the sound, too – the slim form factor is very comfortable and the construction is good as well. The earphones utilize a simplified design that gets away from some of the quirks of VSonic’s GR01 and VC02 models. All in all, the VC1000 is a lower-priced – but not less capable – alternative to the GR01 and a very solid earphone for those who tend to prefer a flatter sound signature.

Pros: Small, lightweight, and comfortable; balanced and articulate sound

Cons: Lacks cable cinch; subpar carrying pouch

(2B24) SteelSeries Flux In-Ear Pro

Added Sep 2013

Details: Single balanced armature headset for gaming and music

Current Price: $129.99 from amazon (MSRP: $129.99)

Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 26Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4' L-plug

Nozzle Size: 3.5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges

Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply foam tips, proprietary PC adapter, proprietary smartphone adapter/connector, cable guides, and semi-rigid zippered carrying case

Build Quality (4/5) – The plastic shells of the Flux In-Ear Pro look like a combination of the Phonak PFE and Brainwavz M3 designs. Above the y-split, the cable is of average thickness and features an inline microphone and single-button remote. Below the y-split, the cable is thick and flat, terminating in a proprietary 8-pin connector. From there, one of two included terminations can be used – a 4-pole L-plug form smartphones and other portable devices, or separate microphone and stereo audio plugs for use with a PC

Isolation (3/5) – Average for an armature-based set

Microphonics (4/5) – Good with over-the-ear wear, average otherwise

Comfort (4.5/5) – The fit of the Flux In-Ear Pro reminds me of Phonak’s defunct “Perfect Fit” earphones, which remains one of the most comfortable in-ears I’ve tried to date. The Flux Pro is a little larger but otherwise fits similarly. Though advertised as wearable either cable-up or cable-down, the earphone requires the channels to be swapped for comfortable cable-down wear

Sound (8.5/10) – The SteelSeries Flux In-Ear Pro is the company’s higher-end in-ear offering and is priced similarly to a number of other balanced armature earphones on the market. Overall, it is a good performer – well-balanced, with good bass depth and smooth, gentle treble. Bass extension and impact are rather impressive for a single BA – punch is about on-par with the HiFiMan RE-400 and MEElectronics A161P, though not quite as tight, and on bass-heavy tracks the low end definitely hits harder than one might expect from a single armature, exhibiting good depth and rumble.

The midrange of the Flux In-Ear Pro is nice and prominent – a little less clear compared to the Etymotic Research HF5 and HiFiMan RE-400, but still good. It is smooth and not overly prominent, with a slightly warm tone and no discernible grain. At the top, the Flux Pro is again smooth and refined – more so, for example, than the MEElec A161P. It sounds a bit duller than the MEElecs but the more forgiving treble presentation is likely worth the lack of energy for many listeners.

The presentation of the Flux In-Ear Pro is highly reminiscent of the Ultimate Ears 600. It boasts good width but only average depth and layering, especially when compared to higher-end sets. While wide, the soundstage of the Flux Pro is not as airy as that of the HiFiMan RE-400, for example. The less expensive Flux model, too, occasionally has the upper hand when it comes to soundstage depth and dynamics.

Select Comparisons

SteelSeries Flux In-Ear ($50)

Logitech Ultimate Ears 600vi ($70)

UE’s only remaining single-armature model, the UE600vi, is a direct competitor of the Flux In-Ear Pro. It is one of my favorite single-armature earphones, offering a slightly mid-centric sound with smooth, refined treble. The Flux Pro has a more balanced midrange presentation – while more mid-centric than, say, the dynamic-driver Flux, it emphasizes mids less than the UE600 does. It also has a bit more bass impact and better depth – always welcome traits in a single balanced armature earphone. The downside of the Flux Pro favoring bass over the midrange is a slight drop in clarity compared to the UE600. The treble, too, seems to be a bit duller on the Flux while the UE sounds a little more crisp and transparent.

The UE600 has a source matching caveat, however – it prefers sources with very low output impedance. The Flux In-Ear Pro is less sensitive and has higher impedance, sounding more consistent between sources – a definite plus for gamers and others planning to use them with a variety of audio devices.

VSonic VC1000 ($137)

VSonic’s dual-driver monitor is a bright and crisp-sounding affair, offering a major sonic contrast to the warmer, smoother Flux In-Ear Pro. Compared to the impossibly tight VC1000, the Flux Pro sounds bassier and boomier, with a warmer tone and poorer clarity, especially in the midrange. The VC1000 also provides quite a lot more treble energy at the expense of being very unforgiving when it comes to sibilance and harshness. The Flux Pro, while more dull-sounding, sounds a lot smoother and doesn’t butcher poorly-mastered tracks.

Value (8.5/10) – The SteelSeries Flux In-Ear Pro is a solid single-armature earphone that accomplishes what it sets out to do, providing a balanced and accurate audio experience with a feature set that also makes it suitable for gaming. The over-the-ear form factor is comfortable and unobtrusive and the included PC headset adapter is a nice touch – I’ve only seen one other higher-end earphone ship with one (the MEElec A161P). Overall, while the Flux In-Ear Pro may not be as shockingly good a value as the regular Flux, it certainly delivers solid audio performance while asking little in the way of concessions.

Pros: Comfortable form factor; good overall sound quality; PC- and smartphone-compatible

Cons: Cable-down wear requires swapping left and right channels

(2B25) RBH EP1 / EP2

Reviewed December 2013

Details: First in-ear earphones from speaker manufacturer RBH

MSRP: $149.00 (manufacturer’s page); $179.00 for EP2 w/mic & 1-button remote (manufacturer’s page)

Current Price: $124 from amazon.com for EP1; $154 from rbhsound.com for EP2

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 101 dB | Freq: 14-18k Hz | Cable: 3.9' I-plug

Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: stock Comply foam

Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply foam eartips (1 pair), shirt clip, and spring-clasp carrying pouch; EP2 model includes 1 extra set of Comply eartips

Build Quality (4.5/5) – The housings are aluminum with plastic nozzles and on the whole feel extremely solid. The design is of the half in-ear type, with long strain reliefs and a cloth-sheathed cable. The cord is not very thick and lacks a sliding cinch but has no tendency to kink and resists tangling rather well. The mic/remote module on the EP2 model is located in the y-split but works quite well regardless

Isolation (3/5) – Despite the half in-ear design, the EP1 isolates well, especially with the included Comply eartips

Microphonics (4.5/5) – The cloth cable of the EP1 is among the least noisy such cables I’ve come across

Comfort (4.5/5) – The shells of the EP1 house large 13mm drivers but are smooth in finish, compact, and lightweight. They fit snugly and securely, and don’t feel bulky in the ear

Sound (8.5/10) – The EP1 is the first in-ear earphone from Utah-based speaker experts RBH Sound, a company with a four decade-long history in the manufacture of audio components. The tuning of the RBH EP1 earphones follows an enhanced-bass profile. The low end extends very well, with no sub-bass roll-off, and has good impact thanks to sizeable mid-bass presence. The EP1 is tighter at the low end than, for example, the VSonic VSD1S but more mid-bassy than the rather neutral-sounding Philips Fidelio S2. All in all, the EP1 boasts a warm sound with great underlying bass power.

Despite its authoritative bass, the EP1 does not sound mid-recessed as do most earphones with similar bass quantity. Instead, it has strong and very clear mids – noticeably clearer, for example, compared to the VSonic’s VSD1S and SteelSeries Flux, two of my favorite budget IEMs. The EP1 makes the Flux sound downright mid-recessed and is a touch clearer than the similarly-priced RHA MA750 as well, boasting more midrange presence but also a slightly thinner note presentation.

Part of the reason for the EP1’s midrange clarity and presence is the lack of upper midrange recession. The prominent upper mids allow the EP1 to sound crisp and clear, but a cut in that region typically tames harshness. The EP1 can be a little harsh as a result – more so, for example, than the Philips Fidelio S2, especially at higher volumes. It is a stark contrast to the smooth and forgiving, but also somewhat dull-sounding, RHA MA750. Happily, the top end of the EP1 is not peaky and dips down towards the upper treble, making the earphones less sibilant than, for example, competing sets from VSonic.

The soundstage of the EP1 is about average for an in-ear of this type. It is noticeably more spacious than, for example, the lower-priced SteelSeries Flux but a touch more congested than the more neutral Philips Fidelio S2. On the whole, the RBH earphones have a slightly warm/dark coloration and sound especially good at moderate volumes due to their strong midrange presence and solid bass. At high volumes the earphones can get a little harsh, and it’s worth noting that they do reach higher volumes easily thanks to rather good sensitivity.

Select Comparisons

Sony MH1C ($60)

The street price of this Sony headset has been growing steadily ever since it became popular in audiophile circles for its warm, smooth, and overall capable sound. The sound signature of the EP1 is not all that different from that of the MH1C, which made the Sony set a natural starting-off point for comparisons. Through the bass region the earphones don’t differ much but the mids of the EP1 are more forward and clearer. The MH1C appears more recessed in the midrange and offers up a little less clarity as a result. The EP1 sounds more crisp through the upper midrange and treble regions, though as a result it has a greater tendency towards harshness. The MH1C, on the other hand, sounds smoother and more forgiving, especially at higher volumes. Lastly, the presentation of the EP1 is a touch more spacious, though the MH1C is no slouch in this respect.

HiFiMan RE-400 ($99)

Though the EP1 is an enhanced-bass earphone and the RE-400 is a balanced one, the HiFiMan set is one of my favorite benchmarks and makes for a good contrast to the EP1. As expected, the RBH earphones boast lots more bass, but focus on the sub-bass region and don’t sound particularly bloated even next to the balanced-sounding RE-400. The HiFiMan set is more mid-focused but the EP1 does not sound mid-recessed in comparison. In fact, its mids actually appear more prominent at times, likely because it has more upper midrange energy than the RE-400. The RE-400, on the other hand, offers up smoother but seemingly more extended treble and has a more neutral overall tone. The RE-400, thanks to its more mid-centric sound, has a slightly more intimate presentation. On the whole, these earphones are different enough to the point that each makes the other sound lacking.

Onkyo IE-HF300S ($129)

The Onkyo IE-HF300S and RBH EP1 make for an excellent match-up – they fall in the same price bracket and share a similar form factor, and while the Onkyo set has detachable cables, the aluminum housings of the EP1 feel more sturdy in the hand. In sound, too, the earphones are quite evenly matched, though they each have a strong tendency to accentuate the other’s flaws.

The RBH EP1 is the bassier earphone of the two, offering especially more presence in the subbass region. The IE-HF300, on the other hand, while far from bass-light, has less low end presence overall and focuses more on mid-bass. This endows it with a warmer tone, though bass control is still quite good, not yielding to the RBH unit. The midrange of the EP1 is more forward and often clearer as a result compared to the IE-HF300. The mids of the Onkyo set are nonetheless not overly recessed and the HF300, with its lower bass quantity and greater treble energy, sounds a bit more balanced overall.

Tonally, the EP1 is a little darker. It has a more presence in the upper midrange, which makes it sound more harsh at times, but the Onkyo set has some peaks in the treble that cause it to be more revealing of sibilance. Lastly, the presentation of the HF300 is more to my liking – it is broader and more open. On the whole, these two earphones are certainly very distinct in sound despite being on a similar performance level. More so than with any other matchup I can think of, the set I found preferable here really varied from track to track.

VSonic GR07BE ($179)

VSonic’s range of GR07 models is getting a bit long in the tooth but for me they remain an excellent showcase for the type of fidelity a good dynamic-driver earphone can achieve. The RBH EP1 is bassier than even the Bass Edition of the GR07, boasting more impact and slam, while the GR07 sounds a little more detailed. The GR07 has more recessed mids whereas the EP1 is more mid-forward and has a bit more upper midrange presence. As a result, the mids of the EP1 can at times appear clearer and more intelligible but both earphones have excellent midrange clarity. The GR07, as is often the case with VSonic earphones, is more sibilant than the EP1, though it also appears to have slightly more extended treble. Overall, I found the GR07BE to be more neutral and balanced than the EP1 despite its more recessed midrange and preferred it in this matchup except for its tendencies towards sibilance.

Value (8/10) – The first in-ear model from speaker manufacturer RBH, the EP1 delivers good sound quality and a solid construction. The half in-ear form factor is comfortable and while I am not usually a fan of cloth cables, this one is sturdy and carries little noise. The earphones also isolate well for this type of design with the included Comply eartips. Sonically, the RBH EP1 earphones offer up enhanced bass and strong presence all the way through the upper midrange and are especially enjoyable at low to moderate volumes.

Pros: Solid build quality and good wearing comfort; bass-heavy sound with good midrange clarity

Cons: Can get a touch harsh at higher volumes

(2B26) RHA MA750 / MA750i

Reviewed December 2014

Details: Flagship in-ear from Scotland-based RHA

MSRP: $119.95 (manufacturer’s page); $129.95 for MA750i w/mic & 3-button remote (manufacturer’s page)

Current Price: $120 from amazon.com for MA750; $130 from amazon.com for MA750i

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 16-22k Hz | Cable: 4.4' I-plug

Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges

Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange (6 pairs in 3 sizes) and double-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips, foam tips (2 pairs), shirt clip, stainless steel eartip caddy, and zippered leather carrying case

Build Quality (5/5) – As with RHA’s lower-end models, the construction is impeccable. The MA750 boasts machined aluminum housings, metal nozzle filters, and thick, rubbery cables. At the earphone end there is a molded “earhook” section about 4” long. It’s not memory wire, but it’s a lot more comfortable than the earhooks I’ve come across in the past. The cable is thick and tangle-resistant, and all of the hardware is metal, including the 3.5mm I-plug with a long “spring” strain relief. The 3-year warranty is very impressive as well

Isolation (3.5/5) – The housings are narrow at the front, allowing a good insertion depth and good isolation

Microphonics (4.5/5) – The cable carries some noise but microphonics are generally not a problem due to mandatory over-the-ear fitment and the fact that the cord is thick and heavy, and doesn’t move around much

Comfort (4/5) – The earphone housings have a familiar flared shape a-la Dunu Trident and RHA’s lower-end models. The earpieces of the MA750 made of stainless steel, though, so they are a little heavier. The small diameter at the front nonetheless affords a surprisingly comfortable fit considering the weight

Sound (8.9/10) – The previous RHA earphones I’ve tried left me impressed with their bass power and clarity, but the new MA750 is a strong performer all around. Its signature is predicated on enhanced bass, but less so compared to the lower-end models. It has a strong emphasis on sub-bass, and a little less on mid-bass. The bass quantity is not at what I would consider “basshead” level – deep bass presence is good with the MA750 but there’s not too much mid-bass punch compared to some of its competitors. On the other hand it is a lot bassier than the HiFiMan RE-400, which sounds more controlled but appears deficient in subbass in comparison the RHA unit.

The MA750 is warm in tone, but not overly so. It has decent enough treble presence to balance out the bass, though it is certainly is not a neutral earphone. The midrange is rich and full-bodied, with very decent clarity considering the sound signature. Clarity is better than with many other stereotypically “warm” earphones, such as the Sony MH1C and Dunu Trident. The RE-400, on the other hand, is more mid-centric, but still sounds more neutral and is a little clearer through its midrange. The pricier Dunu DN-1000 hybrid, too, is clearer, making the MA750 sound veiled comparison.

The upper midrange of the MA750 is energetic but emphasis diminishes before getting into the regions that typically cause harshness and sibilance. The MA750 is brighter overall compared to the Sony MH1C and Dunu Trident and has a slight tendency to sound “tizzy”, especially at high volumes, thanks to the lower treble emphasis. It isn’t bothersome, however, and I definitely would not call the treble energy excessive. On the other end of the spectrum, the Dunu DN-1000 has treble that is brighter and more revealing of artifacts, making the MA750 sound quite smooth in comparison.

Presentation-wise, the MA750 performs well for the price. Its soundstage is larger than those of the MH1C and Trident, and separation is better as well. The Trident especially sounds more in-the-head and congested in comparison. Aside from the enhanced bass having the ability to throw a slight veil over minute details and take away from its imaging ability, there is not much to complain about with the MA750 here.

Select Comparisons

RHA MA350 ($40)

RHA’s $40 MA350 is one of my favorite budget-friendly sets for enhanced bass, but while the flagship model does command a healthy price premium, it also offers up a significantly more refined sound. The MA350 has strong, domineering bass, but the MA750 manages to sound rich and full-bodied while maintaining lower overall bass quantity and better bass control. It’s more balanced, as well as smoother and more refined. The treble of the MA350 is a little grainy in comparison, and more prone to harshness. The MA750 sounds more natural and enjoys a larger presentation with better depth and separation, making the MA350 appear congested in comparison.

Onkyo IE-HF300 ($129)

The IE-HF300 couldn’t be more different from the RHA MA750 in design, but sonically both earphones tend towards a warm, enhanced-bass sound. The RHA unit boasts bass that is both more extended and more powerful overall. The HF300, meanwhile, has less bass quantity with a focus on mid-bass. This results in mids that are a little more veiled compared to the MA750. The MA750 sounds clearer and more crisp, though it is a little more laid-back at the top end compared to the Onkyos. Both earphones boast above-average soundstages, with the HF300 being a little more open-sounding.

RBH EP1 ($149)

Yet another enhanced-bass, consumer-friendly earphone in the sub-$150 range, the EP1 nonetheless offers a sizable contrast to the MA750. Both earphones have a strong emphasis on bass but the MA750 is a little more powerful here, which gives it a warmer and more full-bodied sound. The RBH earphones place more emphasis on the midrange and sound a little clearer as a result. The MA750, on the other hand, has a thicker midrange presentation and a smoother and more forgiving sound. The RHA also boasts a slightly wider presentation and tonal character that, to me, is more natural overall.

VSonic GR07 Bass Edition ($179)

This earphone’s “Bass Edition” moniker is only true insofar as it is more bass-heavy than the regular GR07. Next to the MA750, however, the GR07BE sounds rather balanced. The RHA unit has more bass and a warmer tonal character while the GR07 is closer to neutral. The bass of the MA750 is boomier and results in more veiling of the midrange. The GR07BE lacks some of the full-bodied character of the RHA, but remains clearer, especially in the midrange. Up top, the MA750 is a little smoother where it counts while the GR07 is more sibilance-prone.

Value (9/10) – The RHA MA750 has a lot going for it – a lush and warm sound, spacious presentation, and good bass presence. No less important is the construction quality, which features stainless steel housings and thick cabling. The earphones are comfortable, too, thanks in large part to the over-the-ear fit and molded earhooks, and isolate surprisingly well. Most impressively, the MA750 is not at all exorbitantly-priced – it’s extremely comfortable just north of $100. Early last year I found myself impressed with the entry-level MA350 and hoped to see more great things from RHA, and this year starts off with another hit from the Scottish manufacturer.

Pros: Extremely solid build quality; 3 year warranty; warm sound with excellent bass presence

Cons: Housings a bit on the heavy side

(2B27) Brainwavz R3 (ver.2)

Reviewed September 2014

Details: Dual dynamic earphone form Brainwavz with a unique design
MSRP: $129.50 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $130 from amazon.com; $130 from mp4nation.net
Specs: Driver: Dual Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 95 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.3′ (1.3m) 45°-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, MEElec M6 bi-flanges, Sony Hybrid
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear (preferred)

Accessories (4.5/5) – Black single-flange (3 sizes), double-flange, and triple-flange silicone tips, gray single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply T400 foam tips, 6.3mm adapter, and sturdy zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The R3 is very well-made, with metal housings and an almost excessively thick cable very similar to the cord on the RHA MA750. The cord is rather long at ~4.3ft, but well-relieved and resistant to tangling
Isolation (3/5) – Good, but limited by the housing shape
Microphonics (4/5) – Quite low even when worn cable-down
Comfort (3/5) – The R3 is rather unusual in shape, with a large tubular body positioned perpendicularly to the nozzle. Memory wire was present on the original version but made the fit options somewhat limited. The new version (released in May 2014) ditches the memory wire and works better for me, making it possible to maintain a good seal. It’s still a little heavy and has a learning curve, but most listeners should be able to wear the R3 ver. 2 comfortably

Sound (8.9/10) – The design of the R3 is rather unique in that its dual dynamic drivers are positioned facing each other, with the nozzle exiting the sound chamber between the drivers. I have previously auditioned the first revision of the R3 and liked what I heard, though I couldn’t keep it securely in my ears due to the memory wire. Now that I can wear the earphones properly, I can give the sound the attention it deserves.

The Brainwavz R3 follows a balanced, slightly warm sound signature with upfront mids, not unlike the HiFiMan RE-400 or Brainwavz’ entry-level M1 model. The bass is level and well-controlled for a dynamic-driver set, with no discernible mid-bass hump. Bass quantity is similar to the RE-400, but the R3 sounds a touch more full-bodied and not quite as tight. This is even more true next to higher-end BA-based earphones such as the TDK BA200 and Brainwavz’ own B2. Compared, on the other hand, to the Brainwavz M1, the R3 has much better quality bass – tighter, flatter, and more effortless.

The R3 has prominent mids with a slightly warm tonal character. Like the RE-400, it can be classified as slightly mid-focused in the grand scheme of things thanks to its level bass and smooth treble – most earphones have more of either one or both. As far as mid-focused earphones go, it is a very good one – clearer, more balanced, and more natural than the Brainwavz M1 but warmer and fuller – albeit also noticeably less clear – than the BA-based TDK BA200 and Brainwavz B2.

At the top, the R3 is smooth and a little laid-back. It does a good job of avoiding harshness and sibilance, sounding soft and refined. Treble reach is good despite its relaxed nature, which gives the R3 a pleasant, airy presentation. The soundstage is well-rounded, with good width and depth, and while imaging is not nearly as precise as with many higher-end monitors (including the B2 and BA200), the somewhat laid-back presentation complements the smooth sound signature nicely.

Select Comparisons

Brainwavz S1 ($60)

The pricier R3 is flatter and more neutral than the S1, with tighter bass and more refinement all around. The S1 has greater bass quantity, but also sounds more bloated and a little dark in tone. The treble of the S1 is peaky in comparison to the smooth and natural R3, making it sound harsh and metallic. Clarity between the two is on par, however, likely due to the stronger treble of the S1. Indeed, the top end of the R3 can sound a little dull and smoothed-over at times. The S1 is also a touch more cohesive while the R3 boasts a wider, more spaced-out presentation.

Fidue A63 ($60)

Fidue’s A63 model is a warm-sounding earphone with forward mids. While excellent for the price, it’s no match for the R3 in balance and overall refinement. The A63 sounds rather mid-bassy next to the R3, which has very well-balanced midbass and subbass. Nonetheless, the Brainwavz unit is not lacking in impact and its bass sounds more effortless and natural than that of the A63. The midrange is clearer on the R3 whereas the A63 is a little veiled in comparison. The R3 is also a little smoother and more forgiving.

HiFiMan RE-400 ($99)

The Brainwavz R3 is not too different in sound from the HiFiMan RE-400, which has been one of my favorite $100 earphones for quite a long time. Both are balanced earphones with level bass and smooth treble. The top end of the R3 sounds a little dull next to the thinner, crisper RE-400. The RE-400 has a bit more midrange emphasis, slightly better clarity, and even more refined highs, though both earphones are extremely smooth on the whole. The R3 has slightly more full-bodied bass and a wider, more spacious soundstage, giving it a bigger, more headphone-like sound.

VSonic GR07 Classic ($99)

The latest version of the VSonic’s popular GR07 model maintains the clear, punchy sound of its predecessor and offers a good contrast to the R3. The bass of the GR07 is both deeper and more impactful compared to the Brainwavz unit. The R3 has thicker, more present, arguably more natural mids while the GR07 is more v-shaped in comparison. The VSonic unit is clearer and a touch more resolving, but also brighter, harsher, and more sibilant. The R3 is much smoother, especially at higher volumes, though its top end is also little dull next to the GR07. Both earphones have above-average soundstage width and imaging that is good, but short of top-tier.

Sony MDR-7550 ($230)

Sony’s dynamic-driver pro monitor also has an unconventional fit, but its similarities to the Brainwavz R3 run deeper. Like the R3, the MDR-7550 is a balanced, slightly warm-sounding earphone with a smooth top end. Compared to the far less expensive R3, the Sony is brighter, clearer, and overall more accurate, but not quite as forgiving through the treble. The largest gap between the two earphones is in clarity, in favor of the Sony. The bass of the MDR-7550 is more quick and well-defined, though also a touch thinner, and its soundstage is a little wider.

Value (8/10) – I’ve noticed that earphones in the $100-$150 range are let down by the sound quality more often than expected – maybe 1 in 3 are worth recommending on sound alone. This is not at all the case with the Brainwavz R3 – the smooth, balanced, slightly warm sound with good dynamics is the best part of the package here. The R3 is a great compliment to Brainwavz’ similarly-priced dual-BA B2 model, which sounds brighter, thinner, and more “analytical”. The heavy-duty construction and surprising lack of cable noise also impress. The fit can be a little tricky, but the latest version forgoes the memory wire, making the earphones easier to wear. All in all, the R3 is for those who don’t mind putting a little effort into their earphone experience, so long as the payoff is great sound.

Pros: Solidly built earphones with an impressively well-balanced, smooth, and capable sound
Cons: Fit can still be tricky even with new version

(2B28) Philips Fidelio S2

Reviewed July 2015

Brief: Flagship earphone in Philips’ sound-focused Fidelio line

MSRP: $149.99
Current Price: $105 from amazon.com; $125 from ebay.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 22Ω | Sens: 107 dB | Freq: 15-24k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug w/mic & 1-button remote
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Comply T/Ts200, Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (5 sizes), Comply S200 (1 pair) and Ts200 (1 pair) memory foam tips, and zippered clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The construction of the Fidelio S2 is similar to the S1 model, but – in contrast to the partly-plastic S2 – is all-metal and boasts a fancy-looking glossy finish reminiscent of ceramic earphones such as Sennheiser’s IE 800. The earphone utilizes textured flat cables with an in-line microphone and single-button remote
Isolation (3/5) – Average, not as bad as could be expected from a shallow-fit design
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Good
Comfort (3.5/5) – The Fidelio S1 and S2 are built around 13.5mm dynamic drivers – large for IEMs, but definitely not unheard of. Philips chose a half in-ear form factor for the earphones, placing the driver enclosure in the outer ear with an angled nozzle fitting into the ear canal. This sacrifices some noise isolation for the comfort of a shallow seal, but the wide housings fitting 13.5mm drivers put a lower limit on the size of ears that will tolerate these earphones – smaller ears just won’t fit the housings comfortably

Sound (9/10) – Philips did a spectacularly good job with the tuning of their new high-end Fidelio line, both the two in-ears and the on/over-ear models I tried at the 2015 CES. The Philips Fidelio S1 and S2 in-ears sound clear and accurate with just the right amount of bass kick. The low end extends nicely, with mild overall boost and impact reminiscent of the VSonic GR07, an IEM highly renowned in audiophile circles.

The mids are crystal clear, with resolution to rival accuracy-oriented in-ears from VSonic and HiFiMan. The lack of bloat helps, allowing the deep bass of the Fidelio S2 to shine and keeping the midrange completely clear of bass bleed. Treble presence is good too – the earphones aren’t lacking at the top end for my tastes, and I’ve been known to enjoy a more energetic sound. At the same time, the treble is free of grain and harshness, but there’s a bit of a lift in the upper midrange and lower treble area. In comparison, the VSonic GR07 sounds a little peaky and sibilant at the top end, while the HiFiMan RE-400 is smoother and more laid-back.

Select Comparisons

Philips Fidelio S1 ($100)

HiFiMan RE-400 ($79)

One of the pioneers of accurate-sounding dynamic-driver earphones, HiFiMan have been selling earphones in this segment since 2008 or so. Compared to the Fidelio S2, their latest $100 offering, the HiFiMan RE-400, is more efficient, warmer in tone, and boasts more intimate mids and a more in-the-head presentation overall.

The Fidelio S2 has more subbass & bass in general but is also less warm and a touch clearer as a result. The mids on the S2 are less forward but it has a boost in the upper midrange/lower treble and sounds brighter on the whole. The RE-400 is smoother and more laid-back up top, sounding more refined and forgiving. The Fidelio S2 is more spacious and has a wider soundstage but gives up the intimate feel and more well-rounded presentation (in terms of depth and width being more even) of the RE-400.

VSonic GR07 Classic ($99)

VSonic’s similarly-priced, accurate-sounding dynamic-driver IEM is a direct competitor for the Fidelio S2. The GR07 is more sensitive than the Fidelio S2 but otherwise they don’t sound very different, either. The two have similar bass quantity, but the S2 has a flatter/more linear low end while the GR07 has a bit more of a mid-bass hump. As a result, the VSonic unit boasts a hair more bass impact, slightly warmer tone, and a more full-bodied sound while the Fidelio S2 sounds a touch thinner and has a cooler tonal character.

Despite being less warm than the GR07 and having some upper midrange lift, the S2 tends to sound smoother than the GR07 and is less prone to sibilance. The VSonic unit does have a slightly more spacious and three-dimensional presentation, but, thanks in large part to the sibilance, I don’t feel that it is superior to the Philips overall.

RHA MA750 ($120)

Compared to RHA’s warm and bassy MA750, the Fidelio S2 is much more neutral, clearer, and more transparent, but also a little harsher in the treble region. The MA750 sounds thicker overall and suffers from more bass bloat. It is definitely smoother than the Philips, but the top end can still be a little tizzy, especially at high volumes, and the deeper v-shape of its sound signature is audible.

RBH EP1 ($149)

The EP1 is notable for having a very similar form factor to the Fidelio S2, as well as similar build and accessories. The sound of the EP1 is bassier, with the enhancement most audible in the mid-bass region. Its mids are more forward and can appear a little clearer as a result, though on the whole the Fidelio S2 has similar clarity. The RBH unit is also a little harsher, can appear less natural in tone, and its presentation is a little more congested. The more balanced and neutral S2 – despite its slightly more recessed mids – sounds more realistic.

Dunu DN-1000 ($200)

The Fidelio S2 is a dynamic-driver earphone with accuracy-oriented tuning. The DN-1000, which boasts a v-shaped sound signature, has much more of a “wow” factor to its acoustics. Its powerful bass easily outpaces the Philips set, which itself is no slouch when it comes to depth and impact. More surprisingly, the Dunu seems a bit clearer than the more balanced-sounding Philips, due in part to its brighter tonal character. The Fidelio S2 is not the most exciting earphone in the first place, and next to the DN-1000 it sounds especially dull. On the downside, the treble of the DN-1000 has a more “metallic” timbre than that of the Fidelio S2, especially at higher volumes, which is not uncommon for earphones based on the Knowles TWFK driver. The Fidelio S2 is also significantly less efficient than the DN-1000.

Noble 4S ($999)

Compared to the Fidelio S2, the Noble 4S clearer and more balanced, but also a little thinner. The S2 has more bass emphasis and sounds a more full-bodied as a result. It lacks some of the clarity of the 4S, though, and gets harsh a lot more easily. The 4S, despite having a similarly healthy amount of treble energy, is smoother, especially at higher volumes. Lastly, the 4S sounds more airy and open and has better soundstage depth and layering while the S2 is more closed-in.

Value (9/10) – Philips is not the first brand that comes to mind when I think “headphone Hi-Fi,” but the Dutch electronics giant has been designing and manufacturing headphones since the 1960s – longer than many of its current competitors have been in business. The 2012 introduction of the Fidelio line of performance-oriented audio products, with its aggressive pricing and solid audio quality, makes it clear that the company is still serious the about high-end personal audio market.

The Philips Fidelio S2 is a well-designed, user-friendly earphone boasting a neutral sound signature with a bump across the bass range, tangle-resistant cabling, and a built-in microphone and remote. The semi-open design makes them great in situations where the higher noise isolation of most other high-end earphones is undesirable—and a great choice for those who don’t like the more intrusive fit of most other IEMs. For a flagship product, they are also quite reasonably priced, costing less than the flagship IEM from any of the other major manufacturers.

Pros: Shallow-fit design; balanced and very capable sound
Cons: Mediocre isolation; housings on the large side

post #6 of 16444

3/19/10 at 6:22pm

Thread Starter

ljokerl
Trader Feedback: +103
Portables Reviewerus Prolificus
offline

10,212 Posts. Joined 3/2009
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Select All Posts By This User

Tier 2A ($150-250)

(2A1) Etymotic Research ER-4S

Reviewed Nov 2009

Details: Legendary IEM from Etymotic Research, first released more than a decade ago
Current Price: $239 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $299.99)
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 100 Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 20-16k Hz | Cable: 5’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 3mm | Preferred tips: Shure Olives, Etymotic tri-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (5/5) – Large selection of silicone and foam tips, plastic storage case, carrying pouch, two sets of spare filters, filter removal tool, ¼” adapter, and shirt clip
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The tubular are made out of a thick, sturdy plastic. Stock cables are thick, strong, and - if necessary - replaceable
Isolation (4.5/5) – Very deep fit. Etymotic claims a maximum attenuation of 42db, and I believe them
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Can be microphonic when used without the included shirt clip. Hard to wear over-the-ear due to long stem and thick cables
Comfort (4/5) – Have to be inserted quite deeply for ideal seal. The thin housing makes this easier and Foam tips often work great

Sound (9.1/10) – There is just no way not to be blown away with the level of detail these things put out. Unlike the RE0, which let the detail sink in slowly, the Etymotics smack you in the face with it. As a result, they can be very unforgiving of poor source material, as a good studio headphone should be - these are not for collectors of low-bitrate mp3s. The highs are detailed and extended, replete with mind-boggling crispness and resolution. The mids are smooth, detailed, well-placed and very engaging. Tone is neutral to slightly bright. The bass has excellent detail but tends to be a bit thin of note. The ER-4S is not bassy by any means, but definitely satisfying for those in search of quality over quantity. Extension is not perfect, but texture is superb. The presentation is typical Etymotic - excellent instrument separation, good layering and positioning, but not much in the way of 3D space. The soundstage is much wider than it is tall or deep.

Amping: Not required but will go a ways towards making them shine with portable equipment. Though an mp3 player can drive them to decent volume, it will not unlock their full potential. With a decent amp (such as a mini3), the ER-4S really opens the tap on speed and detail.

Value (8/10) – Make no mistake – Etymotic’s flagship is still a top-tier IEM 15 years later. The fact that it costs $250 to some of the other flagships’ $400+ is a testament to its high value, not low worth. One of the biggest problems of the ER-4S is the HF5, which can compete with the flagship on several key characteristics and costs just under ½ as much. Another much-cheaper competitor is the HiFiMan RE0, previously in the same price bracket but now severely discounted. When both are properly amped and outfitted with the right tips, choosing between the two can really come down to a question of preference and, with prices currently what they are, budget.

Pros: Some of the most detailed sound to be had, durable, replaceable cables, unbeatable isolation, 2-yr warranty w/great customer service
Cons: Deep insertion not for everyone, can be difficult to wear over the ear, microphonics can annoy without shirt clip, very analytical sound

(2A2) Phonak Audéo PFE 122

Reviewed Jan 2010

Details: the original ‘Perfect Fit Earphone’ from Swiss hearing aid manufacturer Phonak
Current Price: $169 from Audeoworld.com (MSRP: $169) for 111/112; $199 for 121/122 with microphone
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 32 Ω | Sens: 107 dB | Freq: 5-17k Hz | Cable: 3.6’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 3mm | Preferred tips: Jays silicone single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes), Comply T130 foam tips, 8 filters (4 grey; 4 black), cleaning tool, silicone ear guides, and zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The plastic housings are extremely lightweight and the cabling is fairly thick and quite soft, with a strong tendency to resist tangling. The PFEs certainly don't feel bulletproof but the newest revisions should survive daily use quite well

Isolation (3/5) – Isolation is quite tip-dependent and best with the included Comply T130s or similar foamies. With silicone tips isolation is average
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Quite low, partly because they must be worn over-the-ear
Comfort (5/5) – The part of the housings that fits inside the ear is small and the earphones are very light. As a result the PFEs can really disappear during everyday use. Bonus points for the included silicone cable guides. The only (rare) problem I had was that of losing seal under strenuous exercise with silicone tips

Sound (8.8/10) – Ultimately, the sound is really what makes or breaks an earphone. After my initial listening rounds with the PFE I settled on the grey filters and kept them in for the duration of the test. To my ears the grey filters provide more sparkle in the treble and a slightly smoother and thicker upper midrange. The black filters accentuate the bass but I found the (slight) hardware bass boost provided by my iBasso T4 to be a better solution. Tips matter as well – the included comply T130s will provide a more tactile bass presentation but also slightly veil the high end. The silicone tips have a more transparent sound but for some reason none of the stock tips fit me quite right. I did finally find a good fit with Jays silicone tips off of my J-Jays though.

The overall sound of the PFEs amazes with its smoothness and clarity. The bass is tight and accurate. The mids are somewhat liquid and very well-positioned in being neither forward nor recessed. The treble is similarly accurate and quite enjoyable. There is a small amount of unevenness at the high end, but this can be reduced a bit by using the black filters. I wasn’t bothered enough by it to give up the grey filters though. Overall the PFEs have a tonal balance on the cool side of the spectrum and very high resolving capability. Soundstaging is about average – wider than the Ety ER-4S and RE0 but not as expansive as the ATH-CK10 or RE252. Instrumental separation is excellent and positioning is quite good as well. They lack the famed Etymotic forwardness, which makes it a tiny bit harder to pick out details with the PFE but results in a less fatiguing sound.

Amping: The PFE is one the rare IEMs that do benefit from amping. Despite the relatively low rated impedance and high sensitivity, the PFE becomes truly effortless when fed enough power. My iBasso T4 was sufficiently powerful but the transparency of the D10 and mini3 gave a nicer sound. When properly amped the PFE maintains its incredible clarity and resolution and becomes very hard to beat in transient response and all-around speed. A positive side effect of their inefficiency is the ability of the PFE to suppress background hiss from impedance mismatches. At listening volume the PFE exhibited no notable hiss from any of my amps or sources except the Amp3, with which they were still far more tolerable than with most earphones.

Value (9/10) – Despite the crop of excellent mid-range earphones currently available to the average consumer, the year-old Phonak PFEs still amaze with their incredibly coherent presentation and musical sound signature. I can’t recommend them enough for acoustic tracks, but they work well with nearly all music styles. The possible combinations of tips and filters and the responsiveness of the armatures to equalization also make the PFEs very tunable. Die-hard bassheads may want to look elsewhere, but for the rest of us the PFE might just be able to provide the desired sound. If Phonak has indeed made the necessary improvements to the build quality of the PFE for the v1 release, the PFE should be shortlisted by anyone looking for balance and clarity without the need for monstrous isolation.

Pros: Comfortable, low microphonics, very balanced and musical presentation, great clarity and resolution
Cons: Reported build issues with original version, mediocre isolation

(2A3) Head-Direct / HiFiMan RE252

Reviewed Jan 2010

Details: Head-Direct’s latest creation that strays from the path set by the RE2 and RE0 in favor of an even more balanced and less intense sound
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $199)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 103 dB | Freq: 16-22k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:5mm | Preferred tips: Altec Lansing / UE biflange, Soundmagic Single flange
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (3/5) – Silicone single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) tips, shirt clip, and replacement filters (5 sets)
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The silicone housings are fairly soft and seem protective but time will tell if they will stay intact or not. Strain reliefs are integrated into the housings and should work as long as the cable is anchored well. The new cabling (compared to the older cloth cords on my RE0) is flexible and seems sturdy. The L-plug is nice as well. An odd issue with these is that they are absolute dust magnets. Not really a problem per se but those who like their earphones shiny and clean may have some trouble
Isolation (3/5) – Isolation depends hugely on fit (and therefore one’s ears) and tip choice. Smaller biflange tips give me solid isolation at the expense of long-term comfort. Single flange tips do the opposite
Microphonics (3/5) – Not too bad but the cord is quite energetic (much more so than my cloth RE0 cord) and can be loud when bouncing around. The included shirt clip helps
Comfort (4/5) – The RE252 are almost custom-like in form factor and take some getting used to after conventional IEMs. The shells do get softer with break-in. I stopped noticing them around the 3rd week of use. Wearing them over-the-ear is possible with longer tips but not for everyone. Persons with very small ears may not be able to get a good fit at all

Sound (8.9/10) – When the RE252 (at that time called the RE3) was first announced I expected that it would be a spiritual successor to Head-Direct’s previous flagship and one of my all-around favorite IEMs, the RE0. From the first listen, however, I realized that they are very different animals. The soundstage has great width but not as much air as the RE0, which gives them a strange lack of intimacy but also a headphone-like immersion and imaging that’s often difficult for an earphone to achieve. Balance, however, is superb. I have seen them summed up as sounding like the RE0 with more bass and less treble. While technically correct, this description really ignores a lot of nuances. Compared to the crisp and endlessly extended treble of the RE0 the treble on the RE252 is much softer and more subdued, resulting in a more laid back sound. With the right tips treble quantity can approach that of the RE0, but it never sounds quite the same. The midrange has much more weight to it with the RE252, making the RE0 sound slightly thin in comparison. It is still impeccably smooth, however, and the detail never gets glossed over. The bass is fast, accurate, and not lacking in quantity for my tastes but also a little too soft in impact. When properly amped, the RE0 can get about 80% of the way there in bass quantity and has a tighter presentation, but unamped the RE252 wins. One of the necessary hallmarks of a great earphone (for me) is the ability to provide an enjoyable sound at very low listening volumes. On this front, the RE252 simply cannot be beaten in my book. Several times during my testing I wanted to see if I could still enjoy them at a slightly lower volume only to find out that dropping one more notch on my mp3 player or muted it.

Amping: Straying off the path set by the RE0 again, the RE252 benefits no more from amping than the average 16-ohm earphone. An amp can be used to modify the sound signature (e.g. the iBasso T4 for more warmth), and a good source will scale these up a notch, but I can’t say that getting an amp for them is recommended. Also, the higher efficiency compared to the RE0 means they can hiss slightly with certain amps and sources.

Value (7.5/10) – The RE252 is an excellent choice for anyone who tried the RE0 and thought “Hey, I would enjoy these more if they were more restrained in the treble, more lush in the mids, had more bass, and were reshelled into mutant gummy bears”. I really think they are near the top of the upgrade path for anyone who craves a wide and balanced sound, a path that stems from enjoyment of earphones such as the Soundmagic PL30 and Cyclone PR1 Pro. But it is also here that the RE252’s main problem lies – this signature is definitely not for everyone. While I do feel that the RE252s sound fuller and more engaging than the RE0 with dense rock and metal tracks that rely on spatial positioning and require at least some bass, I can’t help but feel that I would still choose an (amped) RE0 as an all-around earphone with its crisp, sparkly, and airy treble. This certainly has a lot to do with the innovative housing of the IEM, which makes the fit too restrictive for my tastes and results in other small quirks. I do think that some people will find their perfect sound in the RE252 and certainly applaud Head-Direct for trying something new, but for me an IEM is something that should, aside from sounding good, make my life easier on all fronts and the traditional approach just seems to do that better.

Pros: Impossibly balanced sound, top-tier detail and clarity
Cons: Cannot be worn over-the-ear, potential fit issues for some, can be microphonic, mediocre isolation, absolute dust magnets

(2A4) Panasonic RP-HJE900

Reviewed Mar 2010

Details: Panasonic’s flagship IEM made of Cubic Zirconium
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $249.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 26 Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 6-28k Hz | Cable: 3.6’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: UE Single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (2.5/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes) and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The Cubic Zirconium housings feel indestructible. Cables are user-replaceable and fairly thick but a bit plasticky and energetic. Cord cinch doesn’t have enough grip. Reports of nozzle filters falling out
Isolation (3.5/5) – Good for a dynamic-driver IEM
Microphonics (4/5) – Low when worn over-the-ear; slightly bothersome otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – The Cubic Zirconium shells are quite heavy and the long strain reliefs/cable connectors can make them hard to wear over-the-ear. Cord may be too short for some

Sound (8.6/10) – The HJE900 sounds every bit as interesting as it looks. Bass extension is impressive and impact is fast and tight. Low-end response is slanted slightly towards mid/upper bass. A long-ish decay time gives them a very natural presentation at the low end and their realistic timbre rounds off the sound. The upper bass boost gives them a warm tonality – but not excessively so. In fact, the unique presentation of the HJE900 is defined by the combination of slightly warm vocals and crisp, sparkly treble, all underlined by strong, controlled bass. The midrange is detailed and has a lusher feel compared to the dryer, more accurate ATH-CK10s. The soundstage is fairly close and intimate, but not narrow or closed-sounding. The HJE900 do have more depth than width, separating instruments nicely and imaging each well. The highs are more similar to the ATH-CK10 than other dynamic-driver IEMs, with a good amount of sparkle minus some of the detail and transparency. The Panasonics are quite efficient but don’t hiss too badly with my Amp3. On the downside, they are less forgiving of poor source material than much of the competition, likely due to their accentuated presentation of the upper mids/lower treble. Not recommended for 128kbps mp3s.

Value (7.5/10) – The HJE900 provides a great balance of fun and refinement. The bass and treble are quite strong, perhaps excessive for some, but the sound is beautifully dynamic and involving. They manage to sound very ‘musical’ and yet have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to detail and imaging. Unfortunately, Panasonic has pulled them from the US market, leading to a two-fold increase in price. For those in search of a fun, v-shaped sound the HJE900 may still be worth buying but the competition is very strong at $250.

Pros: Rock-solid, replaceable cables, interesting and engaging sound signature
Cons: Treble may be excessive for some, heavy shells, stock tips are underwhelming

For a more in-depth review and comparisons to the Monster Turbine Pro Gold and ATH-CK10 see here

(2A5) Monster Turbine Pro Gold

Reviewed Mar 2010

Details: Monster’s latest creation may be obscenely garish, but underneath the gold exterior beats a driver to match the best of the best
Current Price: $249 from amazon.com (MSRP: $299.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Soundmagic biflanges, Monster Supertips
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (5/5) – Silicone single-flange (3 sizes), tri-flange (2 sizes), and Comply foam tips, gel-filled Monster supertips, buttoned carrying case, magnetic-clasp carrying pouch, over-the-ear cable guides, 1/4” adapter, and shirt clip
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The Monster Turbine Pro addresses the known issues with the build of the original Turbines by offering proper strain reliefs on the sturdy metal shells, a thicker cable, and an L-type 3.5mm plug
Isolation (4/5) – Very good for a dynamic-driver IEM
Microphonics (4/5) – Low when worn over-the-ear; slightly bothersome otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – Despite the weighty housings they stay in extremely well both cord-up and cord-down. The variety of included tips makes it easy to find a good seal right out of the box

Sound (8.7/10) – First off, the Turbines are very sensitive to insertion depth – shove them in too far and they lose clarity and air; not far enough and bass depth drops off significantly. I found the soft Soundmagic biflanges to work well for me in terms of providing the right insertion depth effortlessly, but Monster’s own fit kit will likely satisfy most. Sound-wise the Turbines are the epitome of a high-end dynamic IEM. When properly inserted the Turbines come reasonably close to the best earphones I’ve heard in clarity while providing a much thicker overall sound without sounding unbalanced. I was impressed with the sound of the original turbines, which provided ample bass with almost no bleed into the midrange. The Pro version follows the same philosophy while correcting the original Turbines’ biggest weakness – mediocre treble response. The Pros are also superior in other areas as well – detail, clarity, control, soundstaging, and separation all undergo improvement to varying degrees.

Bass-wise the Turbines go deeper and move more air than nearly everything else I’ve heard. Though the bass isn’t quite as aggressive as with the Panasonic HJE900, sub-bass is more pronounced. The dynamic drivers do a good job of texturing the low end while providing very smooth and full-bodied bass response. They are capable of delivering poised, well-textured, and surprisingly balanced sound but just can’t quite compete with high-end armature phones such as the ATH-CK10 and UE TF10 in speed and control. Same goes for resolution, especially at the high end – the Turbines have a lot of resolving power but the overall sound is slanted towards coherency rather than resolution. The midrange is impossibly smooth and tends towards a thicker note presentation.

The Turbines are less forward and intimate than the HJE900 and yield in soundstage depth to the Panasonics but on the whole everything is properly spaced and positioned. The high end is natural and well-extended but lacks the sparkle of some BA earphones, instead providing a sound that is completely free of harshness and sibilance. Partly because of this the MTP is less engaging than earphones such as the CK10 and RE252 at extremely low volumes. Though the specs of the Turbine Pros are not published, they are clearly less efficient than most of my other IEMs. Just like the original Turbines, they do an admirable job of cutting down on hiss with the Amp3 as well as my netbook audio jack.

Value (8/10) – With a relaxed and buttery-smooth sound signature, the Monster Turbine Pro Gold is an excellent all-around earphone, picking up where the original Turbines left off and providing a more balanced and refined sound signature. Bass lovers should take notice – the Turbines can put out impressive bass, both in quantity and quality. They also provide treble that, while not as extended as the limitless RE0 or CK10, is smooth, natural, and extremely pleasing to the ear. The signature of the MTP also changes noticeably with tip choice and insertion depth so some trial and error may be required to extract the best performance.

Pros: Good build quality, comfortable, massive fit kit, excellent bass, very smooth, balanced, and dynamic sound
Cons: Posh to the point of vulgarity, some microphonics can be coerced from the cable

For a more in-depth review and comparisons to the Panasonic HJE900 and ATH-CK10 see here

(2A6) Yuin OK1

Reviewed May 2010

Details: Yuin’s top of the line IEM/earbud hybrid
Current Price: $229 from Head-Direct.com (MSRP: $229)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 150 Ω | Sens: 109 dB | Freq: 20-24k Hz | Cable: 4.5’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:5.5mm | Preferred tips: Large single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) – In-ear nozzle inserts (3 lengths), Silicone single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) tips, rubber earbud covers, and 6.3mm adapter
Build Quality (3/5) – Like all of Yuin’s earbuds, the OK1 uses plastic housings and a thin, rubberized cable terminated with a straight plug. Unlike the PK line, the grilles of the OK1 are actually metal and the screw-on IEM nozzles glide smoothly into place. Like most earbuds, the plastic stems take the place of proper strain reliefs
Isolation (1/5) – The OK1 are basically conventional earbuds with nozzles tacked on. They are open-back and isolate accordingly
Microphonics (5/5) – Like conventional earbuds, the OK1 do not suffer from microphonics the way IEMs do - the ear coupling is too shallow and loose for solid conductance
Comfort (2.5/5) – Since this is an IEM review, I am only evaluating the OK1s when used as IEMs. When worn as conventional earbuds, they are as comfortable as any stock buds. With the IEM extenders, however, the OK1 become a complete disaster. The shape of the human ear is such that the ear canals are not perpendicular to the ear itself, which is why angled-nozzle designs like the Klipsch S4 work so well. Sticking a forward-facing nozzle in the center of a conventional earbud, however, results in an IEM with a gigantic driver bulge and very long stems. Finding a comfortable fit takes a lot of experimentation and deep insertion is nearly impossible. For me the longest nozzles in combination with the largest single-flange tips provided a relatively comfortable (read: 2-3 hours at most) shallow seal. Others may not be so lucky

Sound (8.9/10) – Again, since this is an IEM review, I will not be evaluating the OK1 as a conventional earbud. I simply don’t have extensive experience with other conventional buds, nor do I like the form factor. As an IEM, though, the OK1 clearly holds its own against the best of the best, though proper insertion is perhaps more crucial with the Yuins than most traditional IEMs.

From the bottom up, the OK1 is a bit different from my other IEMs both in signature and presentation. The sound it produces manages to be bright and a bit aggressive, but at the same time extremely refined and surprisingly delicate. Even with ample driving power the bass of the OK1 will probably be its weakest point for the average listener. Bass is similar, both in quantity and impact, to the Head-Direct RE0 – tight, accurate, quite fast, but lacking the rumble and grungy texture that many bass-heavy dynamics provide. However, due to the wider and more open presentation of the OK1, instruments that rely on low notes actually sound more natural than with the RE0. Above 40Hz or so the bass is quite linear, transitioning smoothly into the midrange. The mids of the OK1 are its strongest quality – clear as a bell, detailed, and transparent, they put most traditional IEMs to shame. The midrange actually reminds me of the ATH-CK100 in clarity and transparency. However, the forwardness of the CK100 makes them sound slightly colored in comparison to the OK1. In addition, the OK1 isn’t nearly as touchy with regards to source - the midrange is always neutral and natural. An amazing property of the OK1 is the absolute lack of barrier between the listener and the vocalist, especially when it comes to female vocals, though this comes at a price – a slight loss in texture. Still, the absolute nudity of vocals as presented by the OK1 makes something like the Custom 3 sound veiled. Like the CK100, the OK1 picks up emphasis towards the upper midrange and keeps going right up into the lower treble, resulting in a rather bright and crisp sound shimmering with energy. As a result they are less forgiving of harsh and sibilant tracks than the CK100 despite sounding more delicate overall. Top-end extension is good – not quite CK10-good but better than the Custom 3/e-Q7 and company.

The presentation of the OK1 is again very different from most other IEMs I’ve tried. The OK1 has perhaps the most natural way of separating out instruments and positioning them in the soundstage – the instruments are very evenly spaced in the depth of the sonic stage. Despite not having the absolute widest soundstage around, the Yuins are quite adept at conveying both distance and intimacy, though they don’t fare too well at either extreme. Openness of sound is quite surprising as well – for an IEM the OK1 is downright airy. The resulting sound makes it quite easy to pick out and focus on individual instruments and/or vocalists. Best of all, the OK1 still sounds very coherent and musical, never sounding thin even with the widest and most spacious pieces

Amping: As if the 150 Ω impedance isn’t a dead giveaway, the OK1s need a lot of driving power. My Sansa Fuze barely reaches listening volume and sounds positively anemic with the Yuins and an iRiver T5 actually starts clipping at high volumes. An amp is therefore absolutely required if using these with an average DAP. Exceedingly powerful players such as my S:Flo2 can drive the Yuins fine without making them sound constrained, but the S:Flo is more of an exception than the rule.

Value (6.5/10) – If I were evaluating the OK1 on sound alone, the $230 price tag would not be difficult to justify – the incredibly airy and delicate sound of the Yuins is sure to find many fans among those who prefer a more realistic listening experience. As a total package, however, the OK1 lacks the advantages so many higher-end IEMs provide. Isolation and long-term comfort are not in the OK1’s playbook and the build quality is slightly disappointing for a high-end product. On the upside, cable noise never rears its ugly head and it is very unlikely that the OK1 will ever be stolen. In fact, their dimestore-earbud appearance may be a thief deterrent over stock apple earbuds. As usual, the true value of the OK1 comes down to personal preferences in the end. One thing is for sure – for some listeners the sound produced by the OK1 will be able to negate their shortfalls.

Pros: No microphonics, extremely airy sound, great balance, detail, and transparency
Cons: uncomfortable when used as IEMs, almost no isolation, build quality worthy of a $30 earbud

(2A7) Radius HP-TWF11R Pro “DDM”

Reviewed Jun 2010

Details: World’s first dual-dynamic driver earphone from Japanese audio firm Radius

Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $219.99)

Specs: Driver: Dual Dynamic | Imp: 24 Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 10-18k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ I-plug

Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: UE Single-flange (large)

Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (6 pairs), cleaning cloth, and hard clamshell carrying case with removable cord winder

Build Quality (3.5/5) – The housings are plastic with the inner surfaces rubberized slightly. A thick rubber strain relief protects the cable entry point but doesn’t feel particularly well-integrated. The nylon-sheathed cord is relatively thick and doesn’t kink nearly as much as the Klipsch Custom series cabling. It is terminated with a metal 3.5mm I-plug with a short rubber strain relief

Isolation (2/5) – Quite average due to vented design

Microphonics (3/5) – Fairly bothersome and exacerbated by the fact that the DDM is difficult to wear cord-up

Comfort (3/5) – The DDM is a very tough earphone to get used to. It seems to be designed to maintain stability by virtue of seal alone. The cable exit point keeps me from tucking the driver-containing bulge inside my ear and the nozzle angle is rather odd compared to my other earphones. Though not uncomfortable per se when a proper seal is achieved, the DDM still never feels particularly secure to me. Expect to spend time experimenting with fit to get the most out of these

Sound (8.7/10) – While the ergonomics and aesthetics of the tongue-twisting Radius may leave much to be desired, sound quality is where the funky earphone really shines. By virtue of what I can only imagine is some sort of dark magic, the dual-dynamic-driver HP-TWF11R sounds more coherent than not only most IEMs in its price range, but just about any high-end earphone I’ve heard, period. I’ve said in the past that what a lot of the high-end multiple-BA IEMs do best is dissect a piece of music into the tiniest details to display the most minute intricacies present on the track. The Radius achieves the same result by opposing means – rather than dissecting the music, it presents an exquisitely blended sound that’s refined enough for the tiniest details to make themselves quite obvious. A side effect is that the the DDM takes a bit of getting used to and might not sound entirely natural at first listen. But let’s start from the bottom.

The bass of the HP-TWF11R is the foundation for the robustness of their sound signature. It is very extended, competing with my Monster Turbine Pro Gold and Future Sonics Atrios, and provides a bit of rumble and plenty of impact. Despite being impactful, the HP-TWF11R never loses balance - the bass is rather soft and polite in presentation. Unless a track specifically calls for bass dominance, the low end of the Radius never feels intrusive or aggressive. It keeps up on fast techno and trance tracks and provides the reverb and decay necessary for the proper portrayal of orchestral recordings. Midrange bleed is nonexistent and the midrange itself seems (sounds?) to be the meat of the DDM.

The midrange is fluid and coherent, not at all veiled but not forward as with the ATH-CK100 or thick as with the Ortofon e-Q7. It lacks the absolute transparency of the whimsical Yuin OK1 but still manages to be quite competent in expressing the emotion in vocals. The DDM shines when it comes to reproducing stringed instruments. The rather delicate presentation conveys every nuance of string motion and every intonation of the sound it produces, resulting in a surprisingly detailed sound despite the lack of Etymotic-like forwardness or aggression. The same goes for the treble of the DDM – it is equally polite and very clear but lacks the crispness and energy of the treble produced by certain armature-based earphones (e.g. ATH-CK10, ATH-CK100, TF10). Instead of smacking the listener in the face with detail and clarity the way the CK10 does, the DDM presents detail softly and never leans toward a treble-heavy sound, maintaining a slightly more grounded balance at all times. However, that is not to say that the DDM cannot convey authority – I feel confident in saying that the dynamic range of the earphone is one of widest I have encountered. Despite this, due to the way fine detail is presented, the DDM does not work as well at minimal volume as the Yuin OK1, ATH-CK10, or RE252 – not necessarily a con but simply result of their peculiar dynamics.

In terms of presentation, the DDM is a very airy earphone. The soundstage has very good width and depth and an ‘out of the head’ feel, seemingly compounded by the size of the earphones themselves. Despite the rather large sonic stage, I feel that the DDM works best with conveying the intimacy in recordings rather than spaciousness. Compared to the ATH-CK10, the positioning isn’t quite as precise and imaging isn’t as accurate. The DDM also can’t quite compete with the overall speed of my CK10 or CK90Pro but fares well enough for electronic music. Lastly, the DDM does like being given a bit of extra juice. Depending on the source and/or amp used, giving the DDM some leeway in available power can make it sound more dynamic, more fluid, and even more detailed. Is it a night and day difference? Not exactly, but it is noticeable. I’m not a big proponent of portable amps but if the DDM is your be-all, end-all earphone, a decent amp may be worth the investment.

Value (7/10) – Overall I found the Radius HP-TWF11R to be both incredibly infuriating and undeniably endearing. Their build quality, microphonics, and fit leave much to be desired for me. Granted, I have been spoiled by the ergonomics of the Audio-Technica IEMs along with my Q-Jays and, more recently, the Phiaton PS200, but for me the fit of the DDM is simply irksome. The sound, however, leaves an entirely different impression. Though the signature takes a bit of time to get used to, the DDM is easily one of the most balanced dynamic-driver IEMs I have heard and its sonic characteristics, in a way, make me think of a pyramid – robust, detailed, and consistent bass at the bottom, a voluminous and wonderfully integral midrange in the center, all topped up with a healthy serving of extended and unfatiguing treble - the whole thing in perfect balance (in this analogy the CK10 would be a free-standing upside-down pyramid – unsurprisingly polarizing but quite literally mind blowing under the right conditions). Couple all that with a great dynamic range and I feel confident in saying that the DDM is the best-sounding IEM I have heard in the sub-$200 category. Yes, I require more from an IEM than just sound quality. But if I were to buy an IEM specifically for home use, I’d be hard-pressed to find a better value and a more enjoyable overall listening experience than what the HP-TWF11R provides for the asking price.

Pros: Oh-so-beautiful sound, very nice carrying case

Cons: Finicky fit, mediocre isolation, microphonic

(2A8) Future Sonics Atrio M8 (v1) MG5

Reviewed Jul 2010

Details: Bass-heavy universal IEM from the pioneer of dynamic customs, Future Sonics

Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $199.99)

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32 Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: 18-20k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ L-plug

Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock biflanges, Shure Olives

Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Bi-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), porous foam tips (4 sets), cleaning tool, and zippered carrying case

Build Quality (4/5) – The teardrop housings are made of plastic with molded rubber strain reliefs and an inch of memory wire tacked on. The plastic-sheathed cord is light and flexible but has a bit of memory character and can be tough to straighten out. Though the cable is plenty long, the y-split is slightly higher up than usual, which may be inconvenient for some

Isolation (3.5/5) – Excellent with any of the stock tips and outstanding or Shure Olives

Microphonics (4.5/5) – Extremely low

Comfort (4/5) – The fit of the Atrios reminds me of the Phonak PFEs. When worn properly, the housings don’t touch the wearer’s ear at all. However, with the stock bi-flange tips, insertion depth is quite great and sleeping in them is not as pleasant as it could be due to the sharp front edges of the shells as well as the intrusive fit. Getting a stable seal may also require a bit of fidgeting due to the memory wire

Sound (8/10) – As expected, the bass is the dominant aspect of the sound signature of the M8. What is surprising is just how technically competent the low end is. The bass is extremely extended, dropping below 30Hz without significant roll-off and audible well into the low 20Hz range. With the exception of the Hippo VB, the Atrios may have the flattest sub-bass of all the bass-heavy earphones I’ve tried. But it’s not just the excellent extension that gives the Atrios their reputation – the bass is detailed and impeccably textured. The dynamic drivers found in the Atrios can move quite a lot of air and, while the impact isn’t quite as precise as bass produced by BA-based earphones, the Atrios exercise impressive control over their low end. The bass is neither muddy nor bloated and can be an incredibly satisfying underlying element on bass-light tracks. On tracks with dominant basslines, however, the low end of the Atrios can be intense and perhaps even a bit overpowering if your personal preferences lean towards more analytical sound as mine do.

Recessed slightly in comparison to the low end, the midrange is clear and detailed. The clarity lags slightly behind the Sennheiser IE8, Hippo VB, and most armature-based earphones in the price range but still manages to impress for an earphone balanced the way the Atrio is. The mids are smooth, surprisingly uncolored and natural-sounding, and blended well with the bass and treble. Stringed instruments sound especially crisp and pleasant with the Atrios but vocals have good presence as well. The treble is just as smooth and relaxed as the midrange and boasts decent extension with silicone tips and a slight bit more roll-off with foamies. The top end is quite natural and, though fine detail is not as forthcoming as with some of the more analytical earphones, the edginess present in the treble of earphones such as the Hippo VB and Panasonic HJE900 is nonexistent with the Atrios.

The overall tone of the Atrios is quite dark, especially when using foam tips, but the presentation is quite monitor-like in nature. Soundstaging is good for an IEM but they won’t keep up with a Sennheiser IE8 or Phiaton PS200. Compared to the IE8, the Atrios have noticeably poorer separation and are a bit more tiring as a result. Truth be told, the Atrios sound like an IEM version of the popular M-Audio Q40 monitors – both are quite flat and uncolored aside from the hugely boosted bass, matching also in the little details such as the dark tone and fairly spacious and three-dimensional soundstage. As proper monitors should be, the Atrios are fairly revealing and 128kbps mp3s are a no-no with them. Lower listening volumes are also not ideal for extracting all of the detail the dynamic drivers of the M8s can produce.

Value (7/10) – The Atrios were widely regarded as the best bass-lover earphones in their price bracket when they were first introduced back in 2007. Aside from a minimal revision to the construction and specsheet, the Atrios have changed little over time in a rapidly evolving market but still remain competitive today. The secure fit, high isolation, and low microphonics make them very convenient everyday earphones and the rich, smooth, bass-heavy sound is sure to find many fans. If not for the similarly-capable but far cheaper Hippo VB, the Future Sonics Atrio would be a best buy for lovers of the deepest sort of bass on a budget. The Atrio still beats the VB easily on the usability front but is undercut heavily in price. However, bass lovers in search of a great earphone for all-around or active use not willing to shell out $400 for a Sennheiser IE8 will still find a great match with the Atrios. Those who care about value over all else and don’t mind the more aggressive nature of the Hippos’ treble may do well to check out the VB.

Pros: Comfortable, well-isolating, low microphonics, extremely powerful but well-controlled bass, clean midrange and treble

Cons: Plasticky build, not very pretty, rather dark in tone

(2A9) Phiaton PS200

Reviewed Jul 2010

Details: Flagship in-ear earphone from the Phiaton’s Primal Series

Current Price: $199 from amazon.com (MSRP: $249.99)

Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 39Ω | Sens: 95 dB | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4.2' I-plug

Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, Shure Olives

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Single flange (3 sizes) silicone tips, airplane adapter, and hard foldout carrying case with integrated cable winder and tip storage

Build Quality (4/5) – Metal housings with filter-less plastic nozzles and purely ornamental plastic ‘turbine blades’ at the rear feel rock solid. Long strain reliefs protect the thicker-than-average cable, which has a slight tendency to maintain bends introduced by the rectangular cable winder

Isolation (4/5) – Surprisingly good with the ‘bulbous’ stock single-flange tips or Shure Olives

Microphonics (4/5) – Low when worn cable-down, nonexistent otherwise. Slightly susceptible to wind noise

Comfort (4/5) – The fit of the PS200s mimics that of the Monster Turbine earphones with one exception – unlike the straight-barrel Turbines, the PS200 housings flare outward at the rear. Those with smaller ears will likely find the diameter of the PS200 housings too great for long-term comfort. In addition, the BA-based Phiatons benefit from the deepest possible fit while the Turbines are more or less forgiving of a shallow (and therefore less intrusive) insertion depth

Sound (8.8/10) – The dual-armature Phiaton PS200 utilizes a passive crossover network to split the frequency spectrum between the two drivers. Like the majority of multiple-armature IEMs, the sound surprises with its ability to separate instruments and general attentiveness to detail. But let’s start at the bottom. The bass of the PS200 is unsurprisingly armature-like in nature – tight and very accurate but lacking a bit in both body and reverb. The low end isn’t quite as linear as that of the ATH-CK10, nor is it as hard-hitting as the ridiculously fast and punchy bass of the CK90Pro.

Bleed is expectedly non-existent and the mids are neither forward nor recessed, featuring astonishing clarity and detail. Coming from the dual-armature Audio-Technica IEMs, the PS200 maintains the astonishing clarity but makes gains in warmth and musicality. Strings sound crisp and natural and every nuance of the motion of piano keys is revealed. Moving on to the treble, it becomes quite obvious that the PS200 is overall a brighter-sounding earphone. It crosses the line between sparkle and sibilance quite often. It’s not a harsh or grating sound – just mildly sibilant with certain tracks. Having poorly recorded material exacerbates the problem greatly – those who still have a sizable number of 128kbps mp3s may want to give the Phiatons a pass. Aside from the occasional sibilance, the treble of the PS200 is incredibly competent – aggressive, clear, detailed, and chock-full of energy, it will not disappoint the most hardcore treble lovers. Cymbals shimmer with the excitement and authority that makes them so jarring in real life – an effect I simply don’t get from most other earphones. As far as portraying the full spectrum of treble energy goes, the PS200 is a hard act to follow.

Pretty treble isn’t the end of it, however – the dual-driver Phiatons have another ace up their sleeves – presentation. The soundstage width simply doesn’t get much better than this in an IEM - Sennheiser IE8 aside, the PS200 has what may be the widest and most evenly-spaced soundstage of all of the in-ears I’ve heard. They are also surprisingly adept at portraying intimacy when suitable and generally display admirable prowess when it comes to positioning. Though soundstage depth and height are fairly average, the massive width results in a very well-separated sound. A rather less pleasant surprise, however, is the level of hiss that the Phiatons exhibit when plugged into less-than-ideal sources. Despite their relatively high impedance and low sensitivity, the Phiatons hiss as much as the Fischer Audio Eternas.

Value (7.5/10) – Priced to compete with the likes of the Audio-Technica ATH-CK10/CK90Pro and Jays Q-Jays, the dual-armature Phiaton PS200 boasts low microphonics, solid build quality, very impressive isolation, and aesthetics Monster’s earphone division could envy. The sound is equally impressive – quick and accurate, but at the same time lively and quite bright. Those who can live with the lean bass and occasional mild sibilance are rewarded with an excellent soundstage, warm and lifelike midrange, and incredibly fast and energetic treble, and, while the Phiatons certainly are not cheap, their signature is unique enough to warrant them a spot in the ranks of high-end in-ears.

Pros: Surprisingly well-isolating, great midrange and treble, wide soundstage

Cons: Shy low end, can be slightly sibilant

(2A10) Audio-Technica ATH-CK90Pro

Reviewed Jul 2010

Details: Dual-driver monitors from Audio-Technica built around an acoustic horn design

Current Price: $220 from accessoryjack.com (MSRP: $299.99)

Specs: Driver: Dual Armature | Imp: 37 Ω | Sens: 111 dB | Freq: 20-15k Hz | Cable: 4' L-plug

Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Monster tri-flange, Sony Hybrid

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) – Single flange silicone tips (3 sizes), heat-activated foam tips (1 set), and soft carrying pouch

Build Quality (4/5) – Unlike the higher-end consumer-oriented CK10 and CK100, the CK90Pro features a no-frills plastic construction. The housings are sturdy though foam is used in the nozzle in place of a filter. The cable is nowhere near as thick as those of the CK10/CK100 and generally doesn’t feel very impressive for a $300 product. It lacks a cord cinch but is properly relieved on housing entry and terminated with the same iPhone-friendly 3.5mm L-plug as the CK100

Isolation (4/5) – The angled-nozzle design and thin housing allows for deep insertion and the sealed housing yields impressive isolation with the right tips

Microphonics (4/5) – The cable carries a bit of noise when the CK90Pro is worn cord-down but is general not very energetic and carries no noise when looped over-the-ear

Comfort (4/5) – The oddly shaped housings work surprisingly well when it comes to providing a comfortable fit. The earphones can be inserted quite deeply but remain comfortable. Over-the-ear wear takes a bit of getting used to as the housings need to be angled upward but becomes quite comfortable and very secure in the long run

Sound (8.7/10) – Being part of the Pro audio line, the CK90Pro is the black sheep of Audio-Technica’s high-end in-ear stable. Lauded on release as a CK10 replacement, it is hard to see how Audio-Technica ever intended to substitute the austere and impassive CK90Pro for the shiny and exciting CK10. But the CK90Pro has a place in Audio-Technica’s lineup even alongside the two consumer models. For one it is much darker-sounding than both – while the CK10 and CK100 are both somewhat bright, the CK90Pro is just shy of neutral, leaning slightly away from brightness. The CK90Pro also has the most impactful bass of the three, perhaps due to the acoustic horn setup of the sound channel. Its extension is very impressive, offering flatter bass than the CK100 and coming quite close to the linearity of the CK10 without as much of a sacrifice in low end quantity. Decay times are extremely short and the CK90Pro can nearly keep up with the speed and accuracy of the CK10 despite the greater slam. Still, the sacrifices typical of decay-less armature bass abound – there is simply no way the CK90Pro can keep up with the bass body/fullness of something like Panasonic HJE900 or Monster Turbine Pros even though they are plentifully impactful.

Expectedly there is no midrange bleed and, as with the CK10, the midrange of the CK90Pro is neither forward nor recessed. Clarity and detail are good but the CK90Pros are smooth to the point of sound ‘glossy’, meaning that there is a loss of microdetail as the earphones strive to avoid sounding sharp. The brightness present in the CK10s is nonexistent and harshness/sibilance are nearly imperceptible with the CK90Pro, with the side effect being a slightly duller sound, especially when it comes to female vocals. It is the treble, however, that draws me to Audio-Technica’s consumer-oriented earphones. Compared to the CK10, the treble of the CK90Pro is slightly de-emphasized and lacks the peaks that make the CK10 so bright and sparkly. It is clear and quite detailed but without that last bit of treble extension that makes the other two so effortless. Those who find the treble of the CK10 overbearing and are willing to sacrifice a bit of detail for a smoother overall sound may do well to check out the CK90Pro.

When it comes to presentation, the CK90Pro again impresses with excellent imaging and decent (though not nearly UM3X-good) instrumental separation in its average-sized stage. The earphones do have a good sense of space and do a surprisingly capable of job of not only left-to-right but also front-to-rear positioning. They aren’t pinpoint-accurate and not nearly as three-dimensional as something like the UM3X but do a good enough job of it to be involving without sounding unnatural.

But there is something else. The CK90Pro, being part of Audio-Technica’s Pro monitor line, is a proper studio monitor and something of a chameleon when it comes to source matching. Aside from the CK100, which requires careful source matching for different reasons, the CK90Pro may be the most source-dependent earphone I’ve tried. Hook it up to a Sansa Clip/Fuze and it showcases the strengths of the player with outstanding stereo separation and imaging. Swap those for a Sony DAP (A828 in my case) and they warm up and become even smoother. Hook them into an S:Flo2 and bass slam and note articulation improve noticeably. Upon hearing the CK90Pro, jant71 stated that in a sense the earphone is a ‘blank slate’ in that it allows the source to imprint it with certain aspects of its sound signature – a statement that I think captures the essence of the earphone quite well. In addition, the old head-fi maxim of ‘garbage in - garbage out’ applies unequivocally in the case of the CK90Pro – feeding them low bitrate tracks out of a laptop’s headphone jack will result in an exceptionally dull listening experience.

Value (7.5/10) – The Audio-Technica CK90Pro may be the odd one out among the company’s high-end IEMs in design and build quality but its sound signature is just as polarizing as those of the CK10 and CK100. Dark and quite hard-hitting for an armature-based earphone, the CK90Pro is technically even more balanced than the others, boasting neither the forward midrange of the CK100 nor sparkly treble of the CK10. However, the sound of the CK90Pro has a strong tendency to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of its source and even the core signature won’t appeal to everyone. The CK90Pro, then, is business as usual for Audio-Technica. It is the proverbial love-it-or-hate-it earphone - those who enjoy a monitor-like approach to music will fall in love with its balance and technical proficiency; those who do not will quite possibly hate it.

Pros: Highly isolating and comfortable with the right tips, great technical proficiency

Cons: Build quality is disappointing next to other Audio-Technica earphones, strong source dependence, love-it-or-hate-it sound

(2A11) JAYS q-JAYS

Reviewed Jul 2010

Details: Miniscule dual-driver monitors from Swedish audio house JAYS

Current Price: $171 from amazon.com (MSRP: $249.00)

Specs: Driver: Dual Armature | Imp: 39 Ω | Sens: 95 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 2’ I-plug + 3’ extension

Nozzle Size: 3mm | Preferred tips: Klipsch gels, stock single flanges, Sony hybrids

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange silicone (7 sets / 5 sizes) and foam tips, 4 sets of replacement filters, 3.5mm splitter, airplane adapter, L-plug 3’ extension cord, I-plug 3’ extension cord, and small zippered carrying case

Build Quality (3.5/5) – The tiny plastic housings feel sturdy but lack proper strain reliefs. The Kevlar-reinforced cabling is of medium thickness and robust but has a tendency to harden over time. The ability to switch between L-plug and I-plug extension cables is a welcome innovation, though

Isolation (4/5) – The tiny housings allow for an extremely dip fit and isolation is excellent with the right tips

Microphonics (4/5) – Present when worn cord-down, nearly nonexistent when worn over-the-ear

Comfort (5/5) – The tiny housings are bent slightly for a comfortable over-the-ear fit but can be worn cable-down as well and are one of the few sets of earphones I can sleep on my side with. Five sizes of silicone tips are included, ensuring a comfortable fit for all ear sizes except maybe the very largest, which would swallow the q-JAYS whole

Sound (8.8/10) – The q-JAYS are claimed by the manufacturer to be the smallest IEMs on the market, which doesn’t seem at all unreasonable from looking at them. For something so small, however, these dual-armature earphones pack quite a punch. For me the strength of the q-JAYS lies in their low end. For a pair of dual-BA monitors, the bass of the q-JAYS is excellent. It is controlled, impactful, detailed, and accurate. The low end is smooth and carries just a hint of warmth. Depth and texture are quite good and the overall bass weight is slightly heavier than with the DBA-02/CK10. Impact lags slightly behind the hard-hitting CK90Pro. Low end extension is very reasonable as well. Attack and decay are quite realistic for a BA-based earphone but of course similarly-priced dynamics (HJE900, DDM, MTPG) are capable of a more realistic experience on that front. Still, I rate the bass of the q-JAYS very highly among all of the dual-BA earphones I’ve heard.

The midrange, on the other hand, is not particularly noteworthy. The mids of the q-JAYS are clear and quite detailed but yield easily to those the DBA-02 and CK10. Compared to the highly present bass and treble, the midrange of the JAYS is oh-so-slightly recessed and somewhat dry. In contrast, the high end is slightly forward and quite crisp and energetic. There is some unevenness which accentuates sibilance if it is present on the track and generally causes the treble to sound a bit edgy. However, the q-JAYS don’t quite have the hot-tempered nature of the CK10, DBA-02, or PS200 when it comes to treble, though they are far from laid-back. Treble sparkle and extension lags slightly behind these three as well – the q-JAYS are not dark earphones (a la CK90Pro), but they lack the brightness of the aforementioned trio.

The presentation of the q-JAYS is relatively airy and quite three-dimensional in feel. The soundstage is neither very wide nor very deep but keeps up with most of the competition while providing rather accurate positioning. Among the high-end dual-drivers I’ve had in my possession, the presentation of the JAYS falls closest to the Klipsch Custom 3. One last matter of note – the q-JAYS boast relatively high impedance and low sensitivity. They aren’t particularly difficult to drive and fail to justify the expense of a portable amp. However, they do sound slightly flat and dull at minimal listening volumes and a couple of notches above my preferred volume level are required to really bring them to life.

Value (8/10) – Despite being a three-year-old design, the JAYS q-JAYS still impress greatly with their ergonomics, aesthetics, and of course sonic qualities. The miniature construction and comprehensive accessory pack make the q-JAYS one of the most versatile in-ear sets on the market. Aside from small quibbles such as the lack of proper strain reliefs and unwieldy modular cable lengths, the q-JAYS are enormously agreeable in day-to-day. Their sound is rather agreeable as well. The bass of the q-JAYS stands among the best I’ve heard out of dual-driver monitors. The midrange is competent, if a bit dry, and doesn’t draw attention to itself over the bass and treble. The high end is crisp and edgy but lacks the brightness and effortlessness of competing earphones such as the CK10 and DBA-02. For sound quality alone the price tag of the q-JAYS could be considered slightly excessive. As a total package, however, the tiny Swedish earphones make quite a lot of sense.

Pros: Wonderfully small and comfortable, excellent accessory pack, high isolation with the right tips, clear and crisp sound, great bass for a BA-based earphone

Cons: Cable lengths can be frustrating, slightly edgy & dry-sounding

(2A12) Fischer Audio DBA-02 / Brainwavz B2

Reviewed Jul 2010

Details: Dual-driver monitors from Fischer Audio’s flagship Master Series

Current Price: $160 from gd-audiobase.com (MSRP: $159.99); $130 from amazon.com for Brainwavz B2

Specs: Driver: Dual Armature | Imp: 43 Ω | Sens: 108 dB | Freq: 20-24k Hz | Cable: 4.2' I-plug

Nozzle Size: 3mm | Preferred tips: Shure single-flange, Etymotic tri-flange

Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) – Single flange silicone tips (3 sizes), over-the-ear cable guides, and soft carrying pouch (Brainwavz B2 (4/5): Single-flange silicone tips (6 pairs in 3 sizes), Comply T100, 6.3mm adapter, airplane adapter, and hard clamshell carrying case)

Lacks cable guides. The sliding cinch is better than the DBA-02 one and minijack is now J-shaped (120 degree) bent slim model. Comes with 1 year warranty.

Build Quality (3.5/5) – The shells consist of two layers of plastic – one light blue and one clear - and feel slightly cheap to the touch. Some sharp edges are left by the molding process and the strain relief on cable entry, while functional, is quite short. The black-and-white cable is very similar to the twisted cords found on Westone earphones and feels quite sturdy. The Y-split is well-relieved but the 3.5mm straight plug is a bit wimpy and the cord cinch slides up and down the cable too easily, which can be frustrating

Isolation (3.5/5) – Quite good with single-flange tips and even better with aftermarket triples

Microphonics (4/5) – Present when worn cord-down, almost nonexistent when worn over-the-ear

Comfort (4/5) – The angled-nozzle housings can be worn both cord-down and over-the-ear in the same way as the Klipsch S4 but are quite a bit longer and may not be as fitting for those with smaller ears as the S4

Sound (9.2/10) – Despite being a relative newcomer on the international hi-fi scene, Fischer Audio have already caused quite a stir with their highly competitive midrange earphones. The Eterna, which I reviewed previously, won me over with its uncompromising musicality and fun factor despite being so very far from my preferred sound signature. But I’ve never made a secret of being after a far more analytical sound. There are many out there who claim that analytical earphones are antithetical to music enjoyment – that they cause the listener to hear the earphones and not the music. But for me a proper analytical earphone is quite relaxing – it never forces me to focus my attention on this or that to pick up on every detail and I find this more relaxing than listening to an earphone with the sound signature equivalent of a rocking chair (e.g. MTPG).

On that note, I will say that the DBA-02 is one of the best all-around earphones I have heard for the type of sound I am after. I will compare it mostly to the Audio-Technica CK10 as the two share an uncanny similarity but my listening involved lengthy comparisons to the dual-driver Phiaton PS200, Q-Jays, and ATH-CK90Pro as well as the Westone 1 and UM3X and the dynamic-driver-based Monster Turbine Pro Gold and Copper. As with the ATH-CK10, the bass of the DBA-02 is tight, controlled, and well-extended. I find the DBA-02 to be ruler-flat down to the lowest limits of my hearing, beating out the CK100 and a slew of other high-end earphones. The low end is quick and detailed. I do feel that the CK10 is just a hair more immediate in terms of impact and seems to move more air than the DBA-02 does. It should be noted that while I consider both earphones to be very well-balanced, for those used to something like the MTPG or Senn IE8 both will still fall square into ‘bass-light’ territory.

The midrange of the DBA-02 is balanced perfectly with the bass and treble. It isn’t lacking in transparency, clarity, or detail. If anything, it is a bit too crisp and aggressive when it comes to texturing – a bit Etymotic-like in that respect – but this is hardly a negative in my book. The mids of the CK10 sound slightly smoother and have a more liquid nature to them. Moving into the lower treble, the DBA-02 stays fairly smooth and quite articulated. There’s plenty of sparkle to go around but no harshness or sibilance. The DBA-02s are certainly bright earphones but the lower treble is less hot-tempered than that of the CK10s, which are just a tad more prone towards being sibilant. Treble detail is excellent but microdetail is presented with less authority than the somewhat more aggressive CK10 - a role reversal of sorts from the midrange, where the CK10 exhibits a more laid-back character than the DBA-02. Extension is effortless – a characteristic the DBA-02 shares with the CK10 and CK100.

When it comes to presentation, the DBA-02 once again surprises with the amount of air in its spacious stage as well as with the excellent (though not quite UM3X-excellent) instrumental separation. Soundstage width and depth are quite good, though neither the IE8 nor the Phiaton PS200 will feel threatened by the Fischers any time soon. In comparison, the CK10 sounds more enveloping and three-dimensional with better imaging and a capacity for front-to-rear positioning that never ceases to surprise me. The sound of the CK10 has a sort of ambience to it that I have not heard replicated except in the higher-end CK100. On a final comparative note, I feel that both the CK10 and DBA-02 are equally (in)efficient and will both run fine off of portable players and scale relatively well with added power.

Lastly, I want to emphasize that while direct comparisons always make it seem like the two products being compared are extremely dissimilar, the differences between the ATH-CK10 and DBA-02 are fairly small. For all intents and purposes, the two earphones share a general sound signature and I probably wouldn’t want to own both simultaneously.

Value (9.5/10) – The Fischer Audio DBA-02 offers nearly unprecedented bang/buck. For detailed and analytical sound, the biggest competitor is the substantially pricier Audio-Technica ATH-CK10, which boasts better build quality and a more convenient form factor. The build quality and accessory pack of the DBA-02 aren't fitting of top-tier earphones, but then neither is the price, and that really sums up the earphones pretty well – top tier sound quality with middle rung amenities and price tag.

Pros: Astonishingly balanced and capable sound, comfortable, well-isolating

Cons: Average build quality and accessory pack

Special thanks to rawrster for generously lending me the DBA-02 for the full duration of my review regimen!

(2A13) Westone 2

Reviewed Nov 2010

Details: Dual-driver earphone from Westone’s consumer series
Current Price: $239 from accessoryjack.com (MSRP: $339.00)
Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 33Ω | Sens: 117 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Shure gray soft flex (stock)
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange conical (3 sizes) and rounded (3 sizes) silicone tips, triple-flange silicone tips, Comply foam tips (3 sizes), ¼” adapter, in-line volume control, filter and tip cleaning tool, and hard clamshell carrying case with carabiner
Build Quality (4.5/5) – Identical to the Westone 1 - lightweight plastic housings, a sturdy multi-strand twisted cable, and well-relieved y-split, housing entry, and 3.5mm L-plug
Isolation (3.5/5) – Good due to the ergonomic shells
Microphonics (5/5) – The W2 can only be worn over-the-ear and microphonics are nonexistent
Comfort (4.5/5) – Like the Westone 1, which uses the same shells, the W2 is extremely lightweight and ergonomic and the cabling is very user-friendly. The small shells can sometimes require re-adjusting after a while but not often enough to be bothersome

Sound (8.9/10) – Having read that the W2 can compete with the other high-end dual driver monitors not only in fit and user-friendliness but also in sound quality, I was quite eager to complete my survey of Westone’s consumer-class in-ear monitors with it. In a sentence, though I can see why some would find them preferable to the more analytical ATH-CK10 and Fischer Audio DBA-02, they are entirely different animals from the no-nonsense clarity kings. The sound of the W2 is extremely balanced and yet very musical, splitting the difference between the entry-level consumer-oriented Westone 1 and the reference-quality UM3X stage monitors.

The low end of the W2 is smooth and punchy but still typical of armature-based earphones on the whole. The bass rolls off gently below 50Hz or so, which is not completely out of character for a dual-BA. The W2 does beat out the ATH-CK10 and Fischer DBA-02 by a hair in bass quantity but, expectedly, lacks the sub-bass presence of many high-end dynamics. It also loses in extension and impact to the W3 by a fair margin - at the low end the W2 is really more akin to a vastly improved Westone 1 than a de-tuned Westone 3. Texture and detail are on-par with the other high-end dual-BAs though the latter is slightly less prominent due to the greater warmth and smoothness of the W2.

The midrange is where the W2 really shines. The mids are in very good balance with the bass and treble – slightly more forward than those of the UE TF10 but not as much as with the UM3X or SM3. Like the Westone 1, the W2 is slightly warm but there is no loss in detail or added veil as a result. The W3, which is dryer and thinner-sounding in the midrange, admittedly sounds slightly more clear and detailed but the difference is small. Like the other Westone earphones, the smooth and transparent midrange of the W2 works wonders with female vocals - compared to the ATH-CK10, for example, the thicker and wetter W2 has better vocal definition and simply sounds more satisfying.

At the high end the W2 is competent but seems to avoid risk as much as possible – I guess Westone took enough risks with the W3. It is not quite as airy as the DBA-02, probably due to the greater warmth, and less sparkly than the Westone 3, TF10, and CK10. It is, however, detailed and extended but not at all offensive or tiring. The W2 really sounds very natural but lacks the energy of some of the more treble-heavy earphones out there, sounding darker than much of the competition. All in all it’s a good balance for those who want an earphone with present treble without risking listening fatigue but may not appeal to those who find high levels of treble energy exciting.

The presentation of the W2 again puts it on-level with most of the so-called ‘top-tier’ earphones. The soundstage has impressive depth and width and never sounds confined or closed. Because it’s a bit thicker and less crisp than the CK10, the W2 sounds a tiny bit vaguer when it comes to positioning (the CK10 really is the sniper rifle of in-ear earphones with its pinpoint-accurate imaging). The warmer W2 is also slightly more forward on the whole (especially in the midrange) but does a very good job of conveying distance – better than the W3, actually. However, the W3 does sound more three-dimensional, in large part due to the extra layer of bass presented by the flagship. On the whole I feel that the W2 works better for busier and faster tracks (where the bass of the W3 can get overwhelming) but at the same time is more forgiving of mediocre source material. Lastly, it is worth noting that the Westone 2 is just as sensitive as the W3 is, meaning that it will hiss with many of the more powerful portable players as well as amps, notebooks, desktop computers, and so on.

Value (9/10) – From the day I laid hands on the Westone 1, I was disappointed by the wasted potential of the earphone as an overall package – with the W1, sound quality was by far the weakest part of an otherwise exemplary IEM. Listening to the Westone 2, I almost feel that Westone purposely de-tuned the lower-end model to leave room for the W2 - an earphone that is more similar in signature to the smooth and inoffensive W1 but technically much closer to the company’s flagships – the W3 and UM3X. Though I do still like the clearer and crisper ATH-CK10 and DBA-02 better overall as far as dual-drivers go, the W2 has arguably more mass appeal than any other dual-driver out there and is a good example of what many consider to be the ‘audiophile’ sound signature – slightly warm but with good balance, detail, and natural clarity and nothing to distract the listener from the midrange. That said, analytical listeners and bass-lovers alike may find themselves slightly bored by the W2 and of course lovers of dynamic drivers won’t find the note presentation they seek in the Westones. For everyone else, the W2 offers a very complete package at a price point that slots in right below the so-called ‘top-tiers’.

Pros: Impressive fit, isolation, build quality, and accessory pack; pleasant overall sound, great balance, good soundstage
Cons: ‘Safe’ sound signature may be boring for some

(2A14) Earsonics SM2 DLX (v1)

Reviewed Apr 2011

Details: Dual-driver model from French audio firm Earsonics
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP $299.00)
Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 119 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Sensorcom bi-flanges, SM3 bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) –Comply foam tips (2 sets), filter and tip cleaning tool, and hard zippered carrying case
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The lightweight shells are made of two plastic halves and don’t feel as sturdy as those of the Westone earphones. The light multi-strand cables are properly relieved both on housing entry and at the Y-split but again aren’t as thick, soft, or supple as Westone cords
Isolation (3.5/5) – Quite good, especially when longer tips are used
Microphonics (5/5) – Can only be worn over-the-ear so microphonics are nonexistent
Comfort (3.5/5) – The housings of the SM2 are very similar to those of the SM3, including the squared-off rear corners of the shells, which can cause long-term discomfort for those with smaller ears. I ended up using longer tips and leaving the shells outside of my ears when wearing the earphones for more than an hour at a time

Sound (9.1/10) – The SM2 is Earsonics’ most basic earphone – a dual-armature monitor designed for professionals on a budget. That said, the sound quality of the SM2 shows just how serious the French company is about audio – this ‘entry-level’ monitor sounds anything but. Expectedly, the SM2 shares quite a few sonic traits with the higher-end SM3 but, while Earsonics clearly addressed some of the SM2’s weaknesses with the newer model, the two earphones are different enough to both have a place on the market.

The most surprising aspect of the sound of the SM2 is the bass – one may expect the dual-armature model to have less low-end presence than the triple-armature one – and in general one would be right – but with the SM2 the rules really don’t apply. The low end is very strong – at least on-level with the Westone UM3X – and extended. It is not quite dominant over the midrange but clearly isn’t submissive, either. In fact, it seems more powerful than the bass of the SM3 because the midrange isn’t as forward. There is plenty of punch and yet the bass remains nice and detailed. However while not downright slow, it is not as quick or tight as that of flatter earphones like the CK10/DBA-02 or even the higher-end SM3 or Westone 4 – not surprising considering that the SM2 is the bassiest dual-armature earphone I’ve come across. On the upside, the low end boasts very natural attack and decay times for an armature-based earphone and generally sounds quite natural.

The midrange of the SM2, like that of the SM3, seems be the meat of the sound signature. The overall balance of the earphones is very good and while the midrange is still slightly forward next to the CK10 or DBA-02, it is not emphasized heavily as the mids of the SM3 and UM3X tend to be. Clearly serving as the jumping off point for the tuning of the SM3, the midrange of the SM2 is slightly warm, rich, and detailed. It is not as crisp as the midrange of the ATH-CK10 and generally sounds much thicker and softer. Those who found the lush midrange of the SM3 to sound ‘veiled’ will find little solace in the SM2 as it is only slightly thinned-out in comparison. As with the SM3, vocals and instruments centered on the midrange have surprisingly natural timbre for an armature-based earphone and approach my entry-level customs when it comes to realism.

The treble of the SM2 is competent but obviously tuned with low listening fatigue in mind. Clarity and extension are quite good but it gives some emphasis up to the midrange, resulting in the entire earphone sounding very slightly dark. As with the SM3, there is really no frequency range in which the SM2 lacks presence but for my taste the treble could definitely be more energetic. Interestingly, the top end isn’t quite as smooth on the SM2 as it is on the SM3 – a few peaks and valleys are noticeable in the response – but instead of adding energy or air they just cause the treble to sizzle on occasion. The SM2 sometimes does sound a touch more airy than the SM3 but it’s still a far cry from earphones such as the ATH-CK10 and DBA-02, or even the Westone 4.

As for the presentation, there are clear similarities between the SM2 and SM3 but the former is not quite as immersive and enveloping as the latter. For those who found the presentation of the SM3 just a bit too holographic to be believable, the SM2 should be more tolerable. The difference between the two isn’t huge, however, and those who found the feel of the SM3 downright offensive will not find solace with the SM2. Soundstage size is quite similar between the two – well above-average and close to the perfect size for a BA-based earphone - and the SM2 can portray extreme intimacy just as well as the SM3. Expectedly, imaging and separation are also very good except when the slightly muddier bass of the SM2 gets in the way. The dynamics are good as well though they lag behind similarly-priced dynamic-driver earphones such as the Radius TWF21. Like the SM3, the SM2 will not be all things to all people but it is a highly refined monitor with great presence across the range and a very interesting earphone in its own right.

Value (8/10) – Though not as popular as the higher-end SM3 model, the SM2 DLX is arguably an even more difficult earphone to dislike. While it retains the slight warmth and thickness of the SM3, it is not as forward in the midrange or as enveloping in presentation. As a result, its flavour isn’t as pronounced as that of Earsonics’ flagship – a potential positive for some listeners. All of the functional caveats of the SM3 still apply – the build quality lags slightly behind that of Westone monitors and the angular housings aren’t particularly ergonomic – but on the whole the SM2 is almost as musical as addictive as the SM3.

Pros: No microphonics; Smooth, refined, and detailed sound; spacious presentation
Cons: No silicone tips included, angular housings lead to potential comfort issues, not as well-built as Westone monitors

(2A15) Kozee Sound Solutions Infinity X1 Executive

Reviewed Apr 2011

Details: Entry-level single-driver custom from Kozee Sound Solutions
Current Price: $190 from kozeesolutions.com (MSRP: $189.95)
Specs: Driver: Vented BA | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A| Freq: N/A | Cable: 4.6’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: N/A | Preferred tips: N/A
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Cleaning tool, velvet carrying pouch, and hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – Molding quality is adequate – the acrylic shells of my X1 Executive show fewer bubbles than with my 1964-T but the molds are also thinner, almost plastic-like in nature. The finish around the cable socket and nozzle bores is better than with the 1964-T but not quite up there with my UM Miracle. The matte finish is also different from the usual shiny, clear-coated acrylic of pricier customs. As for cabling, the X1 Executive utilizes a UE custom cable while the cheaper silicone-shelled X1 has fixed cabling
Isolation (4/5) – The isolation provided by the fitted acrylic shells is excellent, though it may not seem so at first. The passive attenuation is slightly below what the higher-end Etymotic earphones and my UM Miracle are capable of but higher than with the universal stage monitors from the likes of Westone and EarSonics
Microphonics (5/5) – Microphonics are pretty much nonexistent, as is the case with most customs. The cable cinch should still be used if the X1s were to be exercised in but for day-to-day use I don’t see myself bothering with it
Comfort (5/5) –The most obvious contrast to universal earphones is the lack of ‘suction’ created by the soft tips of most universals. Putting the customs in requires a bit of getting used to but the twisting motion eventually becomes second nature. The acrylic shells are hard but not in the least uncomfortable – sometimes I am aware of them and other times I forget they’re in my ears at all. Obviously fit will always depend on the quality of the initial molds and maybe a bit of luck but I can’t imagine a properly-fitting custom being uncomfortable. Kozee also offers an industry-leading 90-day fit guarantee, which should be taken advantage of if the customs remain even a tiny bit uncomfortable after an initial break-in period

Sound (8.4/10) – On the list of additional features that the Executive package brings to the X1 only one caught my eye – upgraded drivers. Presumably, the vents clearly visible on the rear of my X1 drivers are not a cosmetic touch and wouldn’t be possible with the silicone-shelled base model. I can’t see any markings on the transducer but it is a little smaller than the Sonion 2015s used in my 1964-T and positioned right near the nozzle. As usual, I can’t claim any direct knowledge of the effects venting has on a balanced armature transducer but, rear vent or not, the X1 is an impressive performer and does share some aspects of its signature with the $1100 vented-BA FAD FI-BA-SS.

The dominant aspects of the X1’s sound are the crispness and clarity – the earphone really makes no sacrifices whatsoever on either front. Being a single-armature design, however, it does sacrifice a bit of extension on either end as well as some note thickness to cover the entire spectrum. Sub-bass roll-off is most noticeable, dropping off fairly quickly below 45Hz or so. In contrast to my 1964-Ts, there is also no mid-bass boost adding extra warmth or punch to the sound. Instead, the X1 is more Etymotic-like in nature, with fairly flat and very tight bass. It is punchy and accurate but clearly not for those who desire sizeable bass rumble or body. In addition, the limitations of the X1’s low end are difficult to remedy with and equalizer – the bass can be dialed up a touch but attempts to change the nature of the earphones significantly are met with distortion. Definitely not one for bassheads, then.

The midrange of the X1 is balanced well with the low end and generally remains accurate and realistic. Though there is some upper midrange emphasis, the overall tone is more neutral than, for example, that of the brighter UE700 or darker Sennheiser IE7. As with the only other vented BA earphone I’ve heard, the FAD FI-BA-SS, the clarity and resolution of the X1 are outstanding – the single armature used by Kozee is a far cry from the drivers found in most sub-$100 universals. The only single-armature earphones besides the FADs that can compete on the clarity front are Etymotic’s HF- and ER-series models. That said, the detail level of the X1 is a half-step below what similarly-priced dual drivers such as the UE700 and Fischer DBA-02 are capable of. Even the Ety HF5 pulls ahead slightly by virtue of better texturing, which is not to say the X1 lacks texture. On the contrary, it seems to introduce texture – a bit of ‘grit’ or ‘grain’ over the midrange and lower treble – giving the illusion of being overly revealing. However, the detail and transparency aren’t quite on-level with the FI-BA-SS so all that results in is a little edginess and a fairly aggressive note presentation. In terms of thickness, the X1 is only a bit leaner than the ATH-CK10 but also slightly more dry.

The X1 is also somewhat guilty of following the Ety mold with the treble, which is slightly elevated without being notably harsh or sibilant. Like the midrange, it is a bit rough and edgy and tends to be very revealing of artifacts present on the recording – those looking for an earphone that will do some post-processing on sibilant tracks will be better off with a Westone or Earsonics model. Clarity and detail are quite good and there’s plenty of sparkle to go around – not quite as much as with the UE700 but close to Fischer’s DBA-02 and the like. As a result, the X1 stops just short of being unambiguously bright without losing the extra bit of energy associated with prominent treble but those who find Etymotics fatiguing will want to stay away. Extension is quite decent and the X1 remains crisp and resolving all the way up. Still, though the X1 wouldn’t be out of place in the Etymotic lineup (it would fit in between the MC5 and HF5), there is no mistaking its sound for that of the armature-based Ety models. If I had to pick the universal they remind me most of it would be the $1100 FAD FI-BA-SS. Of course they don't have the detail of the BA-SS and the bass response lacks the power, richness, and fullness of the FADs but the disproportionately high level of clarity, the overall tone, and 'naked' feel of the sound are similar.

In terms of presentation, the X1 Executive again proves itself an impressive piece of kit. Its soundstage is wide – wide enough to compete with the most capable universals – but lacks a bit of depth and height in comparison. While the soundstage of the 1964-T is a lot more compact, it is also quite a bit more spherical in shape. The 1964-T also has better imaging - the X1 may have plenty of air but it doesn’t really have the positioning precision of my other customs or higher-end universal such as the CK10 or W2. The headstage of the X1 is impressive for an earphone and broader than with the 1964-T. Like a few of the higher-end dynamics, the X1 really has an out-of-the-head feel to it but sacrifices the ability to portray intimacy to an extent, partly because of the fairly average dynamic range of the earphones. As a result, stereo separation can seem just a touch exaggerated at times and the ability of earphones such as the Westone UM3X and Earsonics SM3 to “center” vocals within the headstage is lost on the X1. Instrumental separation is expectedly quite good but stops just short of the Ety HF3 and Westone 2. Tonally, the Kozee is just a touch cooler than my Ety HF3 but still remains a bit closer to ‘neutral’ than ‘cold’. A note on usability – although the specs of the X1 are unpublished, the earphones Kozees do hiss very slightly with my netbooks and some portable amps and may not mesh particularly well with sources that have high noise floors.

Value (8.5/10) – Though the base Infinity X1 runs an incredibly affordable $139 including DIY impressions, the $50 Executive upgrade buys additional accessories, acrylic shells, custom artwork, detachable cables, and a vented transducer. Either way, you get the fit and isolation of a custom earphone, not to mention the build quality and customization options that come with venturing into customs territory. The sound put out by the single armature combines excellent clarity with a wide soundstage and presents slightly rolled-off subbass, crisp and aggressive midrange, and elevated, but not downright fatiguing, treble. It has to be noted that as with all customs, the sound signature cannot be modified with alternate tips or a different insertion angle as it can with universal earphones. A set of customs – especially one as cheap as the Kozees - is also not nearly as easy to walk away from as a similarly-priced universal. With those reservations in mind, the $189 full-shell custom from Kozee provides some very impressive value for money.

Pros: Clear, neutral, and accurate sound; excellent long-term comfort; no cable noise
Cons: Correct insertion takes some getting used to; less isolating than silicone-shelled customs; not as smooth or level-sounding as some similarly-priced universals

(2A16) VSonic GR07

Reviewed May 2011

Details: VSonic’s flagship dynamic-driver monitor
Current Price: $179 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est. $179)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 50Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 7-30k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 3.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single- and bi-flanges, Sony Hybrid
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes), Hybrid-style (10 sizes), and bi-flange silicone tips, foam tips, over-the-ear cable guides, and soft carrying pouch Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips, foam tips, over-the-ear cable guides, and hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – Rectangular in shape and designed for over-the-ear wear, the GR07 features adjustable-angle metal nozzles and beefy gray cabling. The cord can be somewhat resistant to staying behind one’s ears without the included ear guides. The strain reliefs on the housings aren’t as flexible as I would like and the cables aren't particularly tangle-resistant but otherwise the build is well thought-out.
Isolation (3.5/5) – Like most dynamic-driver in-ears, the GR07 is vented but the fairly long nozzles help keep isolation reasonably high
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Cable noise is very low as the GR07 can only be worn in the over-the-ear configuration. Although the conventional cable clip is missing from the accessory pack, the cable cinch and ear guides can be used to fix the cord in place
Comfort (4.5/5) – Though the GR07 uses fairly large 11mm drivers, the lightweight, form-fitted, over-the-ear style housings actually work very well for prolonged listening with their slim profile and rounded edges. The angle of the nozzle is also adjustable in every direction

Sound (9.1/10) – Despite the rapid growth of the IEM market in the past couple of years, competition in certain niches is still fairly low among higher-end earphones. One such niche is the dynamic-driver professional monitor – a market segment VSonic clearly had in mind when designing the GR07. The earphone utilizes an 11mm bio-cellulose transducer and delivers more than enough sonic bang to compete with similarly-priced offerings from Western brands. One catch of this particular driver is the importance of break-in - I am generally quite sensitive to sibilance and listening to some of my tracks with the GR07 was downright unpleasant until some hours in. Happily, the earphones do eventually settle into their intended sound, and what glorious sound it is!

Overall balance is definitely a strong suit of the GR07. Presence is excellent across the range and the earphones remain refined and detailed at the limits – something I’ve always particularly liked about Sennheiser’s IE-series models. The low end of the GR07 is deep and punchy. For a dynamic-driver earphone, the GR07 is rather quick, which does show through in bass control and accuracy. At the same time, the bass is well-weighted and carries realistic attack and decay, striking a fine line between the slightly thicker bass notes produced by the Sennheiser IE6 and IE7 and the leaner bass presentation of armature-based monitors such as the Fischer DBA-02 and Westone 2. The only other higher-end dynamic that could be used for monitoring – the HiFiMan RE252 – doesn’t fare nearly as well either when it comes to bass extension, body, or overall presence.

The midrange is balanced properly with the low end and maintains the same impressive levels of clarity and detail. Unlike the similarly-priced Sennheiser IE7, the GR07 is not at all forward in the midrange. It is also nowhere near as warm and thick as the Sennheisers, instead taking the RE252 route with a leaner (and arguably more realistic) note presentation. Tonally, the mids of the GR07 are quite neutral, leaning only slightly towards warmth and having no coloration at all compared to the majority of higher-end dynamics. Texture levels are very good but, as is the case with almost all dynamics, the detailing is not very aggressive compared to higher-end BA-based monitors from Fischer, Etymotic, Audio-Technica, and the like. This makes the GR07 seem smoother and gives it certain finesse in getting the complete sonic picture across without inducing listening fatigue. At the same time, it makes the volume easier to turn up inadvertently when listening to the GR07 – something I caught myself doing on several occasions.

At the outset, the GR07’s lower treble is probably the only real problem with its sound signature. The GR07 has excellent treble presence and remains noticeably brighter than Sennheiser’s IE7 but has a slight tendency towards sibilance. Sibilance can be somewhat striking out of the box but becomes nearly a non-issue at low-to-moderate listening volumes after the initial adjustment period. Like the low end, the highs of the GR07 are fairly well-extended and always remain crisp and detailed. Of course the GR07 can’t quite match the bell-like clarity of an ATH-CK10 or the sparkle of the JVC FX700, but then it isn’t meant to. As a neutral and accurate monitor, it performs exceedingly well.

The presentation of the GR07 is again very competent on every level. The soundstage is wide and spacious. It is slightly oblong in shape, losing out in depth and height to competitors such as the IE7, and tends to position things a bit farther away compared to more intimate-sounding dynamics such as the Radius TWF21. At the same time, the GR07 can’t quite throw sonic cues as far as the TWF21 or JVC FX700 when push comes to shove, but then it is deep-fit stage monitor and not a consumer-oriented open-back canalphone. Instrumental separation is still excellent and the GR07 is anything but congested-sounding. To my ears it provides a very cohesive sound without becoming overly analytical despite impressive levels of separation and layering – not an easy task by any means. Without a doubt the presentation of the GR07 is helped along by decent imaging and a good dynamic range. On that point, the sound of the VSonics is very effortless – almost as much so as that of the HiFiMan RE262. Lastly, a note on usability – although the GR07 is fairly transparent to source, its high impedance makes it a consistent performer and its signature isn’t particularly susceptible to poor synergy. In addition, the integrity of its sound is not dependent on tip choice to the same degree as, say, a DBA-02, making it a great first step into higher-end in-ear territory for those with limited hands-on IEM experience.

Value (9.5/10) – Designed for use as a stage monitor, VSonic’s new flagship is a very strong performer on several levels. Utilizing bio-cellulose drivers that undergo marked improvement with break-in, the GR07 does have the right sound signature to become one of the few studio-friendly dynamic-driver earphones. Its biggest selling point is the excellent balance across the spectrum, offering controlled but well-weighted bass, clear and articulate mids, and accurate treble. As is the case with some of the pricier in-ears from Ortofon, Westone, HiFiMan, and even 1964EARS, one of the GR07’s greatest strengths is its lack of real weaknesses, both in sound quality and overall usability. Putting aside the eternal debate on the virtues of balanced armature vs. dynamic transducers, especially for monitoring applications, it is quite easy to see that the GR07 is worth the asking price, and maybe more.

Pros: Well-built and well-designed; great balance and presence across the spectrum
Cons: Tends to be slightly sibilant, especially when coming from a smoother earphone

(2A17) Munitio Teknine SITi Nine Millimeter

Reviewed Aug 2011

Details: Bullet-shaped earphone from Munitio
Current Price: $159 from munitio.com (MSRP: $159); $179 for [M] SITi with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: 98 dB | Freq: 12-22k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 pairs in 3 sizes), microfiber cleaning cloth, and soft leather carrying pouch
Build Quality (4.5/5) – Styled after a nine-millimeter round, the Teknines are noticeably smaller than the other bullet-shaped earphones I’ve come across and yet feel much sturdier. The fit and finish run with the best of the big-name manufacturers and the heft inspires confidence. The housings are engraved with the Munitio logo and the nozzles are protected by mesh filters. The Kevlar-reinforced cable is thicker than average and does a good job of staying untangled. It has a mild tendency to kink but should go the distance despite minimal strain relief. The cable cinch tends to let go of one side of the cable when tightened
Isolation (3/5) – Good for a dynamic-driver earphone and helped by the thicker-than-average eartips
Microphonics (4/5) – Slightly bothersome when worn cable-down; not an issue otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – The Teknines wear similarly to most other straight-barrel earphones. The housings are quite heavy – similar in weight to those of the Monster Jamz and Panasonic HJE900s – but slim and compact. They can be inserted deeper than the Fischer Silver Bullets and the stock tips are nice and thick. The cable-up configuration is preferable due to the heft of the housings

Sound (6.2/10) – As is usually the case with new entrants on the HiFi scene, I was quite unclear on what to expect from the Munitio Teknines. The minefield of marketing copy on Munitio’s website promises superior dynamic range, quick recovery, and sound purity, as well as tight and accurate bass and smooth treble response. All of these are important qualities for any IEM but the approach taken by Munitio in tuning the earphones makes them radically different from most of my other IEMs and very outlandish to my audiophile sensibilities. Whereas almost all of the gear we discuss around Head-Fi pursues balance, detail, and clarity, the Teknines have different priorities.

From the subbass onwards, the Teknines make no compromises whatsoever in favor of conventional ‘hi-fi’ sound. The inevitable comparison to the similarly-priced Monster Turbines reveals that the Teknines have more sub-bass presence, resulting in large amounts of deep, full-bodied bass rumble, and a touch more mid- and upper bass as well. Despite the massive bass boost, the Teknines present notes softly and smoothly, without the aggressive impact true bass monsters such as the Sony XB40EX and UE Super.Fi 5 EB. However, the real strength of the Monster Turbines – and the reason they are popular around Head-Fi – is that despite their bottom-heavy nature, they manage to keep the bass response where it belongs – under control and confined below the midrange frequencies. The Teknines, on the other hand, don’t do quite as good a job of controlling their low end. Though detail is quite decent, bass texture and resolution take a hit – the cheaper Fischer Audio Eterna does a slightly better job of distinguishing low notes and generally sounds crisper, not only down low but across the entire frequency range. The Teknines also possess somewhat lengthy attack and decay times even when compared to other bass-heavy, consumer-oriented earphones.

Any IEM with a single driver and a ton of soft-sounding bass is bound to have somewhat veiled mids, and the Teknines are no exception. The mids are slightly thick and a tad warm but not excessively so on either count. Even fully burned-in, however, the Munitios sound fairly veiled, especially at lower volumes. Raising the volume makes the veil much less noticeable and brings the earphones to life. Clarity is generally sub-par and some of the detail is masked. On the upside, the softened way in which the earphones present low notes does prevent the bass from crowding out the midrange completely and makes the Munitio one of the smoothest-sounding in-ears I’ve heard. Put together, the mids and bass provide a complimentary, well-blended sound despite all of its technical shortfalls – a far cry from the SF5EB, which assigns the bass to a separate driver, or the Fischer Audio Eterna, which has noticeably more recessed mids.

Expectedly, the treble transition and high end of the earphones are very smooth. The midrange veil thins out towards the top, permitting the high end to possess a bit of crispness in comparison to the midrange. The treble is still extremely soft, however - though the Fischer Audio Eterna handily beats the Teknines in clarity and resolution, it sounds very hard-edged and aggressive doing it. The Brainwavz M2, with its gently rolled-off upper treble, is more similar but still far more forward at the upper midrange than the Teknines. Indeed, the entire presentation of the Teknines is slightly distant, as if the veil had a very tangible thickness to it. Aside from the inner limit of the soundstage and slight lack of air, the presentation of the Teknines is pleasing, with above-average width and decent depth. The Eterna, which suffers from similar intimacy issues, sounds wider still and has slightly better imaging but at the same time thins out more to cover its massive soundstage. If anything, the soft and powerful bass of the Munitios allows them to envelop more of the soundstage in music. Dynamics are good and the Teknines can portray subtlety as well as aggression. That said, the low sensitivity of the earphones doesn’t do the low-volume performance any favors so expect to crank up the volume to get the full benefits.

Value (5.5/10) – In the past year we’ve seen several manufacturers go down the ammunition path with their designs but the Munitio Teknines may just be the most faithful take on the form factor yet. Carrying an inherent appeal to the ’18-24’ demographic, the shape also allows for rock-solid construction and general user-friendliness but it is the sound signature that really sets the Teknine apart from the field. Smooth and powerful, the earphones take ‘non-fatiguing’ sound to new extremes. There undoubtedly is a certain charm to their sound – a sense of brutality with a veneer of restrain. Their signature is perfect for those who, upon hearing any other earphone, immediately wish it to be smoother and bassier. On the other hand those who, like me, value clarity and separation above all, usually listen at low volumes, and prefer tight and quick to loud and ponderous will not be sold on the Teknines. Personally, I can think of hundreds of IEMs I’d buy before the Teknines, but then I am clearly not part of the target audience.

Pros: Excellent build quality, tons of bass, obscenely smooth and non-fatiguing
Cons: Sub-par clarity, overly soft and wooly sound

(2A18) Future Sonics Atrio MG7 Pro

Reviewed Sep 2011

Details: Flagship universal IEM from the pioneer of dynamic customs, Future Sonics
Current Price: $175 from amazon.com (MSRP: $189.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: 18-20k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: stock bi-flanges, Shure Olives
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Bi-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), porous foam tips (4 sets in 2 sizes), cleaning tool, and zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – As with the old MG5 Atrios, the teardrop housings are made of plastic and feature molded rubber strain reliefs and thin, filterless nozzles. The memory wire has been dropped but the cable remains the same - light and flexible but not very thick
Isolation (3.5/5) – Excellent with any of the stock tips or Shure Olives
Microphonics (4/5) – Low when worn cable-down; nonexistent otherwise
Comfort (4.5/5) –The fit of the Atrios reminds me of the Phonak PFEs. When worn properly, the housings don’t touch the wearer’s ear at all although the bi-flange tips can be a bit intrusive. Thankfully, the memory wire has been dropped so they can now easily be worn cable-down

Sound (8.8/10) – The original Future Sonics Atrios were introduced back in 2007 and quickly rose to fame as some of the best basshead earphones money could buy. Four years and several revisions later, the low end is still the most attention-grabbing aspect of the Atrio sound – deep and powerful, yet controlled and accurate. The bottomless bass extension that made the old Atrio a hit is still very much a selling point of the new one. The bass is a bit forward in the overall signature but manages to be powerful without throwing off the balance. It can be reasonably tame when necessary but can also become dominant and explosive when track calls for it. The lack of a mid-bass hump helps, eliminating the bloat endemic to so many bass-heavy earphones, and the sub-bass emphasis gives the low end good rumble and a tactile feel. The drivers are still not the quickest out there but they don’t lose resolution quickly the way many mid-bassy earphones in the lower tiers do. The difference between the Atrio and lesser bass-heavy earphones such as the Fischer Audio Eterna is obvious – next to the Atrio, the Eterna sounds overly soft and bloated, with noticeably poorer clarity and detail resolution. Even the similarly-priced Sennheiser IE7 lacks control and tightness at the low end next to the Atrio.

The midrange of the Atrio is recessed slightly in comparison to the low end but still impresses with clarity and detail. It’s not quite there up with the HiFiMan RE272 or Sony MDR-EX1000 on either count but competes well with the RE-ZERO and Turbine Pro Coppers. The mids are slightly warm and thick compared to the similarly-priced VSonic GR07 but lack some of the overall refinement and don’t achieve as neutral a tone. They sound smooth but slightly ‘dry’ in character, which contributes to a more crisp and monitor-like sound next to the softer, more lush MTPC and Sennheiser IE7. The treble is boosted in comparison to the old Atrios, which sounded dark and a little murky for my taste. The top end of the new Atrios isn’t laid-back and will not mask issues with the source material. It is a little more edgy than before but no less smooth on the whole than that of the VSonic GR07. Top-end extension is still only moderately good and the overall tone is still just a bit on the dark side but the treble quantity should be sufficient for most listeners without risking violent sibilance and harshness.

The presentation of the MG7 is not particularly impressive for a top-tier earphone but works well enough with the sound signature. The soundstage is relatively well-rounded but width and depth are only average, superseded easily by the spacious soundstage of the Sennheiser IE7 and even the lower-tier FA Eterna (pretty much the only area in which the Eterna can compete with the new Future Sonics). The bass of the Atrio layers well over the rest of the sound and the healthy note thickness makes the thinner-sounding RE-ZERO somewhat less convincing despite its similar soundstage size. The MG7 also images better than the ZERO does, providing a more accurate sense of placement and distance. The brighter VSonic GR07, expectedly, carries better air and sounds spacious and open in ways the Atrio can’t quite match but separation seems improved over the MG5 version. The timbre is not up there with the Sony MDR-EX1000, JVC FX700, or even Monster MD, but then neither is the price. In its tier the Atrio is very competitive – I don’t feel that Sennheiser’s IE-series earphones perform better, for example. A final point to note – as before, the Atrio is not at its most brilliant at low listening volumes but – due to the newfound treble prominence – may now become tiring at extremely high levels as well.

Value (9/10) – Outfitted with the updated MG7 transducers, the latest-gen Future Sonics Atrios manage to preserve the bass-heavy sound signature of the previous iteration while making serious performance gains on the dynamic-driver heavyweights from the likes of Sennheiser and JVC. With no changes made to the exterior save for the disappearance of the memory wire, the MG7 Atrio remains a somewhat unsightly but highly practical earphone with its secure fit, high isolation, and low microphonics. The bass-heavy sound signature, now made slightly more v-shaped with added treble, still offers a surprising blend of fun, dynamic-driver sound and monitor-like accuracy and control. It’s not perfect, but it’s an impressive step forward and one that should make the competition very wary of the low-profile PA-based manufacturer, especially whenever bass quantity and quality are brought up.

Pros: Comfortable, well-isolating, low microphonics, powerful but controlled bass, clean midrange and treble
Cons: Plasticky build; not very pretty; mediocre presentation

Big thanks to esanthosh for the MG7 loan!

(2A19) Bowers & Wilkins C5

Reviewed Sep 2011

Details: First in-ear earphone from British hi-fi boutique B&W
Current Price: $180 from amazon.com (MSRP: $179.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 118 dB/V | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), right-angle adapter, airline adapter, and zippered velour carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – The C5 shells are quite large and made entirely out of metal, which gives them an impressive heft. The angled housings and porous filter have the look and feel of quality but unfortunately the same cannot be said for the cable, which has a bit of memory and doesn’t feel all that upmarket. The caps on the end of the ‘memory wire’ section are not glued in place and came off on my pair after a day. Mild driver flex presents itself as well
Isolation (3.5/5) – Surprisingly good despite the ‘porous filter’ at the rear. Can be made better with aftermarket bi-flanges
Microphonics (4/5) – The earphones have to be worn cord-down but the earloop keeps the microphonics low
Comfort (3.5/5) – Though comfort is a major marketing push for the C5, the earloop design simply won’t work for some ears. The wire is pretty stiff at the top and pushes unpleasantly on the inside of the ear after a couple of hours and the earphones being large and heavy doesn’t help matters. Wearing the C5 over-the-ear is made impossible by the earloop and putting the earphones on correctly – annoyingly - often requires the use of both hands

Sound (7.6/10) – The C5 is Bowers & Wilkins’ second iPhone headset, following in the footsteps of last year’s supraaural P5. Like the P5, the C5 attempts to balance a relatively mainstream sound signature with audio quality that won’t offend the discerning listener. Most noticeable is the emphasized mid-bass – the C5 is a decidedly bass-heavy earphone and offers up tons of power and impact. The low end is not the tightest or the most controlled, lagging behind competitors such as the Sennhesier IE6, nor is it as deep and extended as that of the Future Sonics Atrios. It is a touch slower and thicker than I would have liked, too, giving the C5 a full and fleshed-out sound even next to similarly bass-heavy sets such as the Beyerdynamic DTX 101. Interestingly, both the sound signature and sound quality of the C5 bear remarkable similarity to Beyer’s flagship - the manufacturers clearly did their research on the type of sound consumers find appealing.

The midrange of the C5 is recessed next to the heavy bass – more so than that of the DTX 101, for example – and the low end seems to bleed up more noticeably as a result. The note thickness carries over as well, causing the C5 to sound a bit less clean and open than the DTX 101 and borderline muddy next to the HiFiMan RE-ZERO and VSonic GR07. Clarity and detail retrieval are decent but not on-level with some of the truly hi-fi sets in the price range. The overall tone is slightly warm and the sound remains smooth well into the treble. Harshness and sibilance are nowhere to be found and the overall treble curve is quite inoffensive, dipping off gently at the top. The top end is smooth and relaxed but again lacks the clarity and sparkle of earphones found near the top of the <$100 price bracket. As a result, much like the P5, the C5 falls just a touch on the darker side of neutral for me and lacks some air and transparency.

Also like the P5, the C5 has an average-sized soundstage with good imaging and decent instrument separation. It’s a well-rounded presentation that nevertheless doesn’t offer anything extraordinary among the more high-performing dynamic-driver earphones. The sound is not as open as I would like and positioning precision is not pinpoint-accurate. The somewhat constrained dynamics – an issue with the P5 headphone as well – is one of the limitations to be faulted. One upside of both the signature and presentation of the C5 is how forgiving it is of the contents of an average listener’s iPod. Audiophile-oriented sets such as the HiFiMan RE-ZERO do not take kindly to 128 kbps mp3s but the C5 chugs along just fine. Still, while the B&Ws do perform better than other fashion-forward high-end in-ears such as the Beats by Dre Tour and Munitio Teknines, next to Head-Fi favorites such as the Sony EX600, HiFiMan RE262, and VSonic GR07 their warm and mid-bassy antics leave me quite cold.

Value (6.5/10) – Despite its hefty price tag, the older P5 headphone is a reasonably good value in my book because – sound aside - very few sets can match its combination of portability, build quality, comfort, and isolation. The in-ear market, however, is flooded with sets that can compete with the C5 in every way for a lot less money. Like the P5, the in-ear model treads no new ground whatsoever with its signature, either, sounding dry, colored, and a touch thick. The sound is clearly more consumer than audiophile and while the C5 does surpass mainstream models such as the Beats by Dre Tour and Klipsch Image S4 in fidelity, it seems content with stopping there. I have other complaints as well – the adjustable earloop, while able to provide a secure fit, can be time-consuming to put on and isn’t necessarily comfortable in the long run; the cylindrical remote unit is difficult to operate blindly; and the velour carrying case is monumentally frustrating to use. On the whole, the earphones are beautifully packaged, nice to look at, and surprisingly well-isolating but simply don’t perform as well as I’d have liked for the asking price.

Pros: 2 year warranty; secure fit; fairly inoffensive sound signature
Cons: Would be more comfortable without earloop; frustrating carrying case; sound quality on par with cheaper sets

(2A20) HiFiMan RE272

Reviewed Oct 2011

Details: HiFiMan’s latest flagship and the company’s second balanced earphone
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $249)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 20Ω | Sens: 103 dB | Freq: 15-22k Hz | Cable: 1.8’ I-plug + 2’ 45º plug extension
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: stock bi-flanges; MEElec ‘balanced’ bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips, replacement filters (5 pairs), storage case, shirt clip, balanced extension cable, single-ended extension cable, and single-ended channel swap extension cable
Build Quality (4.5/5) – While the housings of the RE272 are very similar to those of the RE262, the cable has been reinforced significantly. The new cable is thicker, sturdier, and less tangle-prone. The modular system adds an extra layer of protection and the new beefy 45º L-plugs and proper strain reliefs all around inspire confidence, as does the 3-year warranty
Isolation (3.5/5) – The channel swap adapter allows the RE272 to be worn cable-up, which should help provide a deeper fit. With the stock bi-flanges or other deep-sealing tips the isolation is surprisingly good
Microphonics (4.5/5) – With the new cord cable noise is very low when worn cable-down and nonexistent cable-up
Comfort (4.5/5) – Though a deeper seal offers the best sound, there are now a total of four ways to wear the 272 with the additional cord configurations provided by the included adapters. I find three of them to be quite comfortable and would imagine most people won’t have trouble finding at least one that works

Sound (9.2/10) – HiFiMan have had a number of hits around Head-Fi but none as potent as the original RE0. Fans of the RE0 have been waiting patiently for an update but – first with the RE252, then the RE-ZERO, and then the RE262 – HiFiMan have instead offered different flavors of poised and competent dynamic-driver sound to complement – but never replace – the RE0. Now, however, RE0 fans have something new to drool over.

As with the RE0, the low end of the RE272 doesn’t offer great depth but also lacks mid-bass bloat, sounding quick and natural. Control and accuracy are excellent but there’s not a whole lot of impact to be found – noticeably less than with the Sony MDR-EX1000, for example. The bass, while fast, is a bit soft in character. The lack of aggression and edginess is particularly noticeable next to a BA-based IEM such as the ATH-CK10 or j-phonic K2 SP. The crisp, hard-edged punch of the CK10 and K2 SP makes the bass of the RE272 sound slightly recessed, even veiled in comparison. An EQ bump at the low end will help with the bass depth but it won’t make the bass significantly more aggressive. Those who like their bass snappy and delicate will like the RE272 but even the K2 SP offers more impact, punch, and rumble. Personally, I am happy with the bass quantity and It doesn’t hurt that texture and detail are top-notch; even the RE-ZERO is made to sound a touch artificial at the low end in comparison.

The midrange is where the RE272 gets interesting. The clarity and detail are simply fantastic but unlike armature-based IEMs achieving the same levels or resolution, the RE272 still manages to sound soft and delicate. Compared to the Sony EX600, too, the RE272 is more refined and dynamic, and though the sweetness and warmth of the RE262 are all but gone, the mids are still liquid and very smooth. At times, the smoothness can almost become a detractor – the RE272 isn’t particularly great at portraying grit and seems to lack a tiny bit of texture at times. The upper midrange can sound a bit glassy, reminding me of the MA-based Ortofon e-Q5. Nonetheless, the sound is open and extremely transparent, trailing the K2 SP closely on both counts. In terms of note fullness, the RE272 pulls ahead of most analytical BA-based IEMs and competes well with popular dynamics such as the Sony EX600 and VSonic GR07.

The upper mids and lower treble are prominent but the emphasis milder than with the higher-end Sony dynamics. The top end is not at all unpleasant – never harsh or sibilant like the treble of the EX600 sometimes is and not overly bright or edgy like that of some armature-based earphones. Despite this, the RE272 is very revealing and resolving – nearly on par with the brighter, more sparkle-heavy, more clinical j-phonic K2 SP. There’s still good amount of sparkle as well as excellent top-end extension and superb detail retrieval. The overall smoothness is also impressive, with no major peaks or dips, and the presentation is clean and very refined. Nothing at all to complain about with the treble.

The presentation is not unlike that of the RE262, with similarly above-average soundstage size and good layering. If anything, the 272 sounds a bit more cohesive than the 262 and both utterly dominate the RE-ZERO in expansiveness and positioning. The sonic space is wide, open, and airy, though not quite to the same extent as that of the Sony MDR-EX1000. Instrumental separation is great and the imaging – while not quite a match for the ATH-CK10 – is impressive as well. Dynamics are good and the RE272 sounds effortless and works exceedingly well at low volumes, as have all of the HiFiMan IEMs before it.

I also got the chance to try the earphones in balanced mode with a borrowed HM801 and a balanced card kindly provided by HiFiMan. Theoretically, running in balanced mode reduces channel crosstalk, doubles the voltage swing of the amp, and creates a natural resistance to interference (the latter not a big deal for IEMs). Practically, comparing the RE272 in balanced mode against running single-ended with the HM801 as a source reveals sound quality differences that are small but distinguishable. The most noticeable for me is an increase in dynamics, which are good to begin with but become among the best of all universals in balanced mode, with a darker background and amazing effortlessness. Then we have bass control – in balanced mode the RE272 seems to tighten up slightly and become crisper, with quicker attack times and even better resolution. Bass emphasis remains low but there is no denying the difference in quality. There are also very minor gains in texturing and clarity. Overall there is merit to running the RE272 balanced but whether it is worth the cost is a different discussion. Note that the sound score given is for single-ended mode - the balanced score would be one or two tenths higher.

Value (9/10) – With its quick, resolving sound and neutral-to-bright tonality, the RE272 won’t be to everyone’s liking but as an overall package it is clearly the culmination of years of R&D on the part of the folks at HiFiMan. The modular cable system used by the RE272, unlike most, actually adds value to the product at the expense of a slightly heavier cable and the fit, finish, and build quality are finally giving the major Western brands something to think about. In both functionality and sound, the RE272 is an audiophile-class product, and one of the best around at that.

Pros: Versatile cable system; solid design; 3yr warranty; top-class sound
Cons: N/A

(2A21) ACS T15

Reviewed Dec 2011

Details: First universal IEM from UK-based customs manufacturer ACS
Current Price: £149 (est. $230) from acscustom.com (MSRP: £149)
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 41.5Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq: 16-20k Hz | Cable: 5.5' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: trimmed MEElec triple-flanges; stock triple-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and triple-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips; hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The minimalistic design combines tiny, nondescript-looking plastic housings with a Kevlar-reinforced cable. The color-coded nozzles are surprisingly wide for an armature-based set and the cable lacks strain relief on housing entry. It also has plenty of long-term memory character despite being relatively tangle-resistant
Isolation (4/5) – Tiny, sealed housings allow for very high passive isolation, especially with the triple-flange eartips
Microphonics (4/5) – Present when worn cable-down; low when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (5/5) – The T15 is one of the smallest IEMs on the market and is remarkably unobtrusive. The only odd design choice is the wide nozzle, which makes the fit slightly less universal than – say – an old Etymotic ER6i. For all but those with the smallest ear canals, however, the T15 will be a fit-and-forget earphone with the right tips

Sound (9/10) – Designed in cooperation with Netherlands-based Dynamic Ear Company, who are also involved with ACS's latest music filters, the tiny single-armature monitors produce a very clear and detailed sound over a wide frequency range. They are by no means bass-heavy but the low end has surprisingly good depth and is fuller than that of Etymotic’s flagship ER-4S, though not by a wide margin. The ER-4S, with its shorter attack and decay times, sounds drier and more clinical than the T15 does. The bass of the T15 is still very clean and articulate, however, as expected from a single-armature reference earphone. It is flat in response and possesses enough detail and texture to keep up with the likes of the Audio-Technica CK10 and HiFiMan RE272, as well as to easily beat the cheaper Fischer Audio SBA-03 save for the slightly lower overall bass quantity.

In the midrange, the T15 is neutral and very accurate. Overall balance is excellent and the midrange aggression of cheaper monitors such as the SBA-03 is nowhere to be found. The T15 is undoubtedly a BA-based earphone, crisp and highly detailed – traits that are very obvious in comparison to the softer, more relaxed HiFiMan RE272. However, it is also refined and smooth, not unlike the Audio-Technica CK10. Transparency yields to the CK10 and Ety ER-4S slightly but again the T15 has a marginally fuller, more fleshed-out sound. Still, its sound will not be confused with that of a dynamic-driver earphone any time soon. Compared to the JVC HA-FXT90, for example, the T15 offers far less bass, less natural timbre, and a dryer, less musical sound but makes sizable gains in clarity and resolution.

The highly neutral tone of the T15 does help with overall realism – both the ATH-CK10 and Etymotic ER-4S sound a touch colder and brighter on the whole. The CK10 especially offers more treble sparkle at the expense of the flatter, less fatiguing treble response of the T15. Top-end extension is similar between the three despite the CK10 being a dual-armature earphone. Where the Audio-Technicas do pull away is imaging – while the ER-4S and RE272 both offer a slightly wider soundstage with similarly good layering to the T15, the CK10 is significantly more three-dimensional, with a larger soundstage and headstage and more precise positioning. Compared to the rest of my armature-based earphones, the T15 easily holds its own – the stage is wider and more realistic than that of the SBA-03 and more spherical than that of the ER-4S. It is still very much a monitor, however – maybe not as revealing and unforgiving as an Ety, but not far behind. Simply put, the T15 is for fans of balanced, analytical sound who want a slightly more even-footed response curve to the traditional high-end Etymotic earphone.

Value (8.5/10) – The ACS T15 is an extremely capable universal monitor in a remarkably tiny package. The plain plastic earphones may not look or feel particularly high-end but the comfort, isolation, and sound quality make the T15 one of the best choices in its price bracket both for professional use and for consumers who value clarity, accuracy, and balance over emphasized bass and flashy cosmetics. Ety lovers especially should take note of the T15.

Pros: tiny size, sturdy construction, high isolation, very detailed and well-balanced
Cons: long, memory-prone cable

(2A22) JVC HA-FX500

Reviewed Jan 2012

Details: JVC's original wooden in-ear, known in some markets as the HA-FX1000
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: est $195)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 8-25k Hz | Cable: 2.6' I-plug + 2.3' L-plug extension
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), foam tips, 2.3' (0.7m) extension cable, and small hard-shell carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) - One of the first wooden IEMs on the market, the FX500 uses a combination of wood, metal, and hard plastics to achieve a weighty, high-end feel. The rear port and nozzle are both protected by metal meshes and the cable entry point features a ¾"-long strain relief in addition to metal reinforcement. The cable itself is similar to the cords found on JVC's lower-end products - soft, reasonably thick, and quite flexible. The 2.6'+2.3' cable configuration can be annoying
Isolation (2/5) - The FX500 is an open-back IEM but isolates slightly more than the higher-end FX700 model due to the smaller rear vent and potential for deeper fitment
Microphonics (4.5/5) - Cable noise is extremely low when the FX500 is worn cord-down and nonexistent with over-the-ear fitment
Comfort (4/5) - The HA-FX500 utilizes an angled-nozzle design with a straight-barrel housing. Weight is not an issue and the slimmer housings lend themselves better to cord-up wear than those of the pricier FX700

Sound (8.9/10) - Released back when wooden earphones were few and far between, the HA-FX500, known also as the HA-FX1000 in some markets, became JVC's first truly high end IEM. In deciding how the flagship in-ear should look, JVC clearly drew inspiration from the brand's flagship full-size consumer headphones. In sound, too, the FX500 is far from a studio monitor. Not surprisingly, it shares much of its sonic character with the newer - and pricier - FX700, but is a ways less refined than its successor.

At the low end, the FX500 is powerful, rich, and full-bodied, with great impact and plenty of weight. Bass depth is good and the response curve may actually be flatter than that of the FX700, though the FX500 tends to sound a bit more intrusive at the bottom. Despite the above-average resolution, the bass tends to be ever-present while the more dynamic FX700 scales its bass response down when necessary. The drivers aren’t slow but compared to sets like the VSonic GR07 and Sony MDR-EX600 the low end of the FX500 is on the boomy side and could stand to be cleaner and more controlled.

The midrange of the FX500 is a bit more prone to being overshadowed by the bass than that of the FX700, especially at higher volumes, but actual bleed is minimal as a result of the relatively flat response curve. Part of the reason for the relative dominance of the bass may be the slightly thinner note presentation of the FX500 compared to the FX700. Clarity and detail are still excellent in the midrange, though the brighter signatures of sets such as the Sony EX600 and Sennheiser IE7 create an illusion of better clarity in comparison to the warmer JVCs. As with the FX700, the FX500 is not really v-shaped in the sense that it suffers from a highly recessed midrange, but its mids would fare far better if they were not overshadowed by the powerful bass and treble quite so often.

The top end of the FX500 is lively and sparkly. It is high in energy and gives the sound an airy, lightweight character. At the same time, it is harder and edgier than the top end of the FX700, especially at high volumes. There is no question that the FX700 is more refined here as the FX500 can be a bit sharp and fatiguing with the wrong track. There are no huge peaks and in vocal sibilance tests the FX500 came out as being less offensive than the brighter VSonic GR07 and Sony MDR-EX600 at low-to-moderate volumes, but only by a hair. On the whole the FX500 tends to add a bit more harshness than the others.

Presentation is probably where the FX500 is most similar to the FX700 – airy, spacious, and very versatile. Separation and positioning are very good although Sony’s similarly-priced EX600 images slightly better despite a more elliptical soundstage. As with the FX700, the FX500 also yields to Sennheiser’s IE8 and IE7 in headstage size and consequent ability to provide a highly enveloping musical experience, but easily makes up for it with significantly better timbre. The Sennheisers are made to sound plasticky in comparison and lose a substantial amount of realism as a result.

Value (8/10) – As with the pricier FX700, the JVC FX500 is a comfortable, well-built, and user-friendly dynamic-driver earphone with below-average isolation and a somewhat ‘v-shaped’ sound. Admittedly, the v-shaped sonic profile is a lot more common at the sub-$200 price point of the FX500, putting the JVCs in good company with sets such as the ATH-CKM99 and Atrio MG7. Still, despite having more bass than most high-end dynamics, the FX500 offers up detail and clarity on par with the best of the rest. The somewhat intrusive bass and edgy treble can become fatiguing, but not before the FX500 plants itself firmly among the better dynamic-driver earphones in its class.

Pros: Powerful, lively sound with an airy yet involving presentation; great build quality; nearly no microphonics
Cons: Sub-par isolation; odd cable lengths; can be fatiguing, especially at higher volumes

Huge thanks to Inks for loaning me his FX500 for review

(2A23) Klipsch Image X10 / X10i

Reviewed Mar 2012

Details: Tiny single-BA design from Klipsch
Current Price: $155 from amazon.com (MSRP: $349.99); $279 for X10i with microphone
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 50Ω | Sens: 110 dB | Freq: 5-19k Hz | Cable: 4.4' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 3mm | Preferred tips: Klipsch oval gels (stock), Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) oval gel tips, cleaning tool, airplane adapter, 6.3mm adapter, and magnetic-clasp carrying pouch
Build Quality (3/5) – Though the tiny housings of the Image One are made out of metal and feel very solid, the molded strain reliefs are designed rather poorly and seem prone to splitting with extended use. The cable is typical Klipsch – thin and plasitcky. The low-profile 3.5mm L-plug is a nice touch
Isolation (4/5) – The slim, long, fully sealed housings allow for great isolation
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Somewhat bothersome when worn cord-down; nearly nonexistent with cable-up wear
Comfort (5/5) – The combination of skinny, lightweight shells and Klipsch’s Oval Gel eartips makes the X10 one of the most comfortable IEMs around. Unlike most Etys, the X10s still sound good with only moderately deep insertion, making them more user-friendly towards IEM newcomers as well

Sound (8.6/10) – Tuned for a mainstream, consumer-friendly sound, the Klipsch Image X10 tends to emphasize the bass and lower midrange – a sharp contrast to its single-armature competitors. The X10 easily beats all other higher-end single-armature earphones I’ve come across when it comes to bass quantity and offers up plenty of quality as well. The low is detailed and extended - the well-textured bass digs deep and offers up the sort of well-measured punch one would normally expect from a multi-armature monitor. The depth and impact of the X10 are actually about on-par with VSonic’s dynamic-driver GR07 monitor, though the mid-bass emphasis is slightly greater. Naturally, the lower-end dynamic-driver Klipsch Image models produce even more bass than the X10 but have none of the poise and precision of a balanced armature, sounding bloated and unrefined next to the flagship.

While the bass depth and punch of the X10 are fairly similar to the VSonic GR07, the two differ greatly in how the midrange is handled. The X10 is warm and full, with a bit of bass bleed resulting in a lack of transparency next to sets such as the GR07, Etymotic HF5, and ACS T15. The GR07 is not only clearer but also more resolving, with more air and openness to its mids and more neutral overall tone. The X10, on the other hand, sounds more forward and intimate, with the prominent midrange putting vocals front-and-center. It is not as forward and aggressive as Fischer Audio’s SBA-03, however, and sounds less like a BA-based earphone with better timbre and a more full-bodied note presentation. The SBA-03, on the other hand, is significantly less colored and more aggressive with presenting detail, so analytical listeners will likely prefer it over the X10s.

The treble of the X10 is much smoother than the uneven, harsh top ends of the Image S3/S4 and the somewhat grainy S2. Most times the top end seems slightly recessed but much to my surprise on a few tracks the X10 managed to be as sibilant as the GR07. Seems that it was tuned to be non-fatiguing but isn’t all that soft – certainly not in the way the dynamic-driver Fischer Tandem or Monster Pro Gold are. Treble detail is decent and the extension is not too bad, but hardly impressive next to an Ety ER4S or JVC FXT90. Clearly the X10 is limited by the single BA setup and was tuned to leave nothing out at the bottom end at the expense of some top-end reach. The treble is low on sparkle and lacks some authority and energy – Klipsch’s now-discontinued Custom 3 is similarly non-fatiguing but appears more balanced overall.

The presentation of the X10 is well-rounded and, like the sound signature, yields no surprises. The soundstage is narrower than those of the CK10, ER4S, and GR07 but has decent width and some height. For a more intimate-sounding earphone, the X10 has a convincing presentation – more so, for example, than the Fischer Audio SBA-03. Instrument separation is decent but no match for the ER4S and 3-D imaging lags noticeably behind the CK10. Dynamics are good, however, and the earphones are efficient enough for portable use without being overly sensitive.

Value (9/10) – The Image X10 is a high-end consumer-oriented IEM that combines the unobtrusive look and feel of the slim, lightweight housings with warm, smooth, punchy sound derived from a single balance armature driver. The X10’s greatest strength is its bass – extended, controlled, and unusually powerful for a single BA. Like all things Klipsch, the X10 is not suited for fans of neutral or analytical sound with its somewhat dull top end and colored midrange, but those in search of a warmer sound in a great form factor will be pleased with the $150 X10.

Pros: Good isolation, very small and comfortable, consumer-friendly sound from a single BA
Cons: Perilous construction

Thanks to Inks for the X10 loan

(2A24) TFTA-2100-2V1S / 1V

Reviewed Mar 2012

Details: Bass-heavy IEM sharing a housing design with the Padacs Aksent
Current Price: est. $156 (£100) from tfta.eu (MSRP: £99.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: generic bi-flanges; short bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (1/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The gigantic metal housings are finished in glossy gunmetal and feel very sturdy. Beefy strain reliefs protect the thin, rubbery cable on housing entry but not so much at the I-plug. Driver flex is moderate to severe
Isolation (3/5) – Good for a vented dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Tolerable when worn cable-down; good otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5) – Though the housings are quite large, they weigh no more than those of the average metal-shelled earphone and can be worn both cord-up and cord-down

Sound (7.1/10) – The 1V shares more than just its housings with the Padacs Aksent – it shares the bass-centric sound signature as well. The low end of the TFTAs is very attention-grabbing and undoubtedly dominates in the overall balance - if bass could be measured in units of weight, the 1V would have a ton. The last set I remember being this bassy was the Sony XB40EX, with most other in-ears simply being put out to pasture in terms of bass quantity. Bass depth is very good – while there is a touch more mid-bass than sub-bass, rumble and subbass power are plentiful. Impact is very good as well – the TFTAs are capable of moving lots and lots of air. The notes produced are a bit rounded and the bass sounds very full-bodied, even ‘fat’. On the downside, it also appears bloated and boomy much of the time, which is not unexpected considering the quantity.

The mids of the TFTA 1V are recessed in comparison to the low end, though there is quite a bit of bass bleed propping up the lower midrange. The bleed reduces clarity and resolution – on both counts the TFTA is about on-par with the Dunu Trident and lags behind reasonably bassy sets such as the Beyerdynamic DTX 101 iE and id America Spark. The overall sound is warm, full, and colored, with reasonably good detail and a pleasant thickness. Those who are expecting the mids to serve as a compliment to the bass should be pleased but listeners on the hunt for transparency can do better, even among bass-heavy sets.

Similarly, while the treble doesn’t have the same veil as the midrange, it lacks crispness and definition. There is no smearing but the overall detail level isn’t particularly great and those looking for higher-than-average treble sparkle will be disappointed. Compared to other bass-heavy sets, however, the treble is not bad – the Beyerdynamic DTX 101 iE, for example, is just as treble-recessed, and the Velodyne vPulse has similarly average detail levels. Top-end extension is moderate – better than with the id America Spark and about on-par with the vPulse.

The presentation is perhaps the most interesting aspect of the 1V and also where it differs most from the cheaper Padacs Aksent. The soundstage is wide and spacious, providing a ‘big’ sound so befitting the huge bass presence. The sonic space is deep and reverberant but unfortunately the bass dominance doesn’t help with separation – the low end is consistently intrusive and seems to come from everywhere all at once. It is often more enjoyable than the somewhat flat and boring soundstage of the Velodyne vPulse but a little more positioning accuracy definitely wouldn’t have hurt.

Value (7/10) – The TFTA 1V is a basshead’s dream come true, a set that unabashedly refuses to sacrifice its immense bass for any reason. The housings, while large, are quite attractive and not overly heavy and the isolation and build quality are decent enough to make the TFTA easy to recommend for those who just can’t get enough bass from headphones. For other listeners – especially those who fear bass bloat - alternatives abound.

Pros: Well-built and attractive; large presentation; big bass
Cons: Very large housings; driver flex; big bloat

Thanks to -y0- for the TFTA loan

(2A25) Fischer Audio DBA-02 mkII

Reviewed Mar 2012

Details: Second version of Fischer’s dual-driver flagship
Current Price: $198 from musicaacoustics.com (MSRP: $198)
Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 43 Ω | Sens: 108 dB | Freq: 20-24k Hz | Cable: 4.3' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock triple-flange
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Standard (3 sizes), foam-stuffed Sony Hybrid-style (3 sizes), and Apple-style (2 sizes) single-flange silicone tips, triple-flange silicone tips, over-the-ear cable guides, shirt clip, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The tiny new housings feel very sturdy compared to the old DBA-02 shells, boasting a nice rubberized finish and all-black color scheme. The thick flat cable is similar to the one on Fischer’s Oldskool ’70 portable headphone and is very well-relieved both on housing entry and at the I-plug. Biggest complaint is the lack of a cable cinch, which would be a bigger help with the thicker & stiffer flat cable compared to the old DBA-02’s softer twisted cord
Isolation (4/5) – Very good now that the housings are designed for a deep fit and the accessory pack includes a larger variety of tips
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cord-down, low when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4.5/5) – The new housings are small and very lightweight, with more shallowly angled nozzles that work both for cable-up and cable-down wear. They are only a bit larger than the q-JAYS/UE700 but the stiff, thick cable makes it harder for the DBA-02 mkII to disappear when worn

Sound (9.2/10) – Upon its release, the original Fischer Audio DBA-02 was undoubtedly one of the best bang-for-the-buck earphones on the market for fans of balanced and accurate sound. It mustered a loyal following and still commands frequent recommendations more than two years later. While the new mkII revision, which is set to replace the mkI very soon, is in large part cosmetic, the two generations do differ ever so slightly in sound signature.

Expectedly, the mkII retains the general sound profile of a TWFK-based earphone – tight and precise bass, a clean and detailed midrange, and prominent, sparkly treble. As before, the bass quantity is quite close to neutral and the low end is only missing a tiny bit of extension at the very bottom. The mkII seems to move a touch more air compared to the old DBA-02 and has a marginally thicker note presentation but overall the bass is similarly quick and highly detailed, with better texture compared to the Ultimate Ears 700 and a bit more punch compared to the VSonic GR01.

The midrange is clean and prominent, balanced very well with the low end and offering high levels of clarity and detail. The DBA-02 has always been an aggressive-sounding earphone, with an extremely crisp presentation and excellent texture. The mkII revision sounds a touch more dry compared to the old version, with a darker background and cleaner notes, but on the whole the two sets are again more similar to each other than they are to other TWFK-based earphones. The CK10, GR01, and UE700 are all smoother and more liquid-sounding but the DBA-02 mkII is more aggressively detailed compared to the UE700 and clearer than the GR01. It is the most analytical-sounding of the bunch, but the clarity and detail are well worth it.

The top end of the DBA-02 mkII is crisp and extended. The resolution of the TWFK driver is immense – even the VSonic GR07 fails to sound all that clean and effortless next to the DBA-02. Compared to the original DBA-02, the mkII seems to have been tuned for slightly more relaxed treble, but in reality it is only a hair less sibilant on a few tracks. Otherwise it sounds sparkly and energetic, as the original did – less ‘hot’ than the ATH-CK10 but still not quite as smooth as the VSonic GR01. Treble extension is good and yet there’s none of the sheen or shimmer present at the top end of some other BA-based universals, resulting in fairly realistic timbre with no metallic treble edge.

The presentation of the DBA-02 mkII is open and airy, as TWFK-based earphones tend to be, but perhaps a touch less so than the brighter mkI. The soundstage is well-rounded, with better depth and height but a little less width in comparison to the UE700. Instrument separation is excellent – again more competent than even the VSonic GR07 – and the sound is nicely layered. The ATH-CK10 is still slightly more enveloping, with better 3D imaging and ambience, but the DBA-02 is no slouch, with a better on-center feel compared to the UE700 and especially the more distant-sounding GR07. Some dynamics are sacrificed in order to maintain aggressive detailing – the Earsonics SM3, Westone 4, and most dynamic-driver sets fare better here – but this will be a mere nitpick for most listeners. Overall, the sound quality of DBA-02 mkII is still well worth the price of admission.

Value (9.5/10) – The second revision of Fischer Audio's renowned DBA-02 finally matches the premium sound of the earphone with a premium feel, making a series of gains over the old version as a result of a new housing design, more durable cable construction, and improved accessory pack. The updated earphones are sturdier, more comfortable, and more isolating – a more mature package more deserving of being a market mainstay. The sound, while slightly re-tuned, is still closer to the 1st-gen DBA-02 than the other TWFK-based earphones on the market. The only real complaint has to do with the microphonics – there is more cable noise with the flat, rubbery cable on the DBA-02 mkII unless the earphones are worn cord-up. Despite this, the DBA-02 is still about as good as it gets for the analytical listener; the competition may have gotten stiffer, but the bang/buck ratio of the DBA-02 has remained very strong.

Pros: Astonishingly balanced and capable sound, comfortable, well-built, and well-isolating
Cons: Microphonic when worn cord-down; no cable cinch

(2A26) VSonic GR01

Reviewed Apr 2012

Details: VSonic’s slim-fit dual-armature model
Current Price: $183 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: $206)
Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 108 dB | Freq: 5-20k Hz | Cable: 4.3' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Stock bi-flanges, MEElec triple-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes), hybrid-style (7 sizes), foam-stuffed hybrid (3 sizes), and bi-flange silicone tips; padded spring-clasp carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) - The GR01’s form factor is of the slim, straight barrel variety, albeit with fatter-than-usual 4mm nozzles. The metal housings are reminiscent of the Klipsch Image X10. A rubber strain relief is present at the rear and the outer part of the nozzle, along with the metal mesh filter, can be (carefully) unscrewed and removed for cleaning. The cable is smooth but lacks a sliding cinch. A bump on the inside of the right strain relief makes the difficult-to-see L/R markings a non-issue
Isolation (4/5) – The GR01 isolates a little better than VSonic’s dynamic-driver models but not quite as well as an Ety HF5 or ER4
Microphonics (4/5) - Cable noise is bothersome when worn cable-down but becomes low with over-the-ear wear. The inclusion of a sliding cable cinch or at least a shirt clip would have helped in this regard
Comfort (4.5/5) - The housings are very slim and easy to insert deeply for a good seal. The sheer variety of included eartips should allow the fit to work for anyone, though earphones with slimmer nozzles might provide more options still. The cable exits at an angle so those with smaller ears may have trouble wearing the GR01 cable-up

Sound (9.2/10) – With the sound of VSonic’s dynamic-driver GR07 model so widely praised for its accuracy and balance, it should come as no surprise that the tuning of the armature-based GR01 had to be kept fairly similar in order for the new earphone to remain a proper monitor. Though the GR01 is based around the popular Knowles TWFK dual-armature driver – the same one used by the Audio-Technica CK10, Ultimate Ears 700, Fischer Audio DBA-02, and a number of other models – the engineers at VSonic have still added their own unique touch to the sound, making the GR01 the smoothest and most musical of the TWFK-based sets I’ve heard.

Though it doesn’t quite have the bass depth of the ATH-CK10, the GR01 is only missing a bit of extension in the lowest octave. The GR07, which has solid deep bass as a good dynamic-driver monitor should, easily trumps the GR01 here. The GR07 also has better impact and fuller, thicker notes. The GR01, on the other hand, is quicker and less impactful than the GR07 but still has slightly more drawn-out decay times compared to some of its more analytical competitors. In terms of punch, it is just behind the DBA-02 mkII and about on-par with a well-amped Etymotic ER-4S, but the real treat is the accuracy. Compared to the MA-based Final Audio FI-BA-A1, for example, the bass of the GR01 is significantly tighter, cleaner, and more accurate, and the same can be said - though not to the same degree - when it is matched against the GR07.

The lower midrange of the GR01 is a little more laid-back than is typical for a TWFK-based set, resulting in a safer sound. It is even slightly warmer than a UE700 or DBA-02, though the bassier GR07 is a warmer still. The natural clarity of the armatures is very good, though the smoother GR01 lacks a bit of the absolute transparency of the DBA-02 and Ety ER4S. Detail, similarly, is on-par with the CK10 and DBA-02 without being presented quite so aggressively.

At the top, the GR01 is surprisingly smooth and non-fatiguing, perhaps the most inoffensive of the TWFK-based dual-drivers. It is significantly less bright than the UE700 and lacks the hot treble of the CK10. It is also less prone to sibilance than the GR07, displaying a seemingly smoother response where the GR07’s treble peaks fall. The tone is kept fairly neutral and timbre is among the best I’ve heard from an analytical armature-based earphone. The downside is that there isn’t quite as much energy to the sound compared to the CK10 or DBA-02, resulting in a signature that may be too ‘safe’ for fans of analytical earphones but still to neutral and accurate to appeal to the masses.

The presentation of the GR01 is nice and spacious, yet very cohesive. Though it doesn’t quite have the soundstage width of the GR07, the GR01 is more well-rounded, with decent depth and a better on-center feel. There is still slightly more width to the stage compared to the DBA-02 and the GR01 is clearly more spacious and airy than the Final Audio FI-BA-A1. Separation is good as well, though imaging lags behind the CK10 a bit, partly due to the more elongated shape of the soundstage. Overall, the presentation is solid and reminds me of the Etymotic ER-4S, but those looking for an enveloping sound a-la Earsonics won't find it here.

Value (9/10) – Though the VSonic GR01 strays little from the dual-armature monitor formula, it is one of the more competent such earphones I’ve heard, being neither overly bright nor fatiguing and managing almost all of the resolution of the more analytical Fischer Audio DBA-02. The GR01 has more going for it than just the sound, too – its slim form factor is very comfortable and the design shows good attention to detail aside from a few minor quirks. Construction is solid too, and there are enough tips included to accessorize several earphones comfortably. All in all, while the GR01 is not the direct GR07 upgrade many are doubtlessly waiting for, it is a very solid alternative for those who prefer a flatter sound signature.

Pros: Small, lightweight, and comfortable; very balanced and articulate sound
Cons: Lacks cable cinch; mediocre accessory pack; removable filters potentially more trouble than they’re worth

A full review of the GR01, complete with more photos, can be found here

(2A27) Ultimate Ears Super.Fi 5 Pro

Added Jul 2012

Details: Discontinued dual-BA model from UE's pre-Logitech lineup
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $249.95)
Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 21Ω | Sens: 119 dB | Freq: 20-16k Hz | Cable: 4' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrid
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) -Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply foam tips (2 sets), cleaning tool, inline volume attenuator, and crushproof metal carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) - The build of the SF5Pro is very similar to those of the lower-end SF3 and flagship TF10. The large housings are made out of thick plastics and the cable is detachable. The newer version comes with a softer plastic cable similar to the one now used by the TF10. Unfortunately the newer cable is terminated with the same wimpy 3.5mm I-plug as all other UE models. The older (clear) SF5Pro cable has more memory but feels much sturdier
Isolation (3.5/5) - Quite good with well-fitting tips
Microphonics (4.5/5) - Low due to over-the-ear fit but not absent completely. A bit poorer with the older (clear) cable
Comfort (3.5/5) - The shells are similar in shape to those of the TF10 but slimmer towards the front and a bit more easy-going in terms of fit. Maintaining a seal can be difficult with stock UE tips. Included Comply foams seal well

Sound (8.2/10) - The SuperFi 5 Pro is a two-way dual-BA setup slotted next to the bass-monster SuperFi 5 EB and below the TripleFi 10 in the original Ultimate Ears lineup. Now-discontinued but still available from several online retailers, the SF5Pro still performs very well next to its replacement, the SuperFi5. The subbass, for one, is stronger than that of the new SF5. It is still not as tight as that of the UE700 or TripleFi 10 but accuracy is very good on the whole. The low end is a bit soft in character for an armature-based earphone but impact is ahead of all of the other SuperFi models with the exception of the SF5EB.

The midrange derives a bit of warmth from the slight bass emphasis but for the most part it is smooth and competent. There is a slight drop in clarity compared to the new SF5, putting the SF5Pro on level with the SF4 and cheaper dual-armature setups such as the Klipsch Custom 2 and Apple In-ears. The midrange of the SF5Pro is more forward on the whole compared to the UE700 and TripleFi 10 but there is a dip towards the top of the midrange, which makes the earphones less than ideal for female vocals but gives them a softer, sibilance-free character.

The treble of the SF5Pro loses out to the brighter and crisper UE700 and TF10 in clarity and definition. The detail level is lower as well - something made extremely obvious in a head-to-head comparison with the TF10. The smooth treble presentation is quite easy-going on the whole and the SF5Pro has better extension than UE's single armature models but there is a slight lack of air to the presentation and a darker overall tone. Aside from the lack of air, the sense of space is quite good - the width and depth of the soundstage are both just a hair behind those of the TF10 and the positioning and layering are quite decent. Interestingly, the SF5Pro does improve slightly with the Westone ES cable, which gives up a bit of bass for a cleaner midrange and better treble definition - things the SF5Pro needs to run alongside its modern competition. Unfortunately, the ES cable just adds to the SF5Pro's already-steep price tag and requires a bit of modification to even fit the socket and the isolation is quite high.

Value (6.5/10) - The now-defunct SuperFi 5 Pro still puts up a good fight against the newer Ultimate Ears offerings, including its namesake replacement, not only in sound quality but also in fit and finish. Unfortunately, it is let down by its high price point - the new old-stock sets currently available cost about as much as a TripleFi 10, which offers better detail, more transparency, tighter bass, and crisper, livelier treble. Simply put, the SF5Pro would have to be sold at a very large discount to be worth buying today.

Pros: Nice carrying case, good isolation, smooth and competent sound
Cons: Potential fitting issues, TF10 can often be found for less

(2A28) Ultimate Ears Super.Fi 5 EB

700
Added Jul 2012

Details: Discontinued dynamic/BA hybrid from UE's pre-Logitech lineup
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $199.99)
Specs: Driver: BA+dynamic | Imp: 11Ω | Sens: 119 dB | Freq: 20-16k Hz | Cable: 4' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Generic single-flange
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) -Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Comply foam tips (2 sets), cleaning tool, inline volume attenuator, 1/4" adapter, and crushproof metal carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) - Though the shape of SF5EB is more reminiscent of custom in-ears than any universal I've ever tried, overall build quality is still very similar to those of the SF5Pro and TF10. The large housings are made out of thick plastics and the cable is detachable. The cable suffers from some memory character but is flexible and sturdy on the whole
Isolation (3/5) - Slightly lower than that of the other UE models from the time period due to the odd housing shape and ambient vent
Microphonics (4.5/5) - Low due to over-the-ear fit but not absent completely. A bit poorer with the older (clear) cable
Comfort (3.5/5) - The housings of the SF5EB differ in shape from the ones used by the other UE earphones and are the largest shells I've seen on a universal. They aren't meant to be inserted deeply and as a result never look like they are fitted quite right but the fit bothers me less than that of the TF10

Sound (8/10) - The unique housings of the SuperFi 5 EB conceal an equally unique transducer setup - the SF5EB was, to my knowledge, the first universal BA/dynamic hybrid to be released, combining a balanced armature, a 13.5mm dynamic driver, and a two-way passive crossover in a single enclosure. The dynamic driver is responsible for the bass of the SF5EB while the armature handles mids and highs. On paper, this is a dream come true for those familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of both transducer types, but there are one or two issues aside from the resulting housing size.

As indicated by the 'Extended Bass' moniker, the SF5EB was tuned to appeal to those who find the bass response of UE's other higher-end models, which are all armature-based, less than satisfactory. The huge 13.5mm dynamic transducer of the SF5EB is optimized for low end response and throws out gobs of dynamic bass when prodded. Even the Fischer Audio Eterna cannot quite keep up with the sheer impact of the SF5EB. The bass is rarely muddy or bloated but it's not tight or accurate either - about what one would expect from a relatively pricy basshead earphone. Bass detail and texture are swallowed up by the impact on occasion and therefore appear to be diminished compared to the Eterna and FS Atrios but on the whole the quality of the EB's bass is rather good.

The overall response of the SF5EB is slightly v-shaped, with a dip in the lower midrange and slightly hyped-up lower treble. Expectedly, the SF5EB does a very good job of separating the bass from the mids - sometimes too good, in fact, making the low end seem poorly integrated on certain tracks. It ends up sounding like a mid-range armature-based earphone with a subwoofer tacked on for good measure. The bass can obscure the lower mids and the midrange is not as transparent or detailed as that of the TF10 but for such a bass-heavy set the clarity is impressive.

There is a bit of emphasis towards on the upper mids but nothing that would cause the SF5EB to be notably harsh or sibilant. The treble is not particularly heavy on sparkle but provides a very energetic sound in conjunction with the big bass. Extension is not stellar but good for a bass-centric earphone. The sense of space is quite good as well - the width and depth of the soundstage are similar to the SF5Pro and the positioning and layering are good. One thing worth noting is that the SF5EB is very efficient and sometimes hiss-prone. The dynamic driver also likes a touch of extra juice to tighten up while the mids and treble don't seem to benefit much from amplification.

Value (7/10) - Plain and simple, the Ultimate Ears SuperFi 5 EB is a basshead's dream come true. It offers tons of powerful, full-bodied, dynamic bass overlaying a competent midrange and treble presentation - an effect afforded mostly by the unique internal workings of the earphone. It's difficult to judge the technical merit of something like the SF5EB since accuracy was obviously not a priority in its tuning but the earphone does accomplish what it set out to do, delivering an uncompromisingly powerful low end. The aesthetics and ergonomics of the EB definitely won't be to everyone's liking and the isolation is a step below that offered by the other high-end UE IEMs but as a total package the EB is a good earphone for the bass-obsessed and a reasonable 'guilty pleasure' for the rest of us.

Pros: Nice carrying case, huge bass, surprisingly clear mid-range and treble
Cons: Housing size and fit

(2A29) Sennheiser CX980

Added Mar 2013

Details: One of several Sennheiser earphones developed in collaboration with BMW Designworks
Current Price: N/A (discontinued; price as tested $245) (MSRP: $259.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 115 dB | Freq: 16-24k Hz | Cable: 3.9' rotating plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Rock-It R-20/MEElec A151 single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (5/5) - Single-flange “balanced sound” silicone tips (3 sizes), single-flange “enhanced bass” silicone tips (3 sizes), foam tips, cleaning tool, replacement nozzle filters (2 pairs), shirt clip, airplane adapter, soft carrying pouch, and carrying case with integrated cable winder
Build Quality (4/5) – Engineered in collaboration with BMW Designworks, the CX980 is a striking combination of metal and plastic. The housings have a solid, hefty feel due to the metal stems but are otherwise plastic like those of the other, much cheaper CX-series earphones. The nozzle filters are just cylinders of foam and the cables are thinner compared to Sennheiser’s IE-series models. An in-line analog volume control is mounted at the y-split and the metal 3.5mm plug rotates between 90- and 180-degree configurations
Isolation (3.5/5) – Good due to compact, well-sealing housings and angled nozzles
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Cable noise is tolerable but the CX980 housings are difficult to wear over-the-ear due to the long stems
Comfort (4.5/5) – Despite the heft of the metal housings and volume control, the CX980 is quite comfortable to wear with its thin, angled nozzles, smooth housings, and angled cable entry. My only real gripe is that it is difficult to wear over the ear

Sound (8.1/10) – The CX980 follows the usual Sennheiser CX-series formula, delivering warm sound with generous bass but missing out on some of the clarity and refinement of more fidelity-oriented earphones. The bass of the CX980 is rather heavy – slightly greater in quantity than that of Sennheiser’s IE6 model and more in line with the Brainwavz M5. Bass control is rather good considering the sheer weight of it – the CX980 doesn’t sound overly flabby for such a bassy earphone. It is more controlled, for example, than the Audio-Technica CKM500, which has a more pronounced mid-bass hump. Bass depth is also good – the earphones produce a nice rumble down at the lowest frequencies.

The midrange of the CX980 is not as forward as that of the IE6 and the bass clouds over the mids slightly. The result is mild midrange veiling and a slight clarity deficiency even in comparison to cheaper sets such as the VSonic GR06. Tonally, the CX980 is on the warm side. Treble extension and quality are good but there’s not enough top end presence to counteract the heavy bass. On the upside, the top end is very smooth, with no discernible grain, and sounds quite natural compared to many lower-end sets.

The presentation of the CX980 is again typical of a Sennheiser CX-series in-ear – not overly congested but far from spacious as a result of the somewhat laid-back treble. The overall sound is rather in-the-head, especially when compared to sets such as the VSonic GR06 and Sennheiser’s own IE-series earphones. Interestingly, the CX980 doesn’t seem to be as sensitive as indicated in the specifications – through all my listening it required more power than the competition.

When all is said and done, the CX980 is highly reminiscent of the $40 Brainwavz M5, boasting all similar shortcomings, albeit to a less severe degree. The CX980 is not quite as bassy as the M5, but otherwise shares a similar signature. Treble quality and extension are better on the CX980, but treble energy is still not as great as I would like. Clarity and detail, likewise, are slightly better on the CX980, and soundstage is a little more spacious. The difference between the two sets is clearly audible, and yet not as great as it should be considering the price gap.

Value (6.5/10) – The BMW-designed Sennheiser CX980 accomplishes a rare feat for an in-ear monitor – its metal accents look stylish, but not ostentatious. Sadly, the low-grade plastics don’t have quite give it the same refinement up close and the long stems prevent over-the-ear wear. It is still very comfortable when worn cord-down, however, and has the sound of a good consumer-class earphone, with plentiful bass and smooth treble. Unfortunately, though the bass is rather well-controlled, the overall sound is too slanted towards the low end and lacks the clarity of many other similarly-priced monitors, making the CX980 a difficult recommendation.

Pros: Comfortable form factor; striking design
Cons: Difficult to wear over-the-ear; bass emphasis takes away from overall sound

Big thanks to Anaxilus for the CX980 loan

(2A30) VSonic GR07 Bass Edition

Reviewed May 2013

Details: Enhanced-bass version of VSonic’s GR07 mkII
Current Price: $179 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est. $179)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 40Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 5-22k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges; MEElec A151 single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes), Hybrid-style (10 sizes), and bi-flange silicone tips, foam tips, over-the-ear cable guides, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – The build of the new GR07s matches the original quite closely, with similar housings and other hardware. The housings are designed for over-the-ear wear and feature adjustable-angle metal nozzles. The cord is a little bit softer but otherwise very similar to the original GR07 cable
Isolation (3.5/5) – Reasonably good for a dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Cable noise is very low as the GR07 can only be worn in the over-the-ear configuration. Although there is no shirt clip in the accessory pack, the cable cinch and ear guides can be used to fix the cord in place better
Comfort (4.5/5) – The earphone uses fairly large 11mm drivers but the lightweight, over-the-ear style housings actually work very well for prolonged listening with their slim profile, rounded edges, and adjustable-angle nozzles

Sound (9.1/10) – It’s been more than two years since the release of VSonic’s original dynamic-driver flagship, and yet the aging GR07 is still a standard I hold all new dynamic-driver earphones against. I skipped over the second revision of the GR07 – the GR07 mkII – which is said to remain very true to the sound of the original with some minor tweaks here and there. The GR07 Bass Edition, however, turned out to be different enough to check out.

The Bass Edition is advertised as having – surprise, surprise – more bass than the vanilla GR07. Comparing the Bass Edition to my two-year-old mkI GR07 unit presents far more similarities than differences, but the BE definitely does put more weight on the low end. Bass depth is good but the most noticeable change comes from the increased presence in the mid-bass region, which gives the BE a somewhat fuller, more impactful bass presentation. It still won’t do for proper bassheads, but those who found the original GR07 lacking slightly in the bass department but pleasant otherwise will be thrilled.

The midrange of the BE is very similar to that of the original GR07 – what differences there are all stem from the more prominent bass, which upsets the bass-midrange balance slightly in favor of the low end and makes the midrange sound a touch more recessed. Aside from that, it’s still the good old GR07 – clear, detailed, and open-sounding. Compared to the less expensive GR06, the GR07 BE very obviously sounds clearer, more natural, and less congested despite the greater bass presence.

Moving up into the treble, the GR07 BE again offers the familiar combination of energy and resolution. It’s very similar to my old GR07 here except a touch less sibilant, which is said to be the case for the GR07 mkII as well. The treble is still not as smooth as, for example, that of the Philips Fidelio S1 and S2 earphones but it’s definitely tolerable. The presentation, likewise, is largely unchanged compared to the original GR07, boasting good width and average depth for a spacious sound that is more distant compared to many other dynamic-driver earphones. As expected, instrumental separation is still good and the GR07 BE still provides crisp and detailed sound without sounding “analytical”.

Value (9.5/10) – While it does not deviate from the feature set of the original GR07, the GR07 BE does deliver exactly what it promises – the clear, detailed sound of the popular GR07 with a bump in bass quantity. The bass boost is nothing drastic – bassheads will still find the GR07 BE lacking and fans of more balanced sound still won’t be offended by it. On balance, the more consumer-friendly signature is an asset precisely because the difference is mild enough to retain the strengths of the still-popular GR07. Those seeking a direct upgrade from the GR07 should look elsewhere but for everyone else the GR07 BE is among the most capable sets in its price range.

Pros: A slightly more consumer-friendly take on the familiar GR07 sound; same fit, design, and functionality
Cons: Mildly sibilant on some tracks

(2A31) Dunu DN-1000

Reviewed February 2014

Details: Dunu’s dual BA – dynamic hybrid earphone
MSRP: $215 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $209 from ebay.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic + Dual BA Hybrid | Imp: 10Ω | Sens: 98 dB | Freq: 16-22k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock wide-nozzle single-flanges, Stock & Comply T-400 foam tips
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange wide-channel (3 sizes), single-flange narrow-channel (3 sizes), and bi-flange silicone tips, 4 pairs of foam tips, eartip spacer set (6 pairs in 3 sizes), shirt clip, ¼” adapter, airline adapter, cleaning cloth, pair of cable guides, soft carrying pouch, crushproof metal carrying case, and integrated cable wrap
Build Quality (5/5) – As with all of the other Dunu products I’ve tried, the construction of the DN-1000 is very solid. The metal housings have a nice finish to them and the latest iteration of Dunu’s cable is soft, smooth, and tangle-resistant. The machined aluminum y-split and cable cinch add to the premium feel. It may be a little more impressive to see this same level of build quality on Dunu’s sub-$100 models but that doesn’t detract from the DN-1000 in the least. There doesn’t seem to be any driver flex on my unit, either. My one complaint is that the silver L/R markings can be tough to see and the small bump on the left strain relief meant to help identify the left earpiece is too close to the earphone housing
Isolation (3.5/5) – Very good for an earphone with this form factor
Microphonics (4/5) – Good when worn cable-down; excellent when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (3.5/5) – The housings are on the heavy side and large enough to hold the hybrid driver setup. The weight and size can lead to mild discomfort in the long term but the earphones lend themselves nicely to over-the-ear wear, which helps with the weight. Overall, the DN-1000 is similar to the AKG K3003 in size and fit, though its strain reliefs are not offset like those of the AKGs. Dunu’s new eartip spacers help position IEM housing farther out of the ear and can also have an effect on sound, similarly to what we normally accomplish with tip rolling. That said, the DN-1000 is a little pickier with fit than sets like the RHA MA750 and some of the possible tip/spacer combinations make it easy for the tips to slip off the nozzles

Sound (9.2/10) – Balanced armature / dynamic hybrid earphones have been gaining popularity in the past year or two, but few have impressed me as much as the DN-1000. Dunu’s new flagship does what every hybrid hopes to – combines the bass performance of a good dynamic driver with the strengths of a BA setup, in this case the popular Knowles TWFK. The bass driver of the DN-1000 performs very well, providing plenty of both mid-bass and sub-bass, and should satisfy all but the most die-hard bassheads. The bass extends deep and is pretty quick considering the quantity. The RHA MA750, for example, is slower and can sound a bit “bassier” in the conventional sense as a result.

The DN-1000 has a thinner note presentation than the RHA MA750, especially in the midrange, but also sounds clearer than the more veiled RHA set. In keeping with other TWFK-based earphones, the mids of the DN-1000 are a touch thinner compared even to some BA setups, such as the InEar StageDiver SD-2 and EarSonics SM64. That said, the DN-1000 has very little bass bleed and superb midrange clarity, helped further still by the excellent treble energy. The DN-1000 has more perceived clarity compared, for example, to the HiFiMan RE-400 and StageDiver SD-2, which both sound duller at the top end.

The top end of the DN-1000 is bright and crisp, and again rather typical of a TWFK-based earphone. It can be a touch splashy, especially at high volumes, and it takes some playing with all of the included tips and eartip spacers to get the optimal (i.e. smoothest) treble performance out of the DN-1000. I personally found foam tips (especially Comply T-400s) with a deeper seal to work best for me, and the wider single-flange silicone tips with the red spacers to be good as well. In truth, I tend to listen at lower volumes and generally quite like TWFKs, but those who expect to crank up the volume with the DN-1000 to maximize bass impact may find the treble a little too prominent. The RHA MA750, for example, has overall smoother treble and makes the DN-1000 seem a bit fatiguing in comparison. The same goes for the pricier EarSonics SM64 – its treble is smoother, especially at high volumes.

Select Comparisons

T-Peos H-100 ($120)

T-Peos’ dual-driver hybrid is a rather unique-sounding earphone with a bright and cool tonal character. In comparison to the H-100, Dunu’s DN-1000 hybrid is bassier but also clearer – an impressive accomplishment. The midrange of the H-100 appears to be more scooped out, sounding more distant compared to the Dunu. The H-100 is also brighter and has greater upper midrange emphasis, which causes it to sound a bit “nasal” with the vocals on some tracks. The DN-1000 consistently sounds more natural in comparison. Still, despite its brightness, the H-100 is a touch less revealing of sibilance than the DN-1000, though that’s not quite enough to shift the balance in its favor. The T-Peos unit also exhibits more driver flex compared to the Dunu.

VSonic VC1000 ($125)

VSonic’s dual-armature release is based on the same Knowles TWFK driver as the DN-1000, but without the dynamic driver of the Dunu. The performance of the two earphones is very close despite the differences in sound signature. The most glaring difference is, of course, the far greater bass quantity of the Dunu. However, even in comparison to the bass-heavy DN-1000, the VC1000 sounds pretty punchy. Its bass is also tighter, and it has a more prominent midrange next to the somewhat v-shaped DN-1000.

Clarity is on par between the two earphones but the VC1000 has a slightly smoother top end, which is especially noticeable at higher volumes. On the whole, these earphones illustrate two very different tunings but neither really has the upper hand in performance. The DN-1000, for example, consistently seems to have too much bass when heard back-to-back with the VSonic set. The VC1000, likewise, seems to have too little but, admittedly, is closer to my own personal target than the Dunu.

Philips Fidelio S2 ($150)

The Fidelio S2 is a dynamic-driver earphone with an accuracy-oriented tuning. The DN-1000, which boasts a v-shaped sound signature, has much more of a “wow” factor to its acoustics. Its powerful bass easily outpaces the Philips set, which itself is no slouch when it comes to depth and impact. More surprisingly, the Dunu seems a bit clearer than the more balanced-sounding Philips, due in part to its brighter tonal character. The Fidelio S2 is not the most exciting earphone in the first place, and next to the DN-1000 it sounds especially dull. On the downside, the treble of the DN-1000 has a more “metallic” timbre than that of the Fidelio S2, especially at higher volumes, which is not uncommon for earphones based on the Knowles TWFK driver. The Fidelio S2 is significantly less efficient than the DN-1000, and while it is undoubtedly very proficient and more accurate overall, I couldn’t help but reach for the Dunu when given the choice.

VSonic GR07 Bass Edition ($179)

I’ve always maintained that in the case of this GR07 model, “Bass Edition” is a bit of a misnomer – while it is bassier than the regular GR07, it’s far from a basshead earphone as the name may suggest. The DN1000 has significantly more bass, especially deep bass, than the GR07 BE, and on the whole its sound signature is more v-shaped – closer to the GR02 Bass Edition than any of the other VSonic sets I’ve tried.

The GR07 BE is overall more balanced with less bass emphasis/more linear bass response and mids that are more in line with everything else. Due in part to the treble boost, the DN1000 can sound a little clearer and while the Dunu can be a little sibilant, the GR07 fares worse in this respect. The DN-1000 also has a slightly deeper, more layered presentation than the GR07 BE.

1964EARS 1964-V3 ($425)

Moving well outside of the $200 price bracket, the 1964-V3 triple-driver monitors offer a bass-heavy BA sound in a custom-fit form factor. While the dynamic driver of the DN-1000 affords the Dunu set better bass depth compared to the 1964EARS, the 1964-V3 actually has more mid-bass, which gives it a characteristically warmer, more full-bodied sound. At the same time, the BA-based bass of the 1964-V3 is a little quicker while the DN-1000, in a way consistent with its dynamic driver, has slightly softer, less immediate bass impact.

Overall, the DN-1000 sounds more v-shaped than the V3, which has a relatively forward and energetic midrange. The mids of the DN-1000 are thinner and more withdrawn while its treble is a little brighter. The Dunu is also more sibilance-prone, though the V3 itself is not perfectly smooth, especially at higher volumes.

Sennheiser IE 800 ($999)

The Sennheiser IE 800 is a rather unique earphone that does a few things very right but is somewhat let down by its design. The DN-1000 reminds me of the IE 800 in several ways, right down to the fit sensitivity. The IE 800’s treble has an extra spike that appears unless it’s inserted very shallowly, thanks to its proprietary D2CA tuning system, while the DN-1000 seems to work the opposite way with my ears, requiring a good seal for the smoothest sound. In terms of performance, the IE 800 is overall more detailed and refined, and sounds warmer without a drop in clarity. When it is inserted properly it is less bright and more forgiving of sibilance than the DN-1000, but it is five times the price with a very slight gain in refinement, which speaks volumes for the Dunu DN-1000.

AKG K3003 ($1300)

Though the K3003 and DN-1000 are separated by a huge gap in price, they are both triple-driver hybrid designs and don’t differ all that much in sound signature. To me, the DN-1000 makes for an excellent reasonably-priced approximation of the K3003. Compared to the AKGs with my preferred “Reference” filter installed, the DN-1000 has more prominent bass and a more subdued-sounding midrange. The two earphones have similar overall treble energy but because of its extra bass emphasis, the DN-1000 appears less bright overall.

The K3003 has a stronger midrange, dipping down less than the DN-1000 for a less v-shaped overall signature. Its mids appear a little clearer but overall aren’t too different from the Dunu’s, especially on tracks where the DN-1000 doesn’t have occasion to exhibit its explosive bass. The K3003 is somewhat less prone to sibilance despite similar overall treble energy – something about the way its treble peaks are positioned often makes it stop right on the verge of sibilance when the DN-1000 oversteps. Lastly, the K3003 has a slightly more spacious sound and images a touch better, though again it’s hard to justify the price difference based on the performance gap between the two earphones.

Value (9/10) – The Dunu DN-1000 is a high-end earphone of a very rare breed – one of a select few that are both quite bass-heavy and superbly clear, and also rather well-isolating. This is an especially unusual combination because bass-heavy earphones tend to have large, often vented, dynamic drivers. The DN-1000 uses its hybrid configuration to obtain rumbling, hard-hitting bass from its medium-sized dynamic driver while maintaining excellent clarity outside of the bass region. Its V-shaped signature makes it especially great for modern music – EDM, pop, and so on – and the excellent construction, though typical for Dunu, still stands out among other $200 IEMs.

Pros: Voluminous bass with excellent midrange clarity; lots of eartips included with many possible fit configurations; very well-made
Cons: Treble can get peaky typical of a TWFK earphone; a bit heavy in the ear

(2A32) TDK BA200

Reviewed April 2014

Details: TDK’s recently-discontinued dual-armature flagship
MSRP: $299.95 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $190 from amazon.com; $203 from ebay.com
Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 35Ω | Sens: 99 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Westone STAR tips, Stock bi-flanges, EarSonics bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Bi-flange silicone tips (2 sizes), foam tips (2 sizes), replacement filters, shirt clip, and soft carrying pouch (note: exact accessories seem to differ between versions)
Build Quality (4/5) – The BA200 is made mostly of plastic, but the construction is pretty solid. The nozzle screens are replaceable and spares are included – a rarity these days. The flat cable is soft and inoffensive but the massive y-split, which houses an impedance stabilizer, has a tendency to get caught on things
Isolation (4/5) – Good thanks to the ergonomic housings and long nozzles
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low in the flat cable
Comfort (5/5) – The ergonomically-shaped housings of the BA200 are very comfortable, thanks in part to the light weight of the earphones, though those with very small outer ears may have trouble fitting them properly. Despite the manufacturer’s claims, however, the BA200 is not well-suited for cable-down wear

Sound (9.1/10) – I’ve long wanted to try TDK’s dual-BA flagship earphone but the opportunity has always gotten away from me, until now. Big thanks to fellow Head-Fier ericr for finally making it happen, even if the BA200 model is on its way out as far as TDK is concerned.

On the whole, the sound of the BA200 is as comfortable as the fit. It’s a punchy earphone with good clarity and a tonal character on the warm side of neutral. The bass is slightly enhanced – for a balanced armature set it’s quite impactful, though it won’t win any awards from proper bassheads. In terms of bass quantity the BA200 is just a touch short of the VSonic GR07 and StageDiver SD-2, and significantly short of the Westone W40.

Despite its slight bass enhancement, the BA200 has excellent midrange clarity – about on-par with the GR07, though it is also more forward in the midrange than the VSonic unit. All in all, the mids are similar to those of the $450 StageDiver SD-2 and clearer compared to the Westone W40, likely due to the BA200’s flatter response through the upper midrange. The BA200 also has pretty good note thickness – it may miss out on some of the crispness of a TWFK-based set as a result, but for a BA earphone the note weight is very impressive.

The upper midrange and lower treble of the BA200 are very smooth, but despite this the earphones still sound crisp and resolving, likely due to a mid-upper treble lift. The BA200 is on the whole less bright than the VSonic GR07 and a little more tolerant of sibilant vocals, partly by virtue of its treble emphasis being higher up, but there are still some tracks on which it exaggerates sibilance. It is brighter than the Westone W40, for instance, and a little more sibilance-prone. The StageDiver SD-2 is also less revealing of sibilance than the BA200, and, though it also a dual-driver earphone, seems to have better extension and slightly more energy at the top than the TDKs.

The BA200 is a little less spacious than the SD-2, with a less out-of-the-head presentation, but otherwise the less expensive TDK unit more than holds its own. Imaging is good and the soundstage has enough depth to prevent the earphone from sounding intimate despite its warm tone and prominent mids.

Select Comparisons

HiFiMan RE-400 ($99)

In many ways the BA200 and RE-400 are similar – both are balanced earphones with a tonal character a touch warmer than neutral. The BA-200 is less mid-centric and a little warmer due to a marginally greater amount of bass boost. The RE-400 boasts more focus on the midrange. Up top, the RE-400 remains extremely smooth while the BA200 has a treble peak that makes it more revealing of sibilance, which the HiFiMan earphone tends to downplay. This makes the BA200 appear more crisp and also contributes to it sounding less mid-centric than the RE-400. The BA200 is also a touch more spacious.

VSonic VC1000 ($125)

The VC1000 and BA200 both utilize dual balanced armature driver configurations, albeit with different drivers. The Sonion AcuPass drivers in the BA200 endow it with a more impactful sound and warmer tonal character. The Knowles TWFK drivers in the VC1000, on the other hand, provide less impactful but tighter bass, making the BA200 sound a bit boomy in comparison. The midrange of the VC1000 is clearer, but also thinner. The VSonic unit has more upper midrange presence overall, though not by much, whereas the BA200 dips down a bit akin to the RE-400. I personally prefer the balance and clarity of the VC1000, but the thicker note presentation of the BA200.

The VSonic set is brighter overall but emphasizes sibilance less than the BA200. However, like all TWFKs, its treble has a slightly metallic/shimmery character which the BA200, despite its treble peak, lacks. The presentation of the VC1000 seems just a touch more airy and uncongested thanks to its tighter bass and brighter sound.

Sony MDR-7550 ($230)

The smooth, clear, and warm-sounding MDR-7550 makes for a logical competitor to the BA200. Indeed the earphones sound very similar despite the Sonys using a large dynamic driver to the TDKs’ dual armature setup. Surprisingly, the BA200 is a little more emphasized at the bottom end while the MDR-7550 is slightly clearer through the midrange. The MDR-7550 is also smoother in the treble region, with no sibilance-inducing peaks, and has a wider, airier presentation. The BA200, with its extra touch of bass emphasis, sounds a bit congested in comparison.

Value (9/10) – With sound that is reminiscent of well-regarded high-end earphones from the likes of HiFiMan and Shure, an ergonomic form factor, and good noise isolation, the TDK BA200 is a solid all-rounder with plenty of mass appeal. TDK has done an excellent job with these earphones, and while prices have been going up steadily since the BA200 was discontinued, those who run across one at a good price should grab it before they’re all gone.

Pros: Excellent all-round sound quality; great ergonomics
Cons: N/A

Huge thanks to ericr for sending over the BA200 for review!

post #7 of 16444

3/19/10 at 6:23pm

Thread Starter

ljokerl
Trader Feedback: +103
Portables Reviewerus Prolificus
offline

10,212 Posts. Joined 3/2009
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Select All Posts By This User

Tier 1C ($250-400)

(1C1) Audio-Technica ATH-CK10

Reviewed Jan 2010

Details: Audio-Technica’s diminutive Dual-armature earphone may not be its flagship, but it sure competes well with those of other manufacturers
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $399.99)
Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 55 Ω | Sens: 107 dB | Freq: 20-15k Hz | Cable: 4' I-plug
Nozzle Size:4mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrids, De-cored Olives
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes), cleaning cloth, and oval clamshell hard case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – Ever since I first laid my hands on the CK10 I have used it as my build quality benchmark for IEMs. The build is outstanding – rubber-covered metal housings with titanium faceplates look and feel indestructible. The cabling is soft and thick, terminated with a beefy 3.5mm I-plug. They’re not perfect (I prefer an L-plug and the strain reliefs could be better), but in most ways the build of the CK10 is what every other earphone needs to stack up to
Isolation (4/5) – With the proper tips the tiny CK10 can be inserted very deeply, providing impressive levels of isolation
Microphonics (5/5) – Microphonics are nonexistent in the cabling when worn cord-up and unnoticeable when worn cord-down
Comfort (5/5) – The tiny round housings rest inside the ear when the CK10s are worn cord-up, but contrary to the way they were designed the CK10 can be worn cord-down as well. Either way they are impossible comfortable and simply disappear when donned, but wearing them cord-up allows for deeper insertion

Sound (9.2/10) – I’ve always done my reviews on a comparative scale, with the perfect score in each category going to the best performer I’d encountered to date. The CK10 has been and still is my SQ benchmark for IEM reviews. The CK10 is as close to a perfectly balanced earphone as I have heard. The low end is smooth, tight, and extended. It is detailed and well-textured, conveying plenty of information. Impact-wise the bass is medium-low on the grand scale, not much greater in quantity than an amped Ety ER4S, but more full-bodied. It is also impossibly quick - I sometimes get the feeling that the armatures on the CK10s could reproduce several different songs simultaneously and never miss a beat. Midrange detail and clarity are close to the ER4S but vocals have better air and a dimensional quality to them that the Etys lack. The treble is best described as being “sweet”, but not excessively so. The CK10s definitely sparkle at the high end and roll off very little - Audio-Technica was quite conservative with the specs on the CK10s, which is a welcome change from the optimistic “8-25k Hz” specifications I’ve been seeing get slapped on $20 earphones. Treble smoothness is top notch – harshness and sibilance are nearly imperceptible even on flawed recordings. Resolution and imaging are both excellent. Soundstaging is above average - though they don’t quite have the lateral width of the RE252, they have the RE0 and Phonaks beat in both depth and width. Transparency is also impressive - the CK10s are my earphones of choice for testing amps and sources. They add no color to the sound, allowing the properties of the source to shine through. That said, I find them more forgiving of poor quality source material than most other high-end IEMs.

Now for the qualifiers: the CK10s score very highly with me at the moment of this writing. There are still many high-end IEMs I have not heard and the CK10 is definitely not for everyone – it does not have a thick, creamy midrange so the Shure faithful may be underwhelmed. The quantity of the bass will not satisfy a basshead’s uncouth craving – the TF10 is better suited there. They may also not be engaging enough for those who tend to get bored with balanced, neutral sound – like the RE0 but to a lesser degree they can be described as sounding ‘thin’ and lacking in body, though I find them to be quite energetic. Lastly, the treble sparkle can quite easily cross the line separating it from brightness for some people. A poor fit can exacerbate the problem.

Amping: Although the CK10s aren’t particularly efficient and do a good job of cutting down on hiss from sources such as the Amp3, they are not difficult too drive. There are small increases in speed, resolution, and bass slam when they are amped, but I often eschew an amp for the sake of portability when using the CK10s – they sound great straight from a portable player and take up no room at all being the one IEM I have no qualms about carrying around without a case.

Value (8/10) – Upon release, the CK10 was Audio-Technica’s flagship and retailed at or near the $399 MSRP, but sold closer to $200 for most of its lifespan. With my personal affinity for its sound I’m tempted to say that it is still some of the best money one could spend. However, with budget and mid-range earphones constantly improving, it is becoming more and more difficult to make such statements. The RE0 still costs about 1/4 as much as the CK10. Is the RE0 1/4 of the earphone? Not to me. That said and this being head-fi, diminishing returns are an expectation. With that in mind, plus the fact that the CK10 is one of the most user-friendly IEMs around, I find the asking price quite justified.

Pros: Well-built, extremely comfortable, no microphonics, great clarity, detail, and imagine
Cons: Stock tips are underwhelming, flat bass won't please everyone

For a more in-depth review and comparisons to the Monster Turbine Pro Gold and Panasonic HJE900 see here

(1C2) Ortofon e-Q7

Reviewed Apr 2010

Details: First IEM from Ortofon utilizing a new type of transducer
Current Price: $320 from ebay.com (MSRP: ~$320)
Specs: Driver: Moving Armature | Imp: 31 Ω | Sens: 117 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Sennheiser dual-flange
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (4.5/5) – Silicone single-flange (3 sizes) and Comply T400 tips, felt-lined storage case, leather carrying case, filter changing kit with two pairs of spare filters, and filter cleaning tool
Build Quality (4/5) – Weighty aluminum shells with rubber strain reliefs feel rather solid. Cabling is in two parts (very similar to the original Lenntek Sonix), with a plastic sheath above the y-split and woven nylon below. Unfortunately, the large plastic strain relief on the 3.5mm plug is quite hard and unlikely to protect the cord. Also, there is no cord cinch and a small bump on the left-side strain relief takes the place of L/R markings
Isolation (3.5/5) – The extremely short nozzle limits the insertion depth of the Ortofons by design. The IEMs are fully sealed, however, and isolation is still good
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Though minimal in the nylon-sheathed part of the cable, microphonics are present and bothersome in the plastic part above the y-split, where it counts. Wearing them over-the-ear solves the problem but isn’t as easy as with other IEMs due to the long housings
Comfort (3.5/5) – The short nozzle of the Ortofons means that the housings are nearly flush with the ear canal when wearing all but the longest tips. For those with smaller ears this may be uncomfortable. In addition, the length and weight tend to torque the housings when wearing them cord-down and moving about. A set of cable guides would’ve been nice to make the Ortofons more over-the-ear-friendly

Sound (9.1/10) – The sound signature of the e-Q7 takes on a peculiar mix of traits commonly ascribed to balanced armature and dynamic driver earphones. If blindfolded and given the e-Q7 for the first time, I would have attributed the sound to a dynamic driver, albeit a very clean and precise one. The overall tone of the IEM is just a tad on the warm side. Bass extension is impressive - not quite as deep as the dynamic-driver MTPG and Atrio M8s, but better than any armature-based earphone I’ve heard. Texturing across the range, but especially at the low end, is excellent, right up there with the best of the best. The bass is punchier than it is powerful but still boasts plenty of impact and great speed. The midrange is rich and full and acts as a unifying element, making the entire signature extremely coherent and musical. Similar to the Soundmagic PL50, the midrange seems to be the focus of the presentation with the e-Q7 despite not having any particular emphasis. The mids can sound a bit dry, almost grainy at times, and there is a tiny spike towards the upper midrange that can accentuate harshness already present in certain recordings, but I’ve really only noticed it a few times in the hundreds of tracks I’ve listened to using the e-Q7.

The treble, on the other hand, is very smooth and inoffensive. It is devoid of sibilance and harshness but also doesn’t feel as endless and effortless as, for example, the ATH-CK10 or RE0. Despite this, I wouldn’t call the e-Q7 laid-back or relaxed-sounding. They are highly resolving and detailed, resulting in an involving, attention-grabbing sound. Overall balance is excellent, with all signs pointing to the midrange but yet no lack of emphasis in the bass and treble. Soundstage width is impressive, falling right behind the RE252 in expansiveness. Depth is decent, but not class-leading. Instrumental separation, positioning, and imaging, however, are all excellent. I’ve also said before that being enjoyable at low volumes is one of the hallmarks of a great earphone for me and the e-Q7 handles the lowest listening volumes quite well. A note on amping – if planning to pair them with an amp (not a necessity in my view), make sure that your amp is at least neutral. The e-Q7 does not play well with warm amps such as my iBasso T4; it actually pairs better with my new Rocoon RC-1, which is rather neutral, and the mini3, but neither is a significant enough improvement to warrant using.

Value (8/10) – As one the most expensive earphones reviewed in this thread to date, it is very difficult to put a value on the e-Q7. As a total package, it does not feel like a $320 product to me. The cable is almost identical to the one found on the $40 Lenntek Sonix 3, several throw-ins are missing from the accessory pack, and the microphonics leave much to be desired. The short nozzle and sizeable housings may also cause fit issues for those with small ear canals. But all of these usability issues can be remedied or mitigated by throwing a few more bucks at the earphones for a set of Phonak cable guides, nicer tips, and a shirt clip. It is much harder to remedy shoddy sound quality but, luckily, that is not an affliction the e-Q7 suffers from. With tight bass, full mids, and smooth (albeit slightly rolled-off) treble the e-Q7 possesses one of the most coherent sound signatures in the land of portable audio. As with all high-end IEMs these are bound to have both strong fans and convinced critics in due time. Though the signature of the e-Q7 is far from the analytical and neutral type of sound I prefer, I easily subscribe to the former category.

Pros: Beautiful design and packaging, very rich, detailed, and balanced sound
Cons: No true L/R markings, no cord cinch, fit issues likely for those with small ears

Special thanks to rawrster for generously offering to lend me the e-Q7 and allowing me to put it through the full testing regimen.

(1C3) Klipsch Custom 3

Reviewed May 2010

Details: Dual-armature flagship of Klipsch’s Custom line, recently discontinued and plummeting rapidly in street price

Current Price: N/A (discontinued; price as tested $265) (MSRP: $399.99)
Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 32 Ω | Sens: 115 dB | Freq: 8-19k Hz | Cable: .2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:3.5mm | Preferred tips: Shure Olives
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Silicone single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) tips, cleaning tool, airplane adapter, 6.3mm 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 very competent build
Isolation (3.5/5) – The long, steeply angled nozzles allow for deep insertion, resulting in impressive isolation
Microphonics (2.5/5) – 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 (8.7/10) – Unlike the Custom 2, which uses two identical armatures with no crossover, the Custom 3 has a separate woofer and tweeter with a crossover around 1500Hz. The extended frequency response shows, with the Custom 3 having very reasonable reach both down low and up high. Though they don’t have the bottom-end extension of the MTPG or even the e-Q7, the Customs can easily match IEMs like the RE0 and Ety ER4. Bass is impactful and articulate, with impressive texturing for a BA-based earphone and moderate decay times. The Custom 3s are far from bass-heavy but they have a more immediate punch than the CK10/ER4/RE252 crowd. Aside from dropping off steeply past 35Hz or so, the bass is fairly linear and transitions smoothly to the midrange. While slightly warm, the Custom 3s aren’t quite as toasty as the Custom 2s but not as cool as the Custom 1s, either. The happy medium in tonality works with the thick-sounding midrange to create an accurate and balanced sound. Compared to more analytical IEMs, however, the Customs sacrifice some detail in the midrange and treble for fullness. There is a bit of weight placed on the lower mids but overall the midrange is fairly flat all the way up. The treble is clean and smooth, slightly laid back compared to the bass and mids but far from recessed. It doesn’t sparkle and isn’t quite as crisp as that of the high-end Audio-Technicas or as extended as that of the RE0. More than anything, it reminds me of the Ortofon e-Q7 - neither bright nor harsh nor fatiguing – just perfectly complimentary to the thick and lush midrange.

The presentation of the Custom 3 seems well-suited for their balanced nature. Soundstage width and depth are both above average, resulting in a rather spacious sound. Instrumental separation is hindered slightly by the somewhat thick sound, making it more difficult to pick out and place individual instruments but the sense of space is unhindered. Overall the Custom 3 boasts a very balanced and rather accurate overall sound, though they are a bit heavier-sounding than I would consider natural. Still, the signature is very versatile and makes the Custom 3 a great all-rounder and unlikely to disappoint either the casual listener or the seasoned audiophile.

Value (7/10) – The Custom 3 is a very capable earphone with one colossal caveat – the cabling. Personally, I could not live with these cables if the Custom 3 was my primary IEM. It’s possible that I’ve simply been so spoiled by the Audio-Technica earphones when it comes to cabling but my gut says otherwise. In fact, my gut gives me murderous urges when I think of the engineer who designed the cords used across Klipsch’s custom line. Is the sound worthy of homicide? At the $300 MSRP, not exactly. At the significantly lower street price, I would say yes. The C3s are punchy and thick but still very balanced and energetic. Best of all, the sound of the Custom 3 is much less of an acquired taste than either of the two lower end Klipsch Custom models. If Klipsch were to bring the C3 back with a different cord and a lower MSRP, they would become a head-fi mainstay. As it stands, they’re a great-sounding set with a skeleton in the closet.

Pros: Comfortable, well-isolating, wonderfully balanced and very enjoyable sound
Cons: Downright awful cabling, excessive microphonics

(1C4) Sennheiser IE8

Reviewed Jul 2010

Details: The earphone that established the ability of dynamic-driver IEMs to go toe-to-toe with multi-armature setups

Current Price: $400 from amazon.com (MSRP: $449.95), $450 for IE8i with mic

Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 125 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ L-plug

Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: UE Single flange, stock short bi-flange

Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down (with cable flip)

Accessories (5/5) – Single flange (3 sizes), bi-flange (3 sizes), and mushroom (2 sizes) silicone tips, foamhybrid (2 sizes) tips, cleaning tool, bass adjustment screwdriver, over-the-ear cable guides, shirt clip, and storage case with integrated cable winder

Build Quality (5/5) – The oddly-shaped housings are made of sturdy plastic and surprisingly ergonomic. The cord is light, strong, flexible, and, best of all, detachable – one of the best cables I’ve seen on an IEM. For some reason the L-plug is not gold plated and rotating it can cause a tiny bit of static

Isolation (2.5/5) – Not a strong suit of the IE8, which are rather shallow-fitting earphones, but quite passable for everyday use, especially with dual-flange tips

Microphonics (5/5) – Nearly imperceptible when worn cord-down (with the cables flipped); completely unnoticeable when worn in the proper (cord-up) orientation

Comfort (4/5) – The housings are light but rather large; those with smaller ears will have to settle for very shallow insertion but, like many dynamic-driver in-ears, the IE8s are not overly sensitive to insertion depth. With average-sized ears the IE8s are nearly flush and can be slept in quite easily

Sound (8.9/10) – As usual, the first step to my listening involves spending time with the tuning system. In the case of the IE8, tuning is done by turning a bass adjustment screw on the front fascia of the earphones with a small screwdriver. Personally, I don’t much care for the tuning feature. In the minimum-bass configuration, the IE8s are plentifully impactful – similar in bass quantity to my Monster Turbine Pro Golds but a bit more forward and aggressive with the way low notes are presented. Turning up the bass seems to extend the mid-bass hump of the IE8 lower down and darkens the tone of the earphones but does surprisingly little for low-end extension. A single notch of bass increase puts the overall bass quantity of the IE8 on level with the Fischer Audio Eternas (rev.1), two notches get it closer to the Future Sonics Atrio M8, and the maximum setting matches the monstrous bass bloat of the TDK EB900. The bass itself is fairly forward, at least in comparison to the rather relaxed midrange and treble of the earphone. Bass depth, power, and texture are all among the best I’ve heard out of in-ears, beating out the MTPG in technical prowess by a hair. The bass of the IE8 is also characterized by its versatility – the IE8 can be quite quick on fast trance and house tracks but also manages wonderfully realistic attack and decay when necessary. On bass-heavy tracks, the low end of the IE8 can be slightly overwhelming for my tastes but for the most part it works quite well with the unique presentation and overall balance of the Sennheisers.

The heavy-handed low end makes the midrange of the IE8 seem slightly veiled and recessed, but this is as much an artifact of the ridiculously spacious presentation as it is of the balance. Taken out of context, the midrange and treble of the IE8 are both excellent in their own right. The mids are smooth slightly thick, warmed up by the mid-bass heft and quite full-bodied. Clarity is excellent but the midrange isn’t as crisp as, for example, that of the Phiaton PS200 or even the Radius DDM, and the detail is not presented as aggressively. Transparency lags quite a ways behind earphones such as the DDM and Yuin OK1 as well, hindered by the thickness and slight coloration of the IE8s.

The treble transition is seamlessly smooth, yielding a clear high end with no harshness or sibilance. The treble is well-extended and seems a bit edgier and more present in the sound of the IE8 than the similarly-bassy MTPG and Future Sonics Atrios, but not quite as edgy as that of the Hippo VB. The top end does lack the effortlessness of the CK10/RE252 and the sparkle of the OK1/TF10. Expectedly, it is not as crisp and resolving as with many of the BA-based IEMs, resulting in less aggressive detailing but also a generally pleasant an non-fatiguing sound. Again, the treble of the IE8 is more impressive when taken out of context and not juxtaposed to the bass and midrange, which do tend to crowd it out somewhat.

Lastly, the presentation of the IE8 is more than noteworthy in itself. The gargantuan soundstage is one of the most apparent and striking aspects of the sound. Headstage width is similarly tremendous, giving the IE8 and out-of-the-head feel on par with many proper headphones. Soundstage depth is above average as well and the IE8 can convey distances adroitly. However, the soundstage is limited in extent – whereas IEMs like the Yuin OK1 can convey what seems like a near-infinite distances, the soundstage of the IE8 has an outer limit when it comes to positioning. It has an inner limit, as well – the IE8s do not portray extreme intimacy very well; instead, the soundstage extends to within what seems like a few feet from the listener. Nitpicking aside, the presentation of the IE8 has a distanced and yet spacious feel that Sennheiser faithful may find familiar – the earphones infallibly put the listener in a third row seat. With that in mind, the presentation is quite realistic – a bit thick but nevertheless relaxed and boasting decent air. In the land of IEMs, high-end or not, the Sennheiser IE8 stands out in that respect.

Value (7.5/10) – Launched at a time when “high end IEM” was synonymous with “balanced armature”, the Sennheiser IE8 re-introduced dynamic drivers into the world of ultraportable hi-fi and firmly established Sennheiser, a late entrant in the IEM game, in the realm of top-tier earphones. Though past its popularity peak, the IE8 still competes with the best of the best two years later. The uniquely rich and full sound, from the heavy bass to the warmed-up midrange and smooth but extended treble, works wonderfully with the relaxed and spacious presentation. Aside from the isolation, which isn’t actually as bad as some say, the biggest issue with the IE8 is its price - at $400 retail, it’s a fair stretch pricier than many of the newer high end earphones. As with all other top tiers, the IE8 brings its own unique strengths and weaknesses to the table. And, again as with all other top tiers, the decision as to whether or not it is worth the asking price rests with the individual listener.

Pros: Detachable and all-around excellent cabling, no microphonics, light and comfortable, excellent bass depth and texture, monstrous soundstage

Cons: Mediocre isolation, not the best at conveying intimacy

Special thanks to Poetik for letting me borrow the IE8s for a (very) extended audition

(1C5) Westone UM3X

Reviewed Aug 2010

Details: Westone’s three-way triple driver flagship designed for professional use
Current Price: $325 from ebay.com (MSRP: $549.00)
Specs: Driver: Triple Armature | Imp: 56 Ω | Sens: 124 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Shure single-flange, Shure Olive
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Comply foam tips (4 sets in 2 sizes) and hard clamshell carrying case. Edit 4/28/11: Newer versions may also come with Single-flange conical (3 sizes) and rounded (3 sizes) silicone tips, triple-flange silicone tips, ¼” adapter, in-line volume control, filter and tip cleaning tool, and hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The housings are a two-piece design and made out of a hard, durable plastic. They are quite large but rather good-looking. The multi-strand twisted cable is impossibly lightweight and tends to tangle but feels very sturdy. The split, housing entry, and heavy-duty 3.5mm L-plug are all very well-relieved
Isolation (4/5) – Isolation is extremely high as the shells fill my ears nicely and the angled-nozzle design coaxes the maximum possible attenuation from the stock Comply foamies or Shure Olives
Microphonics (5/5) – The UM3X can only be worn over-the-ear and microphonics are nonexistent
Comfort (4.5/5) – The shells of the UM3X are quite ergonomic and fill out the wearer’s ear nicely – the smaller Westone 1 actually fits me less securely. Cabling is very light and flexible which helps with the over-the-ear fit

Sound (9.1/10) – The UM3X was released just a few months after Westone’s own W3, the very first three-way triple-driver universal IEM. Aimed squarely at the pro audio market, the UM3X might just be the smoothest BA-based earphone I’ve heard to date. The bass is impactful and well-extended, keeping up with other bass-heavy BA-based earphones. Body, attack, and decay are all quite natural but the bass isn’t as quick and tight as that of the high end Audio-Technica earphones or the DBA-02; next to the decay-shy CK10, the UM3X sounds thick and a tiny bit bloated but in general its low end is quite pleasant.

The midrange is forward and quite warm but also very smooth, clear, and detailed. The mids of the UM3X are quite possibly even more forward than those of the ATH-CK100 but seem relatively less emphasized due to the more confined overall presentation. The forward nature of the midrange, combined with the warmth and thickness, makes the UM3X sound fairly close and intimate at all times and sacrifices transparency slightly.

Unlike the straightforward midrange, the treble of the Westones perplexes me. On the one hand it is astonishingly detailed and extremely forgiving. Harshness and sibilance are absent completely and the resulting sound is not fatiguing in the least. On the other hand the treble lacks the crispness and sparkle that I like so much in many of my other BA-based earphones. From a technical standpoint, the non-fatiguing nature of the UM3X’s treble is second only to the ATH-CK100. However, I always feel like I have to put in extra work to focus on the details. Naturally, personal preferences play a huge part in this and the UM3X is without a doubt a very capable stage monitor, especially when vocals are of the utmost importance, but cymbals just don’t sound realistic to me without a touch more energy than the UM3X tends to provide. For jazz and vocal performances the polite nature of the UM3X may work well but for rock, metal, and even electronica I found myself yearning for slightly more bite – the UM3X can simply sound bland at times.

When it comes to presentation, the UM3X steps even further away from realism and clearly caters to the professional crowd. Overall, the earphones feel quite intimate, especially when it comes to the forward midrange. For the most part everything is placed quite close to the listener. On the upside, the UM3X has astonishingly good instrumental separation. Lastly, it is worth noting that despite the high impedance, the UM3X is a relatively sensitive earphone and will hiss with full-size amps and other mismatched sources.

Value (8.5/10) – Though extremely competent from a technical standpoint, the Westone UM3X has a peculiar way of presenting sound that won’t appeal to everyone. The sound signature combines strong bass, a warm and forward midrange, and extremely smooth and relaxed treble. Comfort, fit, isolation, and build quality are all expectedly superb making the UM3X an excellent top-tier earphone that’s more than certain to find and maintain a loyal fan base.

Pros: Great fit, isolation, and build quality, high technical proficiency
Cons: Only Comply foam tips included, sound signature & presentation will not appeal to everyone

(1C6) Monster Turbine Pro Copper

Reviewed Aug 2010

Details: The flagship of Monster’s Turbine line, claimed to be designed for audiophiles and music professionals
Current Price: $279 from amazon.com (MSRP: $399.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Sennheiser biflanges, Monster Supertips
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (5/5) – Silicone single-flange (3 sizes), tri-flange (2 sizes), and Comply foam tips, gel-filled (6 sizes) and foam (5 sizes) Monster supertips, buttoned carrying case, soft carrying pouch, over-the-ear cable guides, 1/4” adapter, and shirt clip
Build Quality (4/5) – Almost identical to the Turbine Pro Gold – sturdy metal shells, proper strain reliefs all around, and a thick but flexible cable. One odd observation of mine is that the Turbine Pro Coppers are more susceptible to driver flex than the cheaper Golds are
Isolation (3.5/5) – Very good for a dynamic-driver IEM and compounded by the excellent tip selection
Microphonics (4/5) – Low when worn over-the-ear; slightly bothersome otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – Despite the weighty housings they stay in extremely well both cord-up and cord-down. The variety of included tips makes it easy to find a good seal right out of the box

Sound (8.8/10) – When I first learned that I’d be getting a go at the Monster Turbine Pro Coppers, I did some reading and figured that they would be a more appealing lighter on the bass – heavier on the treble version of my own Turbine Pro Golds. But, as is usually the case with top-tier IEMs, the truth is more complex than that. The Coppers do indeed have a smaller bass hump than the Golds, resulting in a lesser overall quantity of bass compared to the MTPG and similarly-bassy Sennheiser IE8. Die-hard bassheads may want to pick up one of the others instead but for the rest of us the bass power and impact of the MTPC should be plentiful. As with the MTPG, the bass is not aggressive but rather controlled and non-intrusive. It carries good depth and body with natural-sounding attack and decay. Resolution is impressive as well, with individual notes distinguishable all the way down.

The midrange follows the typical Monster Turbine formula – smooth, full-bodied, and neither forward nor recessed. The reduced bass intensity of the Coppers results in a slightly thinner sound compared to the Golds, which in turn leads to slight gains in clarity and transparency. The Coppers are also not quite as warm as the Golds are, though I still wouldn’t call them neutral. On the whole, the midrange is lush and musical. Vocals come across strong and vocal timbre is quite natural. Sibilance is kept to a minimum, though admittedly the more laid-back Golds do a better job of clamping down on sibilance-prone tracks. The treble is reasonably strong and carries some sparkle without becoming overly edgy or fatiguing. It still doesn’t sound as crisp as the treble of certain BA-based earphones or the more analytical dynamics (RE0, RE252) but performs better than the MTPG without adding much potential for listening fatigue.

The presentation of the Coppers is not the largest among all IEMs but it is quite adequate in both depth and width. The imaging and positioning do not possess the pinpoint accuracy certain other earphones are capable of providing but, like that of the MTPG, the sound of the MTPC is extremely blended, which may actually seem more natural to some compared to the Sennheiser IE8 with its football-field-sized soundstage or the Westone UM3X with its holographic separation. The same goes for individual notes, which sound slightly ‘rounded’ with the Monster Turbine earphones, as opposed to the crips and highly-defined notes produced by some of the BA-based in-ears.

Finally, a few usability notes – as with the MTPG, the Coppers like a relatively shallow seal. Trying to achieve ear-penetrating insertion with them has a tendency to collapse the soundstage. Also shared with the Golds is the hunger for additional power. For the most part, the MTPC does play fine straight out of portable players but it scales with added power. The MTPC is also less engaging at lower volumes than analytical earphones tend to be. On the upside, the Coppers won’t quite crucify lower-bitrate files the way the UM3X or Ety ER4 will – as with the other Turbine earphones, the natural smoothness tends to gloss over some of the finer imperfections of the recordings, which in itself may be a strong selling point for some.

Value (8/10) – As with most $200+ earphones, the value of the MTPC is only as high as its alignment with the listener’s preferences. Though far less polarizing than the Audio-Technica IEMs or Westone UM3X, the MTPC will still appeal more to some listeners than others – namely those who find the bassy and highly blended sound of the Coppers to sound natural, or at least refreshing. Personally, though I do feel that the MTPC is a step in the right direction from my own MTPG, I really don’t feel that it’s a significant improvement. It also somehow sounds less special – the MTPG may not be as accurate but it is thick, smooth, and fun. Don’t get me wrong – the Coppers are excellent earphones – clear and refined, with plenty of bass for most listeners and treble quantity to match. With street prices hovering just above those of the MTPG and Monster’s excellent warranty acting as a value-adding proposition, the Coppers are not difficult to recommend, especially for those who aren’t sure that they will enjoy a truly analytical sound and yet don’t want the more mainstream sound provided by the warm and bassy Golds. But I won’t call them the best thing since sliced bread, either.

Pros: Excellent build quality, comfortable, massive fit kit, not as vulgar to behold as MTPG, smooth, balanced, and dynamic sound
Cons: Some microphonics can be coerced from the cable

Special thanks to rawrster once again for generously lending me the MTPC for the full duration of my review regimen

(1C7) Monster Miles Davis Tribute

Reviewed Oct 2010

Details: Ostentatious jazz-focused earphones from Monster Cable (note: the Miles Davis tributes are not part of Monster’s artist series)
Current Price: $299 from amazon.com (MSRP: $499.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Sennheiser biflanges, Generic wide-bore single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and tri-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips, Foam tips, Monster supertips (2 sizes), hard velvet-lined storage case, buttoned carrying case, soft carrying pouch, eartip carousel, and shirt clip
Build Quality (4/5) – While the attention to detail is sublime, the build is poorer than that of the MTPG/MTPC due to the slightly thinner and less flexible cable. The rest is similar – sturdy metal shells and proper strain reliefs all around. Driver flex is among the lowest among all dynamic IEMs (in contrast to the MTPC)
Isolation (3.5/5) – Quite good for a dynamic-driver IEM and compounded by the excellent tip selection
Microphonics (3.5/5) – A bit more bothersome than with the MTPG/MTPC when worn cable-down; nonexistent when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The housings are slimmer than those of the Turbine earphones but equally weighty. The fit is similarly secure both when worn cord-up and cord-down. The variety of included tips makes it easy to find a good seal right out of the box and, like the Turbine earphones, the MDs are very forgiving of a shallow seal

Sound (8.9/10) – Despite being at the top of the Monster line-up in suggested retail price, the Miles Davis Tribute is not billed as an upgrade to the two Turbine Pro earphones but rather a specialized ‘sidegrade’ for Jazz lovers. The overall sound of the MD does seem related to both of the Turbine Pro earphones in core characteristics such as dynamic range and speed. In terms of signature the MD are a bit closer to the Golds.

The Miles Davis Tribute is a bass-heavy earphone. Like the Turbine Pro Gold, the MD boasts great bass depth and hits very hard. The sub-bass trumps all but the FutureSonics Atrio and possibly even an IE8 with maxed-out bass. The resulting sound is very full and usually quite pleasant. However, the bass of the MD is more prone to sounding ‘excessive’ than that of the Coppers or Golds, which is not to say that it is lacking control, but rather a reflection of the relative weight of the bass. For an in-ear earphone, the drivers of the MD can really move a whole lot of air – if there’s any earphone that Monster can justifiably dub an ‘in-ear speaker’, the MD Tribute is it. Like the Golds and Coppers, the MDs offer up natural-sounding attack and decay and impressive resolution and texturing but give up the speed and tightness of many similarly-priced BA-based earphones. Interestingly, the reverberant, well-textured, and highly impactful bass of the MDs gives their sound an edge in immersion over much of the competition, even in the BA realm. Compared to the venerable Earsonics SM3, for example, the MDs clearly aren’t nearly as wide or spacious but yet still sound ‘bigger’ on the whole.

The midrange of the MD is warm, smooth, and slightly forward in nature. It is more textured than that of the Golds and more present than that of the Coppers, treading gently between smoothness and clarity. There is no better word to describe the midrange of the MDs than ‘lush’. Those who value clarity above all will want to stick to armature-based in-ears but for a noticeably thicker note and more ‘musical’ sound, the Miles Davis Tributes are hard to beat. Interestingly, the smooth and liquid MD Tributes don’t drop any detail in comparison to the thinner-sounding Turbine Pro Coppers. They also maintain the natural timbre of the Coppers while doing almost as good a job as the Golds of clamping down on sibilance – a fine combination of sonic properties.

The treble, too, falls close to the two Turbine Pro models in emphasis. As with the Coppers, it is not lacking in extension or detail except when compared to the truly limitless BA-based earphones out there. Unlike the MTPC, however, the Miles Davis Tributes never make me feel as though the top end has been ‘tweaked’ for greater sparkle and detail – they never sound overly prominent the way the Coppers can. Instead, the treble is very natural – soft but very well-defined – and listening fatigue is nil.

The presentation of the MDs is also nothing I haven’t heard before. Soundstage size is close to that of the Golds – not the largest but quite spacious. The warm and mid-forward MDs do tend slightly towards intimacy but still sound spacious next to the Westone UM3X and Earsonics SM3. Separation is quite good and individual instruments are easy to pick out. Like the two Turbine Pro earphones, the MDs don’t provide pinpoint accuracy but do handle large compositions well. They also have a pretty impressive dynamic range and handle subtlety surprisingly well for a warm-and-bassy earphone. They sound a bit better at lower volumes than the Coppers and Golds do and are also some of most forgiving high-end earphones when it comes to poor mastering or low-quality rips, though of course much potential is wasted when using them with 128 kbps mp3s.

Value (8/10) – The Monster Miles Davis Tribute is devastatingly expensive but what you get is a beautifully packaged and unique-looking earphone that lags just behind the two cheaper Turbine Pro earphones in overall usability. Though the MD is slimmer and can be a bit more comfortable, isolation is slightly lower than that of the Turbine earphones and microphonics in the skinnier cable are worse. The sound of the Miles Davis, on the other hand, leaves little to be desired. Treading a fine line between the signatures of the Turbine Pro models, the Miles Davis sounds like a culmination of the Monster sound – a more refined Turbine. No matter the track or genre, the Miles Davis sounds special. Whether that makes it worth the price is up to the individual listener.

Pros: Beautiful packaging & presentation; solid build quality & comfort; massive fit kit; smooth, powerful, and dynamic sound
Cons: Very flashy design, can be microphonic

Special thanks to Inks for generously lending me the Monster MD for the full duration of my review regimen

(1C8) Westone 3

Reviewed Nov 2010

Details: Flagship earphone from Westone’s consumer series
Current Price: $350 from amazon.com (MSRP: $569.00)
Specs: Driver: Triple BA | Imp: 30Ω | Sens: 107 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Comply P-series, Large Ety tri-flange
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange conical (3 sizes) and rounded (3 sizes) silicone tips, triple-flange silicone tips, Comply foam tips (3 sizes), ¼” adapter, in-line volume control, filter and tip cleaning tool, and hard clamshell carrying case with carabiner
Build Quality (4.5/5) – As with the Westone 1 and UM3X, the housings of the Westone 3 are made of plastic and the multi-strand cables are twisted for extra strength. The y-split, housing entry, and 3.5mm L-plug are all very well-relieved though the consumer-oriented nature of the W3 shows next to the UM3X monitors
Isolation (3.5/5) – Quite good when longer tips are used
Microphonics (5/5) – The W3 can only be worn over-the-ear and microphonics are nonexistent
Comfort (3.5/5) – The shells are quite ‘fat’ in comparison to the Westone 1 and quite a bit heavier. The nozzle is also a bit short for my liking - the UM3X actually fits me better than the W3 does - and longer tips are required for me to maintain a seal. Combine that with the fact that the W3 is very sensitive to seal quality and overall comfort suffers somewhat as a result

Sound (9.1/10) – What first made me interested in the Westone 3 was just how polarizing the effects of its sound were on people. Few things are more exciting than getting to the bottom of just why a certain sound signature is controversial. Much like my beloved Audio-Technica CK10 and CK100, the Westone 3 had to be worth trying. In my time at head-fi I’ve heard the W3 described in every way imaginable – v-shaped and balanced, bassy and rolled-off, warm and neutral, accurate and muddy – the list goes on. Truth is, the W3 is all of those things - and none of them. Part of the problem is the housing design – the ‘tubby’ W3s really need a deep seal to sound their best but can put up one hell of a fight even with the included P-series Complys. Long tips are a must since the nozzle is short and improperly-angled. I ended up using large Ety trips off of my HF3, which made the W3 less comfortable but more consistent in sealing with my ear.

With the earphones properly sealed, the sound signature becomes fairly consistent. The bass has lots of weight – the W3 is easily the most bass-heavy armature-based earphone I’ve heard. Impact is on-par with the ATH-CK90Pro but the bass of the Westone 3 is more tactile and full-bodied. The UE TF10, another impactful triple-armature, sounds a bit more ‘punchy’ and has better depth than the W3 but lacks the sheer bass slam and volume of the Westones – the W3 is definitely ‘bassier’ in the conventional sense. It can be a little excessive, depending on track and personal preferences. There is a hint of mid/upper-bass bloat, making the W3 sound just a touch muddy compared to tight-and-fast dual armature models (CK10, DBA-02, q-JAYS, etc). Even Westone’s own W2 sounds cleaner in the lows, though it lacks the impact and body of the flagship. Worth noting is that a few decibels of equalization in the 100-150Hz range can really help level the W3 out while preserving the excellent depth and texture of the low end.

The midrange of the Westone 3 is very impressive when taken on its own merit but can often be overshadowed by the huge bass weight and treble energy of the earphones and the slight recession towards the upper mids does little to help matters. On the whole the midrange is not as thick and creamy as the mids of the UM3X and Earsonics SM3, focusing instead on detail and transparency. It can be just a touch warm on certain tracks but for the most part remains unaffected by the bass. It is also a bit dry but can get much closer to the ATH-CK10 in clarity than the UM3X, SM3, or even TF10. Like all of my Westones the W3 is also magical with female vocals – I don’t know what it is about Westone earphones but the W1, W2, and W3 all make the few vocal albums I have sound sublime. The W3 is quite a bit crisper than the W1 and W2, however, and gives guitars a bit more edge and bite than the lower-end models do.

The treble of the W3 often falls under harsh critique but I’m convinced that the difficulty of achieving the ideal seal with the earphones is undoubtedly a large part of the problem. With a mediocre seal the W3 can be painfully sibilant; with a good seal – mildly so. Only when I was able to get a proper, deep seal did the sibilance retreat far enough to become nearly unnoticeable. Even so, the W3 will accentuate whatever sibilance is present on the recording, not unlike the CK10 or even the higher-end Etys. It should be noted that Comply tips do their usual trick of muffling the treble slightly, which may actually be desirable with the W3 (in stark contrast to the UM3X or SM3). Smoothness aside, the high end of the earphones is crisp, detailed, and sparkly. The notes produced by the W3 can be a bit hard-edged, particularly next to a softer and gentler earphone such as the W2 or even UE TF10, but not over-defined to the point of sounding unnatural. Extension is merely good - despite the 3-way crossover design, the W3 doesn’t sound quite as limitless at the top as the CK10/CK100 or even RE0.

The difference in emphasis between bass, midrange, and treble in the Westone 3 really makes me think that the output of the three armatures was purposely mismatched for a bass- and treble-heavy sound – not necessarily a bad thing but it does make the W3 sound slightly less ‘blended’ than, say, the UM3X or CK100. Tonally, however, the W3 is pretty colorless – closer to what I would call ‘neutral’ than the UM3X or SM3, especially in the midrange. The presentation of the earphones is impressive as well. The soundstage is big – wider and deeper than that of the UM3X – and imaging is excellent. Separation is not quite up there with the UM3X or SM3 but the Westone 3 never sounds run-together in any way. Headstage, which is rarely talked about with IEMs, is impressive as well – just a touch poorer than with the CK10 but much less confined than with most in-ears. Interestingly, though the Westone 2 can portray distance better than the W3 can, the flagship still sounds bigger and more 3-dimensional. The same is true of the Earsonics SM3 but in reverse – the SM3 sounds more spacious and its soundstage is both taller and wider than that of the W3 despite the W3 being less intimate in presentation.

Finally, a word on usability: the Westone 3 is an extremely efficient earphone despite the mildly deceiving specifications. The UE TF10, which on paper is more sensitive, actually requires a good 15-20% more volume for me. As a result, there is a bit of hiss present when using the W3 with many portable players, especially the more powerful ‘audiophile’ ones such as the S:Flo2 and Cube C30. On the upside, there’s nearly no chance that the output of the W3 will be too low with any source.

Value (7.5/10) – As is often the case with high-end in-ears, the Westone 3 is tailored to a specific listening preference with its powerful bass, clear and dry midrange, and shimmery treble. There is much to like and (potentially) much to despise about it – those looking for the ‘safe’ choice would probably be better off with the TF10 or e-Q7. The W3 is not the nearly-flawless package that is the SM3 or the completely non-fatiguing UM3X but it is far more exciting and lively. Similarly to the TF10, it is the ‘wow’ factor that makes the Westone 3 special – listening to it is an intense, explosive experience. It is also a unique product in combining the sparkle, crispness, and clarity of more analytical earphones with body, note thickness, and weight. Naturally, getting the best out of the earphone requires a very good seal and can take some experimenting but fit & comfort aside the W3 is as good an all-rounder as any other earphone in its price bracket – just one with a very peculiar flavor.

Pros: Impressive isolation, build quality, and accessory pack; good bass & soundstaging
Cons: Highly fit-dependent, not as balanced as many other multi-armature setups

Big thanks to HeadphoneAddict for an extended loan of the Westone 3 that coincided perfectly with my brief stint owning the both the Westone 1 and 2

(1C9) EarSonics SM3 (v1)

Reviewed Dec 2010

Details: 3-way universal flagship from French audio firm Earsonics
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP $399)
Specs: Driver: Triple BA | Imp: 34Ω | Sens: 122 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Sensorcom bi-flanges, stock bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Bi-flange silicone tips, Comply foam tips (2 sizes), filter and tip cleaning tool, and hard zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The lightweight shells are made of two plastic halves (one black, one clear) but don’t feel quite as sturdy as those of the Westone UM3X. The light multi-strand cables are twisted for extra strength and properly relieved both on housing entry and at the Y-split. A meaty 3.5mm L-plug completes the picture
Isolation (3.5/5) – Quite good when longer tips are used
Microphonics (5/5) – Can only be worn over-the-ear so microphonics are nonexistent
Comfort (3.5/5) – The housings of the SM3 are about the same size as those of the UM3X but rear corners of the squared-off shells – a stark contrast to the smooth lines of the UM3X - can cause long-term discomfort for those with smaller ears. I ended up using longer tips and leaving the shells outside of my ears in order to wear the earphones for more than an hour at a time

Sound (9.2/10) – The Earsonics SM3 is a high-end three-way triple-driver stage monitor designed to compete directly with the Westone UM3X, an earphone that, while technically proficient, never really appealed to me on a personal level with its intimate presentation and viscous sound. Expectedly, the general signature of the SM3 is not too far off from the UM3X but it is the differences that make it a better consumer-class earphone in my view.

The bass of the SM3 isn’t all that different from that of the UM3X. It is generally deep and well-controlled – not as tight as with some of the leaner, more analytical earphones (e.g. CK10 & DBA-2) but definitely not loose. It is quick and well-weighted but always remains a bit soft in character. Across the range, but especially at the low end, the SM3 retains a roundness of note that reminds me of some of the higher-end dynamic-driver earphones I’ve heard as opposed to bass-happy armatures like the W3 and TF10, which generally have more immediate bass impact. The bass of the SM3 is not ruler-flat, rolling off slightly at the lowest of lows, and won’t satisfy a true basshead, but for me it is plentiful in quantity. Compared, for example, to the Westone 2, the low end of the SM3 manages to be crisper and more impactful at the same time – an impressive feat that shows off the optimization of the bass driver.

The midrange is most definitely the meat of the SM3’s sound signature. The earphones are slightly mid-forward but, unlike the UM3X, the SM3 doesn’t really ‘push’ its midrange on the listener. It has an uncanny ability to ‘center’ the vocalist in its headstage, seemingly escaping stereo separation almost completely, but at the same time avoids the somewhat excessive intimacy of the UM3X. The SM3 is generally only slightly warm in tone but can lean towards greater warmth, depending on source and track. The mids are smooth, sweet, lush, and full, with the same roundness of note as the low end. Transparency is good but not the best I’ve heard, and the same goes for the clarity – the SM3 simply isn’t lean enough to compete with the CK10 or DBA-02 on that front. Even the UE TF10 has slightly better clarity in the midrange than the SM3, though it sounds somewhat hollow and nasal next to the full and forward SM3. Detail retrieval is great but the microdetailing is again not as good as with the CK10 or DBA-02 because the SM3 just isn’t aggressive enough with presenting detail, occasionally requiring conscious effort to hear the minute details. Vocal timbre is excellent, however, even next to the Westone 2, which has some of the better vocal representation among the IEMs I own, with both earphones making the ATH-CK10 sound slightly metallic in comparison.

At the high end the SM3 is laid back and very smooth, again not unlike the UM3X. I do hear a bit more extension out of the SM3 but the difference isn’t great. The treble is neither particularly prominent nor notably deficient - there really is no frequency range in which the SM3 lacks presence - but could definitely use a bit more emphasis for my tastes. Don’t get me wrong - the treble of the SM3 is neither rolled off nor recessed – just not particularly aggressive. With a slightly different overall sound signature the treble would be perfectly adequate - there is even some sparkle to be had - but it’s quite easy to lose next to the buttery mids and healthy low end of the Earsonics. It should be noted that the detail of the SM3 is made all the more impressive by the lack of aggression in presenting it but critical listening with the SM3 will require some effort on the part of the listener, at least initially. As an aside, using Comply tips with the SM3 is not recommended as the tips seem to soak up what little sparkle and energy there is. Other than that there was little need to bother with tips, at least for me – the SM3 is not nearly as sensitive to tip selection as, say, the Westone 3 or UE TF10, which may be one of the reasons for the Earsonics being generally well-received.

Aside from a sound signature without any definite flaws, the biggest strength of the SM3 is undoubtedly its presentation. It is a fairly wide-sounding earphone – not the largest I’ve heard but clearly above average. I think that for a BA setup the soundstage of the SM3 is very close to being the perfect size, though it has taken me a while to figure out why. A massive stage works (more or less) for something like the Sennheiser IE8, with its huge bass and immense dynamic presence, but an armature-based earphone would sound thinner trying to fill all of that space. In addition, the soundstage of the IE8 has an ‘inner limit’, meaning that it seems to start some distance away from the listener, while the ability to accurately portray intimacy is one of the necessary hallmarks of good stage monitors like the SM3 and UM3X. The ‘front-and-center’ vocal presentation that the SM3 does so well simply wouldn’t work with a soundstage like that of the Sennheisers. The stage of the SM3 also has good depth and, surprisingly, decent height, though it is conceivable that the SM3 will sound too 3-dimensional to some. Indeed, the SM3 is almost artificially enveloping for an IEM and as a result acclimating to it can take longer than with most IEMs (the same is true for the Radius DDM, though for slightly different reasons). Personally, I feel that the soundstage of the SM3 would be easier to get accustomed to for those with minimal experience with higher-end earphones and more perplexing for those used to the presentation of other high-end IEMs.

Moving on, there are definitely earphones with more air than the SM3 but usually as a result of brighter and/or thinner sound. Separation is very good without seeming exaggerated as it can be with the Westone UM3X. Layering and imaging are both quite good – instruments take on the proper distance and direction cues and there is ample air around each. Within the confines of the SM3’s overly-enveloping soundstage the imaging is quite realistic. The dynamics are good as well – a necessity for proper presentation – but not the best I’ve heard. Compared head-to-head with the Monster MD, for example, the SM3 struggles to sound as soft or as powerful at the limits but comes respectably close.

The smooth and thick presentation, complete with slightly ‘rounded’ notes compared to many other BA-based earphones, is effortless, polished, and refined. The SM3 is non-fatiguing but accurate. It sounds less like a musician’s tool (a-la UM3X) and more like a consumer listening device that nevertheless remains true to source. I can’t call the SM3 exciting but at the same time it’s not an analytical earphone. I don’t consider the UM3X analytical, either, but its ‘dissection kit’ presentation can be too boring for much of my music. The SM3 takes the comfortable middle ground between the UM3X and uncompromisingly ‘fun’ earphones such as the TF10 and Westone 3. Like all of the other top-tier IEMs, the SM3 is still far from being all things to all people. However, it is much more difficult to hate than it is to like, helped in part by its consistency with different tips and sources. Overall, the SM3 is an extremely efficient earphone with just enough sensitivity headroom to avoid hissing like a snake with a poorly matched source. In my experience, experimenting with tips and amps brings about improvements that are marginal at best.

Value (8/10) – As an earphone that doesn't do a whole lot wrong, the SM3 is not unique, but it also seduces with its enveloping soundstage and thick, creamy midrange. Even those who do not value the flavour of the SM3 will find it (at worst) to be a decent top-tier universal while those who do like the signature will be in sonic paradise. On a personal note, while I belong to the former category, I have to say this in closing: there are songs in my music collection that I always skip – songs kept mostly for sentimental or nostalgic value – but with the SM3 I was forced to listen to them all the way through. This earphone is not the end of the road for me, but it may just be for many others.

Pros: No microphonics; Smooth, liquid, and detailed sound; no real signature flaws; enveloping presentation
Cons: Angled housings lead to potential comfort issues

Special thanks to violinvirtuoso for generously offering to lend me the SM3 and allowing me to put it through the full testing regimen.

(1C10) JVC HA-FX700

Reviewed Feb 2011

Details: JVC’s wooden in-ear flagship
Current Price: $340 from seyo-shop.com (MSRP: $360)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 104 dB | Freq: 6-26k Hz | Cable: 2.6’ I-plug + 2.3’ L-plug extension
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: UE Single flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), foam tips (2 sizes), 2.3’ (0.7m) extension cable, and protective magnetic-clasp carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The build of the FX700 is a fusion of beautifully-machined wood and various metal alloys. The earphones look and feel like a flagship product – I imagine the air of quality and sophistication surrounding the HA-FX700 is similar to JVC’s HA-DX1000 headphone. They are big, heavy, and flawless in craftsmanship. The rear port and nozzle are both protected by metal meshes and the cable entry point features a ¾”-long strain relief in addition to metal reinforcement. The cable itself is similar to the cords found on JVC’s lower-end products – soft, reasonably thick, and quite flexible. The 2.6’+2.3’ cable configuration is very annoying, however, as the cord is too short to be used without the extension and way too long with the extension added on
Isolation (2/5) – The FX700 is an open-back IEM and isolates slightly less than Sennheiser’s IE8 or Phiaton’s half in-ear designs
Microphonics (5/5) – Cable noise is extremely low when the FX700 is worn cord-down and nonexistent with over-the-ear fitment
Comfort (4/5) – The HA-FX700 boasts a familiar angled-nozzle design with a large driver hump near the front of the housing. Size-wise the JVCs are quite large – noticeably larger than Denon’s AH-C710s, which have a similar form factor. Still, the driver bulge provides a secure fit and the earphones are quite comfortable in the long run despite the heft

Sound (9.1/10) – Despite the misleading ‘HA-FX1000’ moniker given to the Japanese version of JVC’s previous wooden in-ear, the (newer) HA-FX700 is the definitely the company’s flagship earphone. The open-back design of the earphone pretty much guarantees poor isolation and since isolation translates almost directly to sound quality out in the real world, the FX700 only shows its true capabilities in quiet environments. Its lively and aggressive sound signature is not one commonly found among top-tier dynamic-driver IEMs but after an initial adjustment period, the FX700 leaves no doubt as to its standing among the best dynamics. As a general rule I am not a fan of the ‘ton of bass + ton of treble' approach to audio, which partially explains why I like the Monster Golds and Miles Davis Tributes better than the Coppers, but these JVCs sound incredibly natural and effortless. That said, I still think that the FX700 sounds best at low volumes since the bass and treble both tend to become more dominant as the volume is increased.

The bass of the HA-FX700 has what is quite possibly the best balance of quantity and control in the IEM realm. Though it is clearly not as tight and quick as the bass on most of my BA-based earphones, it does sound quicker than that of the Monster MD or Sennheiser IE8. The response of the FX700 is also a bit more linear than that of the MD, though both have great depth and extension. The MD has slightly more rumble and bass power on the whole but the FX700 really doesn’t lack either. Due to the combination of speed and high impact, the bass of the FX700 is a little ‘aggressive’. As a result, it can be excessive for my liking – the FX700 could do with a more subbass-biased balance (a-la Hippo VB), which would make the lower midrange a little more neutral, but then it would be a different earphone.

Despite the aggressive bass, the midrange of the FX700 is cleaner and clearer than those of the Monster MD or Sennheiser IE8. It attempts to strike a balance between clear-and-detailed (a-la RE252) and the smoother, thicker sound of most high-end dynamics. The FX700 is still not a neutral earphone and there is definitely some warmth to the midrange, but it is more on-level with the Ortofon e-Q7 than the IE8/MD. Yes, most of the thinner-sounding high-end armatures still have the upper hand when it comes to clarity and microdetail, but it is amazing how close the (comparatively) gigantic dynamic drivers of the FX700 come to those levels of performance. In terms of balance, the midrange is not as aggressive as the bass or treble and has a tendency to become slightly subdued at higher volumes, which certainly preserves the spirit of the fun, ‘v-shaped’ earphone. However, on several occasions I ended up catching myself thinking that the pushy nature of the bass can be detrimental to the overall musical experience afforded by the JVCs.

The timbre of the earphones is worthy of particular mention – I can’t make any claims as to whether the materials used in the construction of the housings have any effect on how they sound but the timbre of the FX700 is outstanding. As a result, the JVCs have some of the most realistic reproduction of stringed instruments I’ve heard out of an in-ear, adding to their excellent timbre the right amount of crispness, detail, and texture for the most minute nuances of string motion to be distinguished. Being an armature type of person, the only other higher-end dynamic I have on hand at the moment is the Sennheiser IE7, and next to the FX700 it is especially apparent how plasticky the IE7 actually sounds.

As hinted above, the treble of the FX700 is nearly as prominent as the bass. Though it is not harsh or sibilant except when necessary to remain faithful to the original recording, it is abundant in quantity and boasts plentiful sparkle and good clarity. Top-end extension is excellent and overall the treble reminds me more of the detailed and extended top end of the IE8 than the softer-sounding Monster MD or HiFiMan RE262. The sparkle of the FX700 makes it quite edgy for a dynamic-driver earphone, but given the choice between the overly-exciting top end of the FX700 and the slightly boring treble of the RE262, I see myself going for the JVCs every time.

Similarly interesting is the presentation of the FX700 – though the JVCs don’t have the out-of-the-head feel of the IE8, soundstaging doesn’t leave a whole lot to be desired. Soundstage width is good but the depth and layering are superb, resulting in accurate portrayal of both distance and intimacy. The impressive imaging gives the earphones an immersive overall feel, though I still feel that, as with most IEMs, the soundstage of the FX700 is slightly elliptical in nature, i.e. lacking just a bit of front-to-rear and top-to-bottom positioning.

Value (8/10) – Like the earphone’s aesthetics and construction quality, the sound of the JVC HA-FX700s is unique and substantial. The JVCs easily run side by side with the other top-tier dynamics in technical proficiency and, on several counts, come out ahead of the field. The drivers JVC used in the FX700 are extremely impressive and manage to shrug off tracks of any complexity, never sounding strained or overwhelmed. The HA-FX700 is, at long last, a high-end dynamic-driver earphone for those who prefer lively and aggressive ‘v-shaped’ sound to the softer, warmer signatures of the IE8/Monster MD/RE262/MTPG. When it comes to practicality, the value of the FX700 is more questionable – for an IEM the FX700 isolates very little and can become fatiguing if the volume is raised significantly to compensate. If ever there was a top-tier earphone for home use, this is it, but out in the real world the FX700’s competitors may win the fight without throwing a punch.

Pros: Impossibly dynamic and articulate sound; natural and involving presentation; great build quality; nearly no microphonics
Cons: Sub-par isolation; odd cable length; can be slightly fatiguing at higher volumes

Once again huge thanks to Inks for loaning me his FX700 for review

(1C11) Radius HP-TWF21

Reviewed Mar 2011

Details: Radius’s follow-up to the world’s first dual-dynamic driver earphone
Current Price: N/A (discontinued; price as tested $250) (MSRP: $298)
Specs: Driver: Dual Dynamic | Imp: 24 Ω | Sens: 107 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (6 pairs), cleaning cloth, L-plug adapter, and hard clamshell carrying case with removable cord winder
Build Quality (3.5/5) – Overall build quality is very similar to the old DDM – the housings are completely plastic and the cord is nylon-sheathed for durability. The thin-stem design of the TWF21 does mean that the earphones probably won’t survive being stepped on the way higher-end Audio-Technica or Ortofon models might but for general use they should last if treated well. The nylon-sheathed cable is flexible and tangle-resistant and features a sliding rubber cinch. The metal-jacketed 3.5mm I-plug has a short rubber strain relief, same as the original DDM
Isolation (2/5) – Being a half-in-ear design with a rear vent, the TWF21 really doesn’t isolate much more than the original DDM did
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Less bothersome than with the original DDM but exacerbated by the fact that the TWF21 is very difficult to wear cord-up
Comfort (4/5) – With my average-sized ears, the fit of the new Radius is much more pleasant than that of the old earphone. The earbud-like design is reminiscent of the mid-range Phiaton models and Audio-Technica’s CKS series and fits perfectly into my outer ear. I especially like the way the cable exit point is positioned away from the antitragus – makes the earphones very comfortable for prolonged listening sessions. However, as is usually the case with earbud-style IEMs, over-the-ear wear without swapping channels is nearly impossible. I do also wish a larger selection of tips was included but other than that I have absolutely no problems with the fit

Sound (8.8/10) – The promotional materials for the new Radius claim that the earphone has been “carefully tuned” to provide more modest lows and clearer highs compared to the TWF11. Both of these claims are true to a degree but there is no mistaking the TWF21 for an analytical earphone. The bass, for one, is still quite heavy-handed. Low end extension is very good, competing with the likes of the Monster Turbine Pro Gold and Future Sonics Atrio. Sub-bass rumble is likewise plentiful and there should be enough impact for all but the most unreasonable bass lovers. It is only the lack of a pronounced mid-bass hump that keeps the TWF21 from become a total bass monster. The reasonably level bass prevents the low end from becoming dominant over the rest of the signature unless called on by the recording. For an earphone with such impressive bass presence, the TWF21 is surprisingly soft-footed and polite with most of my test tracks – a far cry from the aggressive, hard-hitting bass of earphones like the Fischer Audio Eterna. It is not the sprightliest of earphones but it performed better than I expected with the Exaile album I’ve been listening to lately. At the same time, the attack and decay times are natural enough for realistic portrayal of the instruments in my classical and jazz recordings.

Because the bass of the TWF21 is so linear, midrange bleed is fairly low even next to the other top-tier bass-heavy dynamics. The midrange is warm, smooth, and slightly thick. To my ears it is neither forward nor recessed but otherwise reminds me of the HiFiMan RE262. Not a bad job by Radius as the 262 is one of the most technically capable dynamic-driver earphones I’ve ever heard. Detail and clarity are likewise very close to those of the best dynamics. Like that of the original DDM, the midrange of the TWF21 is fluid and oddly delicate. It is not as transparent as that of the Yuin OK1 or certain BA-based earphones but doesn’t lag too far behind, either. The treble, similarly, is smooth and polite. Like the original DDM, the TWF21 is quite laid-back at the top and leans towards the darker side of things when it comes to tone. Comparatively speaking, I feel that the TWF21 has just a bit more treble presence than the TWF11 but still lacks the effortlessness and extension of the Sennheiser IE8 or RE262. Similarly, the treble crispness and energy characteristic of many armature-based earphones is nowhere to be found. The detail, for the most part, is still there but it is presented softly and unassumingly. As a result, I’ve found myself turning the volume up a little higher than usual on a number of occasions.

The presentation of the TWF21 is spacious and engrossing. Personally, I think presentation is where the new and old Radius models most differ. Since I switch earphones very often, I never quite managed to get used to the way the original DDM presented music – the oddly intimate feel despite the out-of-the-head soundstage, combined with the thickness and sweetness of the earphones, never really worked right away when switching to the DDM from any other earphone. No such problems with the TWF21 – the soundstage is still just as wide and deep as that of the old earphone but is no harder to get used to than that of my Sennheiser IE7 or Xears TD-III. Actually, the presentations of the TWF21 and TD-III share several characteristics aside from large size – both earphones are a bit happier presenting intimacy than distance and neither has the pinpoint-accurate positioning of a high-end BA-based earphone such as the ATH-CK10 or Westone 4. Similarly, both earphones fare better than average when it comes to dynamics and accurate portrayal of timbre; in the case of the TWF21 – significantly better than average. Lastly, the TWF21 does like being given a bit of extra juice. Depending on the source and/or amp used, giving the DDM some leeway in available power can make it sound more dynamic, more fluid, and even more detailed. Not a night-and-day difference, but it is noticeable.

Value (6.5/10) – Considering the overwhelmingly positive reception of the sound of the original DDM, it is no surprise that the signature of the new Radius HP-TWF21 strays little from that of its predecessor. There are minor tweaks to the bass and treble but the biggest difference for me is in the presentation – the original DDM really took a bit of getting used to but the new one consistently puts a smile on my face within the first few minutes of listening. Similarly, while the day-to-day usability of the original Radius DDM was at best a mixed bag, the new earphone is easier to live with. The isolation and build quality have not undergone significant improvement but the new earbud-style housings fit me much better and the cable noise is less noticeable. Whether the improvements are worth the extra ~$120 over the TWF11 is a personal choice but for those who, like me, were never quite happy with the fit of the original, the revision brings about a welcome leveling of sound quality and functionality - not a bad deal at all considering how well the W-series earphones perform to start with.

Pros: Oh-so-beautiful sound, very nice carrying case, comfortable half-in-ear form factor
Cons: Mediocre isolation, significantly pricier than TWF11 PRO model

For a full review of the TWF21 with better photos see here

(1C12) Ortofon e-Q5

Reviewed Apr 2011

Details: Second in-ear earphone from well-known cartridge maker Ortofon
Current Price: $288 from musicaacoustics.com (MSRP: ~$290)
Specs: Driver: Moving Armature | Imp: 40Ω | Sens: 117 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrid
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes), Comply foam tips, filter changing kit with two pairs of spare filters, filter cleaning tool, and ‘tin can’ storage case
Build Quality (4/5) – Weighty aluminum shells with rubber strain reliefs feel rather solid. The cabling has been improved over the e-Q7, with the nylon sheath below the y-split replaced by thick and flexible plastic cabling reminiscent of the stellar CK10 cord and a new, flexible strain relief on the 3.5mm plug. There is still no cable cinch and no external strain relief on the shells but as a total package the build of the e-Q5 easily keeps up with that of its predecessor
Isolation (3.5/5) – The nozzle is still short and deep insertion is only possible with longer tips but isolation is nevertheless impressive
Microphonics (4/5) – The flexible cable of the e-Q5 makes them a bit easier to wear over-the-ear (compared to the e-Q7) despite the odd design but microphonics are still quite good even with cable-down fitment
Comfort (4/5) – For those with smaller ears the short nozzles and wide housings of the e-Q5 may be uncomfortable but I found them surprisingly inoffensive even over longer listening sessions. I’d still like a set of cable guides or at least a cable cinch to be included but for everyday use they are quite convenient

Sound (9.1/10) – Ortofon’s first attempt at implementing a moving armature transducer – the e-Q7 – laid down the foundation for the other MA earphones released thus far. However, while it is an excellent performer overall, the e-Q7 never really appealed to me personally with its slightly mid-centric sound and laid-back treble presentation. Enter the e-Q5, Ortofon’s second in-ear and the least expensive moving armature earphone on the market. Despite its many sonic resemblances to the e-Q7, the e-Q5 provides a more neutral and balanced sound, acting to bridge the gap between the e-Q7 and earphones such as the brighter, more fluid-sounding dual-BA ATH-CK10.

Cliché as it sounds, one thing can be said with certainty about the bass of the e-Q5 – the apple has not fallen far from the tree. The low end presentation of the e-Q5, like that of its predecessor, is very well-rounded. Like the e-Q7, the e-Q5 can be mistaken for a very clean-sounding dynamic-driver earphone when it comes to bass performance. Unlike the e-Q7, the e-Q5 does not emphasize the lower half of its frequency spectrum more than the upper half, which gives the bass a slightly less prominent role in the overall sound. Still, the low end boasts impressive extension and can hardly be said to lack body. Texture and detail levels are very high and the bass is punchy enough to compete with almost all BAs and many of the more analytical-sounding dynamics in impact. On the whole, the low end of the e-Q5 is quick and resolving, yet natural, again striking a good balance between stereotypical armature and dynamic-driver bass.

The mids of the e-Q5 take a more noticeable detour from those of the e-Q7 than does the low end, trading some of the midrange focus of the older model for slightly better balance and a more neutral overall tone. The characteristic thickness of the e-Q7 drops off a bit as well, though the mids of the e-Q5 are still a touch more weighty than those of the ATH-CK10 or UE700 and retain most of the e-Q7’s organic richness. A slight predisposition towards warmth is also still present with the e-Q5 but on the whole the midrange is smooth, refined, and transparent. The note presentation of the e-Q5 is slightly on the soft and gentle side, which results in less aggressive detailing compared to something like the ATH-CK10. In fact, I think the e-Q5 is a bit too smooth on the microscopic level in the midrange and treble, which is why it yields even to the dynamic-driver GR07 ever so slightly when it comes to texture and microdetail.

Compared to that of the e-Q7, the treble of the e-Q5 is more extended and more energetic, making the whole signature lightweight and airy. It is more forward than with the e-Q7 but still retains the softness and refinement of the midrange. Minimal sibilance is noticeable with a handful of tracks but for the most part it is free of any grain or harshness. Detail and clarity are very impressive and there is a fair amount of sparkle to be found. The presentation is altogether not too different from that of the e-Q7 - the air added by the treble definitely plays a role but even with a more e-Q7-like balance, the excellent separation of the earphones would have been noteworthy. The soundstage is spacious and well-rounded. Positioning is fairly precise and the overall presentation is quite convincing – easily on-par with most similarly-priced BA-based and dynamic sets.

Value (8.5/10) – With the e-Q5 the folks at Ortofon have taken a stab at refining an already-competent performer in accordance with customer complaints - out with the fancy packaging and noisy cable of the e-Q7; in with a lower price tag and more balanced sound signature. However, to say that it is an improvement in sound quality over the e-Q7 would be a mistake - for a warmer, more mid-centric sound with excellent texture, the e-Q7 is still the earphone to beat. For me, however, the e-Q5 has both superior practicality and the more appealing sound signature of the two.

Pros: Very refined, detailed, and balanced sound; better cable than pricier e-Q7 model
Cons: No cord cinch, no carrying case, fit issues possible for those with small ears

(1C13) j-phonic K2 SP

Reviewed Nov 2011

Details: customizable universal in-ear from a branch of customs manufacturer Sensaphonics
Current Price: $399 from j-phonic.com (MSRP: $399)
Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 27Ω | Sens: 109 dB | Freq: 20-16k Hz | Cable: varies
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Comply foams (stock), Shure Olives
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Comply T100 foam tips (6 sets in 3 sizes), shirt clip, cleaning tool, and Pelican 1010 water resistant carrying case with carabiner
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The housings are made out of plastic but seem to have been built for strength and lightness above all else. Nozzles and cable entry points are reinforced and the cable is smooth and strong, twisted below the beefy y-split and terminated in one of three lengths with either an I-plug or an L-plug. The lightweight ‘memory wire’ section doesn’t have much memory but also doesn’t get in the way
Isolation (4/5) – Very high due to the fully-sealed, ergonomic shells and foam tips
Microphonics (5/5) – Nonexistent
Comfort (4.5/5) – The ergonomic shells are slim and very lightweight, reminding me of the lower-end Westone earphones except that the notched nozzle places the eartips further inside the ear canal. The shell may be a little too long for smaller ears but with proper insertion depth it should fit most very comfortably. The soft memory wire works well, unlike what Sony’s EX-series monitors use

Sound (9.2/10) – Billed as a custom monitor in a universal shell, the j-phonic K2 SP is tuned to deliver reference-level sound quality at a more reasonable price and in a more versatile form factor. Its sound differs from conventional stage monitors offered by Westone and Earsonics and slightly less so from flat-response reference sets such as the Etymotic ER4S. The K2 SP is borderline analytical in signature and presentation, and yet its bass offers up power and depth more akin to the dynamic-driver VSonic GR07. The low end effortlessly combines the cleanliness of a TWFK-based earphone with the power of a beefy dedicated bass driver. It is not quite as bassy as the Earsonics SM3 and Westone UM3X, but the low end performs brilliantly overall.

On a technical level there is not much to fault with the lows of the K2 SP – mild sub-bass roll-off aside, it’s got fantastic resolution and articulation, surprisingly realistic note weight, and very good speed. Not only is the low end extremely detailed as a result, it makes some dynamic-driver sets sound underpowered. The bass of the HiFiMan RE272, for example, despite being quick and detailed, simply sounds weak, veiled, and lacking in rumble next to the K2 SP. Compared to the Etymotic ER4S, too, the low end of the K2 SP is significantly deeper, fuller, and more prominent. Of all my current monitors, the dynamic-driver VSonic GR07 is closest to the K2 SP in punch and bass balance, though the softer note presentation makes the GR07 sound a touch fuller, and bassier on some tracks as a result. The K2 is disadvantaged only by the inability to move a whole lot of air – for example it will never sound as fleshed-out and dynamic as the consumer-oriented Sony EX1000 with its 16mm dynamic driver.

The midrange of the K2 SP offers up top-notch clarity and detail, coming across resolving and controlled but at the same time very crisp and edgy. The notes are not smoothed out in the least, causing the j-phonics to sound a bit raw and dry next to the HiFiMan RE272 and ATH-CK10. The clarity keeps up with the ATH-CK10 and ER4S but the note weight of the K2 makes the other analytical earphones sound lean, and yet there is still enough crispness to make sets like the ACS T15 and VSonic GR07 sound slightly fuzzy in comparison. Balance-wise, the midrange of the K2 SP is a touch forward – more present than that of the CK10, for example – and picks up a little towards the top, in contrast to the CK10’s flatter mids. As a result, the K2 sounds a touch brighter up until the treble peakiness of the CK10 comes into play.

The treble of the j-phonics is sparkly and extended, not lacking in emphasis by any means but flatter than that of the CK10. It is clean and clear, never getting smeared, but also integrates into the soundscape better than the slightly splashy, hot highs of the CK10. The K2 is not a forgiving earphone, however, and will point out any flaws in the equipment chain or original recording. Its aggressive nature also will not stop it sounding too clinical for some listeners, and it’s worth noting that it only performs at its best with foam tips, such as the included Complys.

The presentation is perhaps the most underwhelming part of the K2’s sound. The soundstage is very slightly above average in size – hardly congested, but far from spacious. It is well-rounded and engaging but simply doesn’t sound as open and airy as the Sony EX1000, HiFiMan RE272, or even VSonic GR07. Instrument separation, however, is easily on the studio monitor level and the K2 can almost match the imaging of the CK10. It sounds more layered than the Ety ER4S but just isn’t for those expecting an IE8 or EX1000-like headstage. Then again, I don’t see why reference earphones should be expected to have the presentation of a consumer-class earphone. Another reason why the K2 SP isn’t a great pick-up-and-go consumer earphone – it’s got a tendency to pick up hiss and electronic noise so don’t expect it to mesh well with the average smartphone or laptop. A solid audio chain or at the very least a decent dedicated audio player or external DAC will make the j-phonics shine.

Value (8/10) – The K2 SP is a purpose-built reference monitor and works wonderfully in that respect. It is solidly constructed, ergonomic, and very user-friendly – exactly what an audio professional would want from a universal in-ear monitor. The sound it produces is clear, detailed, and well-separated, with excellent presence across the spectrum. It is very well-rounded technically but the signature will be far from ideal for many listeners. Those looking for warm and organic, or airy and open can pretty much forget about the K2. It sounds a bit cold and bright compared to stage monitors from Westone and Earsonics, as well as ‘concentrated’ – though not congested – due to a slightly aggressive presentation and average headstage size. Non-analytical listeners might find it a bit lifeless for music, which presumably is what the alternative MX tuning was designed to cover. The K2’s requiring a clean audio source also bears repeating in this age of staticky smartphones and noisy computer audio. That said, those who have their audio chain figured out and are after a reference earphone will be hard pressed to do better than the K2 in any respect.

Pros: Comfortable, well-built, highly isolating; easily one of the best reference earphones on the market; several customization options
Cons: Not well-suited for casual listeners

(1C14) Clear Tune Monitors CTM-200

Reviewed Dec 2011

Details: Dual-driver custom from Florida-based Clear Tune Monitors
Current Price: est. $350 from cleartunemonitors.com (MSRP: est. $350)
Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 17.5Ω | Sens: 110 dB | Freq: 20-15.5k Hz | Cable: 4.6’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: N/A | Preferred tips: N/A
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Velvet storage/carrying case and cleaning tool
Build Quality (5/5) – The CTM-200 utilizes a two-way, dual-bore setup with a Knowles CI-22955 and ED-23619 in each earpiece. The build is good – the exterior of the acrylic shells is clean and free of scratches, with a bit of bubbling on the inside but fantastically clear faceplates. The earphones set themselves apart from the similarly-priced 1964EARS 1964-T by the careful finish of the bores and cable sockets and look more polished than the cheaper Kozee X1 as well. Eighteen color options are available; custom artwork and two-tone schemes for the shells and faceplates each command very a reasonable $25 premium. The cable uses a Westone-size socket and a slightly raised connector
Isolation (4/5) – The isolation provided by the fitted acrylic shells is excellent -slightly below what the higher-end Etymotic Research earphones are capable of with foam or tri-flange tips but higher than that of the ergonomic monitors from Westone and EarSonics
Microphonics (5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent, as is the case with all of the custom monitors I’ve come across
Comfort (5/5) – Putting the customs in requires a bit of getting used to but the twisting motion eventually becomes second nature. The acrylic shells are hard but not in the least uncomfortable when fitted correctly. The fit of the CTM-200 depends on the quality of the initial impressions and skill of the person making the monitors. If the earphones remain even a tiny bit uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a re-fit is probably a good idea. CTM allows refits for an extremely generous 120 days. There is added cost with shipping the monitors back and, if necessary, getting new impressions but on the whole a perfect fit is well worth the trouble

Sound (9.3/10) – The CTM-200 is billed as a low-cost option for professional musicians and discerning listeners alike. I have no issues with that claim - the sound signature is even enough for it to be used as a reference monitor but at the same time the presentation is fluid and natural, lacking the analytical edge and excessive separation that can interfere with musicality. The bass is only mildly rolled off at the very bottom, otherwise coming across controlled and level. Overall bass quantity is medium, very close to what I would consider ‘neutral’. The mid-bass boost of the similarly-priced 1964EARS 1964-T is nowhere to be found, with the bass of the CTM-200 coming out a touch cleaner and better-defined as a result. The CTM is a little less dynamic and not quite as capable as the 1964-T of belting out the low notes but the gain in resolution will be worth it for many listeners. Compared to the j-phonic K2 SP, the bass of the CTM-200 is similar in quantity but with a greater sensation of impact, likely due to the larger contact area of the custom shell, while the speed and depth are a touch lower. The dynamic-driver VSonic GR07 is also around the same level in terms of bass quantity but has a bit more body and thickness at the expense of detail and resolution.

The midrange transition is smooth and seamless, with zero bleed. Most obvious is just how good the crossover is – the CTM-200 causes the 1964-T to sound concentrated and slightly congested in the midrange, as if there are too many drivers doing the same job. Neither sounds disjointed but the CTM is simply more smooth and relaxed. The mids are less forward than those of the 1964-T but they are by no means recessed. Between the other reasonably well-balanced in-ears, the Audio-Technica CK10 has slightly less midrange presence and the j-phonic K2 SP has slightly more, largely due to its aggressive presentation. Good balance aside, the CTM-200 is also liquid and transparent, not at all dry as the 1964-T tends to be but also slightly less textured and not as aggressively-detailed. The clarity is excellent, note thickness is good, and the tone is very neutral – the K2 SP might sound a touch crisper but it is brighter and thinner-sounding. As a result, the j-phonics come across edgier and more analytical while the CTM-200 is smoother and more organic.

Similarly to the midrange, the treble of the CTM-200 is smooth and non-fatiguing, as it should be with a good monitor. It is clean and clear but those looking for an analytical edge will be disappointed. There is a touch more sparkle compared to the 1964-T but the tuning leans on the safe side on the whole – the VSonic GR07, for example, is noticeably less smooth and tends to accentuate sibilance far more than the CTM-200 does. The ATH-CK10, too, sounds hotter with its treble peak and even the 1964-T is not quite as soft and easy-going despite having slightly more laid-back treble on the whole. Top-end extension is about on-par with the CK10 – some earphones do better but many armature-based sets do worse.

The soundstage of the CTM-200 is rather spacious and the overall sound is big and airy. Whereas the 1964-T is intimate in presentation and has good centering ability, the CTM-200 is well-separated and more diffuse. At times it makes the 1964-T sound downright congested. More interestingly, the headstage is wider than just about anything in my collection. The GR07, RE272 and CK10, while well-rounded in terms of sonic space, fall short of the width of the CTM-200 and the decidedly less spacious K2 SP and 1964-T don’t stand a chance. Those looking for a more 3-dimensional space a-la Earsonics SM3 may be disappointing and the imaging would probably be a little less vague if the headstage wasn’t so big and the dynamics were better but the CTM-200 still performs admirably on all counts.

Lastly, since someone is certainly going to ask, I thought I would compare the CTM-200 to the Unique Melody Miracle. The 3-way, 6-driver, $929 flagship from China-based Unique Melody is not tuned as a reference monitor but it is still my sole benchmark for what a top-tier custom is capable of on a technical level. Keep in mind that the fairness of a comparison between two IEMs so different in purpose and price is dubious at best.

The sound signature of the Miracle is very slightly v-shaped, which means that the midrange of the CTM-200 is more prominent in comparison and the bass and treble are more relaxed. The lows of the Miracle are much more powerful – deeper, thicker, weightier. Impact is more tactile and the bass has rumble to go with its punch. In the midrange the Miracle is again thicker, smoother, and more fluid. Clarity levels are similar but the Miracle is still the more resolving and refined earphone. It is also more dynamic, which has an effect not only on fidelity but also on imaging and positioning. The sonic space of the Miracle is easily more well-rounded and more 3-dimensional while the CTM-200 has a slight upper hand in soundstage width and stereo separation.

Value (9/10) – The dual-BA setup used by the CTM-200 is hardly revolutionary but the sound produced by the entry-level custom is excellent. At $350 excluding shipping, impressions, and extras, the CTM-200 is no pricier than many high-end universals but offers the isolation, fit, and customization options of a full-shell custom monitor. The finish is very good compared to the other entry-level customs in my possession and the sound is balanced and spacious. It is not for fans of the dry, overly crisp note presentation of analytical earphones, nor does it have the excessive lushness of certain stage monitors. Instead, the CTM-200 sounds soft and natural, with clarity and detail expected of a BA-based earphone in its price range and a presentation to match. I have been quite impressed with it, and anyone else looking for a balanced monitor in the price range should be as well.

Pros: Very balanced, neutral, and spacious sound; good build quality; excellent long-term comfort
Cons: Correct insertion takes some getting used to; less isolating than silicone-shelled customs

For my full review of the CTM-200 please see here

(1C15) Sony XBA-4SL / XBA-4ip

Reviewed Mar 2012

Details: Quad-driver flagship of Sony’s BA line
Current Price: $350 from amazon.com (MSRP: $349.99); $370 for XBA-4iP with microphone
Specs: Driver: Quad BA | Imp: 8Ω | Sens: 108 dB | Freq: 3-28k Hz | Cable: 2' I-plug j-cord + 3’ L-plug extension
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrid (stock), Monster Supertips
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Sony Hybrid silicone tips (4 sizes), Hybrid silicone+foam tips (3 sizes), 3’ extension cable, cable winder, and magnetic clasp carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The housings are made out of plastic but feel well put-together. The cables are slightly flattened in cross section and have very flexible strain reliefs all around.
Isolation (3/5) – Quite decent with the ergonomic but shallow-fitting shells Microphonics (4.5/5) - Very low when worn cable-down; nonexistent with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) – The housings are rather large but nicely designed for a vertical fit a-la JVC FXT90 or Fischer Audio Tandem. The ergonomic nozzle angle helps, as do the smooth surface and rounded edges of the housings. Over-the-ear wear is possible but may require longer eartips than those provided

Sound (8.9/10) – While Sony’s EX-series dynamic earphones are marketed partly for professional use, the armature sets are clearly oriented towards consumers. This shows through not only in the simplicity of the design – no detachable cables or over-the-ear fitment with any of the XBA models – but also the colored sound of the quad-driver flagship. It is an unlikely role reversal, made all the more interesting by the design of the XBA-4. With an 8-ohm impedance, it is a picky earphone when it comes to source matching – more so even than the 8-ohm Clarity One from Puresound - and sounds downright poor with some audio players, such as an iPod Touch 4G. It sounds much better from a source with low output impedance – such as a Sansa Clip – and better yet from a dedicated source such as my iBasso D10. Surprisingly, despite the relatively high rated sensitivity, the XBA-4 isn’t overly revealing of hiss and other background noises.

When finally matched to a proper source, the bass of the XBA-4 is powerful and full-bodied – far ahead of most armature-based sets in quantity. It is extended and effortless, with no major mid-bass lift and a note presentation leaning towards ‘soft’, rather than ‘crisp’. The bass doesn’t sound as precise as a TWFK-based earphone, and personally I really would prefer cleaner bass from an armature-based earphone, but again I don’t think Sony had accuracy in mind when tuning these. Even next to the dynamic-driver VSonic GR07, the XBA-4 sounds a little warmer and bassier. The armature-based j-Phonic K2 SP, on the other hand, is quicker, tighter, cleaner, and more detailed, with slightly less mid-bass emphasis and fullness but similar depth and punch.

The midrange of the XBA-4 is slightly recessed compared to the bass but there is no bleed and it doesn’t sound overly distant next to other earphones with laid-back presentations, such as the GR07. Despite the lack of bass bleed, the mids of the XBA-4 sound just a touch dark and appear muffled – even veiled- next to clarity-focused earphones such as the K2 SP, the similarly-priced custom ClearTune CTM-200, and – to a more limited extent - the GR07. Even vocals noticeably lack intelligibility next to the K2 SP, CTM-200, and all TWFK-based earphones. Detail and texture levels are quite good, however - on-par with the GR07 but more impressive coupled with the smoother sound of the Sonys.

At the top end the XBA-4 has some of that characteristic Sony unevenness, exaggerating the lower treble slightly as the EX-series monitors tend to do. The XBA-4 does not sound nearly as bright, however, and avoids the mild tendency to exaggerate sibilance that can be present in both the EX600 and the GR07. Unfortunately the top end of the XBA-4 does have a metallic tinge to it that is not present in the dynamic monitors. It wasn’t too noticeable in general listening but those hoping for EX1000-like timbre will be disappointed. Treble extension is moderate and the XBA-4 doesn’t have great air despite a sizeable soundstage.

The presentation of the XBA-4 is wide and spacious without losing versatility of positioning. Width is similar to the VSonic GR07 but the XBA-4 has better layering for a more 3-D feel. It is adept at conveying both distance and intimacy and ranks above average in headstage size among armature-based IEMs. It’s still not nearly as spacious as the CTM-200 or a Sennheiser IE8 but matches the ATH-CK10 and j-Phonic K2 SP, which is more than I can say for high-end sets from Shure or Westone. It has good separation, too, but there are issues with how it is achieved. With many tracks the XBA-4 very obviously lacks coherence, especially at higher volumes, and sounds downright disjointed compared to single-driver sets such as the GR07. Many are of the opinion that all multi-BA setups sound incoherent but compared to the XBA-4 all of my TWFK-based sets as well as the K2 SP and CTM-200 sound extremely well-integrated. The individualized outputs of the four drivers do enhance the sense of separation, but I can’t help but feel that the single-driver XBA-1 may sound more natural than the quad.

Value (6.5/10) – Sony’s entire new series of BA-based monitors is interesting for several reasons, including the in-house development of the drivers and the consumer-oriented tuning of the earphones. The flagship XBA-4 uses a quad-driver setup with dual dedicated woofers and impresses with its spacious presentation as well as the depth and effortlessness of its low end. Unfortunately, Sony seems to have used extra drivers more as an equalizer than a way of creating a true multi-way system. The differences in voicing between the drivers color the sound and seem to decrease the overall coherence. Still, even if the performance does not stand up to close scrutiny as well as that of the dynamic-driver EX1000, the smooth and powerful sound of the XBA-4 will find fans among those who frown on the more analytical tendencies of so many other BAs.

Pros: User-friendly BA-based set with good bass
Cons: Not a great performer compared to Sony’s dynamic monitors

Big thanks to mascareiro for the XBA-4 loan

(1C16) Monster Miles Davis Trumpet

Reviewed June 2012

Details: Trumpet-shaped follow-up to the original Miles Davis Tribute
Current Price: $270 from amazon.com (MSRP: $349.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 6mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, Yamaha EPH-100 tips
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Foam tips (5 sizes), Monster supertips (4 sizes), buttoned carrying case, soft carrying pouch, and shirt clip
Build Quality (4/5) – Styled to look like miniature trumpets, the unique housings are much sturdier than they look. The attention to detail is superb – the 3-button Apple remote modeled after a trumpet’s valves alone is a work of art. The only worry is the lack of flexible strain relief on the soft, tangle-resistant flat cable. Driver flex is nonexistent – a huge improvement over Monster’s other in-ears. Additionally, Monster’s lifetime warranty is still in effect for the Trumpets, although the one-time no-questions-asked replacement provision seems to have disappeared
Isolation (3.5/5) - Good with the right eartips
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cord-down; low otherwise
Comfort (4.5/5) – Since the dynamic micro-driver is mounted inside the nozzle, those with narrow ear canals may want to give these a pass but for everyone else the tiny, lightweight shells should be ergonomic and unobtrusive. My own ear canals are deep enough for these to be slept in comfortably and the Miles Davis plaques on the cords don’t cause any issues with over-the-ear wear

Sound (8.9/10) – The Trumpet is Monster’s follow-up to the Miles Davis Tribute (review 1C7) and the company’s first earphone utilizing a dynamic microdriver. Previously seen only in mid-level products, microdrivers have recently made their way into the very impressive Yamaha EPH-100 and JVC FXT90, and the Trumpet follows suit with sound that easily vaults it to the top of Monster’s lineup.

Considering that the Trumpet is a Monster product, it comes as no surprise that its bass is enhanced – both depth and impact outpace the Yamaha EPH-100 slightly and the VSonic GR07 and Sony MDR-EX600 significantly. There is good sub-bass extension but also moderate mid-bass lift, which causes the low end to sound much fuller and slightly more bloated than that of the GR07 or the bassy but BA-based Klipsch Image X10. Admittedly, the Trumpet is not as bassy as the older MD Tribute, with a low end that is less intrusive and more capable of scaling down when necessary, greatly reducing boominess and midrange bleed. The Sennheiser IE7, which has similar bass quantity, also falls short of the Trumpets in control, detail, and texture.

The midrange of the Trumpet boasts good clarity and detail but lacks the emphasis of the low end. The Yamaha EPH-100, while similar in technical performance, offers more forward mids, resulting in better bass-midrange balance, and is slightly clearer of bass bleed as a result. The GR07, too, is flatter, cooler in tone, and more accurate than the Trumpet. That said, the Trumpet is arguably the most nuanced and refined earphone in Monster’s entire lineup and again not nearly as thick and lush-sounding as the older MD Tribute.

The emphasized treble of the Trumpet completes the mildly v-shaped sound signature, causing them to sound brighter than the MD Tribute and Monster’s Turbine models. The emphasis is sufficient to make the Trumpets more tiring in the long run compared to a Turbine Pro but not heavy enough to introduce harshness or sibilance. In fact, the Trumpets tend to be less ‘hot’ on touchy recordings than the GR07 while remaining extremely crisp and clean, with no excessive note sustainment and good extension.

The presentation is wide, providing a large sonic space and good separation. Soundstage depth is good, as are the dynamics, and the Trumpet tends to sound less intimate than the older Tributes. The GR07, admittedly, has a wider, more out-of-the-head presentation with a bit more air. The Sennheiser IE7 also has a larger presentation as well as a better center image but doesn’t have the detail or dynamics of the Trumpet, resulting in a less nuanced and layered sound. On the whole the Trumpet avoids extremes with both its sound signature and presentation, and only sounds better for it.

Value (8/10) – Monster’s Miles Davis Trumpet is a beautifully packaged and unique-looking earphone with a small, lightweight form factor and good noise isolation. Its design may be even louder than that of the old Tribute but the sound makes the Trumpet Monster’s most audiophile-friendly in-ear yet - the signature is more balanced and refined than that of the outgoing model and combines enhanced bass with a spacious soundstage and good resolution. Microphonics in the flat cable can be bothersome and there are sets that offer similar sound quality for less but as an overall package – complete with Monster’s lifetime warranty – the Trumpet is still a solid set of earphones.

Pros: Beautiful packaging & presentation; small & comfortable; lively yet detailed sound
Cons: Very flashy design; can be microphonic

Big thanks to Selenium for loaning me the Trumpet for review!

(1C17) Final Audio Design FI-BA-SB “Heaven S”

Added June 2012

Details: Distinctive brass-shelled monitor from Final Audio’s BA line
Current Price: $379 from musicaacoustics.com
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4.6' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: MEElec M6 bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and oversize zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The FI-BA-SB is solidly constructed, with long, rounded metal shells and a flat cable with matching – albeit minimal - strain reliefs. The flat cable is thicker than those found on the other FI-BA earphones but lacks a cinch
Isolation (3.5/5) – Good with the stock single-flanges and even better with aftermarket tips
Microphonics (4/5) – Noise in the flat cable is a little higher than with the thinner cords of the BA-SS and BA-SA but still low even with cable-down wear
Comfort (4/5) – The housings of the BA-SB are on the heavy side but the flat cables don’t hinder over-the-ear wear and the fit is easy-going on the whole

Sound (9/10) – The team at Final Audio Design has never been known to follow convention, and the sound of the FI-BA-SB is highly atypical of an armature-based earphone. Bass is plentiful - for a BA, the BA-SB is punchy and aggressive. It’s not subbass-heavy but has good extension with minimal bloat. Compared to most earphones with similar bass quantity, the BA-SB sounds very quick and clean, though some of the better dynamics, such as the VSonic GR07 and Sony MDR-7550, offer a more natural note presentation and more realistic bass. Compared to the typical TWFK-based earphone – the VSonic GR01, for example - the BA-SB has greater bass quantity at the expense of some of the delicacy, control, and fine detailing that TWFK-based sets are known for. The same goes for comparing it to the Etymotic ER4S or HiFiMan RE272.

The midrange of the FI-BA-SB is smooth and a touch warm compared to flatter sets such as the ER4S and GR01. Like the bass, the mids are forward and aggressive. Overall, the BA-SB sounds colored and boasts a very vivid, lively sound. It makes the Monster MD Trumpet, a respectable performer in every way, sound veiled with its more laid-back mids and softer, slower note presentation. The FI-BA-SB, on the other hand, while neither neutral in tone nor particularly refined, is very resolving, raw, and ‘honest’ in its sound.

The treble of the BA-SB is laid-back compared to the midrange. It remains clear and resolving and the drop in emphasis compared to the mids reminds me of the Fischer Audio SBA-03. It is not as bright or airy as the pricier BA-SS model or dual-driver sets such as the VSonic GR01 and Audio-Technica CK10. At the same time, despite the lower overall treble energy, the BA-SB is not as smooth as the GR01 or HiFiMan RE272, even appearing a touch grainy at times.

The soundstage of the FI-BA-SB is below average in width – narrower than those of the GR01, CK10, and RE272. The general forwardness causes the earphones to lean towards intimacy but the presentation has decent depth to it. Dynamics are impressive for a BA-based earphone and imaging is good enough, providing a well-rounded sonic presentation. Sets that sound more airy and spacious – the VSonic GR01 and GR07, for example – won’t appeal nearly as well those who prefer aggressive, forward sound. Conversely, those who prefer an out-of-the-head presentation may find the sound of the FADs overly small and congested.

It is also worth noting that the BA-SB is an incredibly sensitive earphone, achieving louder volumes than almost anything else out there and hissing noticeably with many amps and sources.

Value (8/10) – In typical FAD fashion, the striking brass shells of the FI-BA-SB house a conventional single BA setup that sounds anything but. It is punchy, aggressive, and dynamic, delivering a vivid sonic image in place of the neutral tone and flat response often expected of armature-based monitors. The design of the earphones is decidedly hit or miss, however, with good isolation and a very solid feel to the housings counterbalancing the lack of proper strain relief, above-average weight, and sparse fit kit. One thing is certain – in terms of bang/buck, the BA-SB makes mincemeat of the higher-end SS model.

Pros: Uniquely colored, lively sound from a single BA
Cons: Minimal strain relief, weighty housings

Huge thanks to james444 for loaning me the Final Audio Heaven A, C, and S

(1C18) Final Audio Design FI-BA-SA “Heaven C”

Added Aug 2012

Details: Latest addition to FAD’s BA line; replaces the outgoing BA-A1
Current Price: $299 from musicaacoustics.com
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4.6' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: MEElec M6 bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and oversize zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The Final Audio FI-BA-SA is very similar in construction to the BA-SB model with more lightweight chromed shells and thinner cabling more akin to that of the $1100 FI-BA-SS. The cable is very soft and smooth but thinner than average and more tangle-prone compared to the flat cable of the BA-SB. Strain relief is still minimal but a cable cinch is present
Isolation (3.5/5) – Good with the stock single-flanges and even better with aftermarket tips
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Though thin, the cable is nearly silent even in the cord-down configuration
Comfort (4.5/5) – The housings of the BA-SA are much lighter than those of the BA-SB. The cabling is more flexible and comes complete with a cinch to make over-the-ear wear easier. On the whole, their featherlike weight pushes these FADs into don-and-forget territory

Sound (9/10) – The sound of FI-BA-SA is quite similar to that of its brass sibling and virtually identical to the now-defunct FI-BA-A1. Overall, its signature is a touch less colored than that of the BA-SB but mostly falls in the same vein. Compared to the SB model, the BA-SA has slightly more linear bass – there is still more mid-bass than a VSonic GR01 or Ety ER4 might have but the difference is just great enough to give the SA a slight advantage in definition over the SB. The SA also remains flatter through the lower mids for a slightly more neutral tone and less fullness, though it retains the forward presentation and overall clarity of the BA-SB.

The top end of the SA is again not overly prominent, taking a small step back compared to the bass and midrange. It is clear and resolving but gives up a touch of the brightness and energy of the SB model. The result is a marginally smoother and more restrained sound that loses some the crispness and excitement of the SB. It does, however, make gains in smoothness, keeping up with the VSonic GR01 even on poorly mastered recordings.

The soundstage of the BA-SA remains unchanged – it is below average in width and tends towards forwardness and intimacy. Depth is decent enough and dynamics are good but the SA will still sound congested compared to a HiFiMan RE272 or Sony MDR-7550. The SA also retains extremely high sensitivity – clearly there is no question that these were designed to be used with portable players.

Value (8/10) – The FI-BA-SA is a slightly more conservative version of the FI-BA-SB, both in sound and appearance. Physical differences include lighter housings and thinner cables, giving the SA a slightly less solid feel but better long-term comfort and lower microphonics. The sound, too, is potentially less polarizing than that of the SB model, but also less lively and interesting. Technically, the SA may be the more accurate earphone but simply I couldn’t help reaching for the warmer, punchier, and more exotic FI-BA-SB most of the time.

Pros: Extremely lightweight construction, low microphonics, competent sound
Cons: Minimal strain relief, stringy cables, weighty housings

Huge thanks to james444 for loaning me the Final Audio Heaven A, C, and S

(1C19) Ultimate Ears UE 900

1000
Added Oct 2012

Details: UE’s long-awaited follow-up to the renowned Triple.Fi 10
Current Price: $399.99 from logitech.com (MSRP: $399.99)
Specs: Driver: Quad BA | Imp: 30Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges; MEElec M6 bi-flanges; T-series Complys
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (5 sizes), Comply foam tips (3 sizes), replacement cable with inline mic/remote, ¼” adapter, airline attenuator, soft carrying pouch, and plastic carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The UE900 retains the blue-and-black plastic aesthetic and replaceable cables of UE’s previous flagship, the Triple.Fi 10, but compacts everything into a smaller, more ergonomic package. The two-pin cable sockets are gone in favor of rotating coaxial connectors akin to those used by Shure’s current offerings and both a headset and a plain stereo cable are included. The cables are braided, with an unusual quad-braid configuration below the y-split, and provide a massive ergonomic improvement over the latest TF10 cables
Isolation (3.5/5) – Very good with the right fit. The tapered housings allow for a relatively deep seal and a variety of tips is included for optimal isolation
Microphonics (5/5) – Nonexistent in the braided cord
Comfort (4/5) – Ergonomically, the UE900 is a huge improvement on the old TF10, with housings that sit more flush in the ear and can stay in place without additional support, though the rotating cable connectors can make it more difficult to use the memory wire. The earphone seems to favor a deep seal and the housings still contain four armatures per side, so those with small ears should, if possible, try before buying

Sound (9.2/10) – The UE900 is the first Ultimate Ears flagship created under Logitech management. Replacing the Triple.Fi 10, a model that has been a staple of portable audiophiledom for the better part of a decade, the UE900 boasts a 3-way quad-BA configuration akin to that of the Westone 4. Despite UE’s new management, the 900 doesn’t stray too far away from the TF10 sound, opting to simply provide a more balanced and refined take on the signature.

The Triple.Fi 10 has always been known for delivering ample bass courtesy of its 2-way, triple-BA driver configuration, and the new UE900 is certainly no slouch in this regard—its bass is deep, punchy, and articulate. The curve is flatter compared to the TF10, with more linear subbass extension and less mid-bass boost. The resulting sound is less warm compared to the TF10, though still warmer than sets such as the HiFiMan RE272 and VSonic GR07. The bass of the UE900 sounds tighter and more natural than that of its predecessor and the sound is not as colored. The only potential downside is that the UE900 is a touch less “bassy” in the conventional sense than fans of the TF10 may be used to.

The UE900 is tonally on the warm side and the midrange has a mild downward slope. Lower mids are more prominent compared to the TF10, resulting in a sound signature with a much less obvious v-shape. Vocals are less recessed and the midrange sounds fuller and richer, making the mids of the TF10 seem thin in comparison. Upper mids are de-emphasized, however, resulting in slight veiling. Female vocals especially seem veiled and less intelligible compared to sets such as the HiFiMan RE272 and Sony MDR-7550.

Treble response, on the other hand, is quite inoffensive. The UE900 doesn’t lack treble emphasis on the grand scale, providing a brighter sound with more treble presence than some popular triple-driver sets, such as the Shure SE530 and Earsonics SM3. That said, the top end is smoother compared to the TF10 and boasts less sparkle, continuing the UE900’s move away from the more v-shaped, more colored sound of its predecessor. The greater treble emphasis does make the TF10 sound a bit more energetic and can give it the illusion of greater clarity on some tracks but the smoother treble of the UE900 does a better job of avoiding harshness and sibilance. The UE900 also sounds more natural, avoiding the slight metallic tinge displayed by certain other BA-based sets.

The presentation of the UE900 retains the best aspect of the TF10 – the width – but the more forward mids give its sound a less distant, more three-dimensional feel. Soundstage depth is good, easily beating out the popular VSonic GR07 and competing with the pricier Phonak PFE232. Instrument separation and imaging are good as well, providing an immersive listening experience. It’s worth noting also that the sensitivity of the UE900 is rather high compared to the PFE232 and similar sets—seemingly a common trait of all balanced armature in-ears from UE.

In addition to the Triple.Fi 10 comparisons above, I took the chance to test the UE900 head-to-head against a few other high-end universal-fit earphones. What follows are brief notes based on lengthy comparative listening.

Rock-It Sounds R-50 ($120)

The R-50 is a high bang-per-buck dual-armature universal based on the Knowles TWFK driver, a setup similar to UE’s lower-end 700 model. Compared to the UE900, the R-50 boasts a brighter tone with less bass emphasis and more treble energy. It has a thinner note presentation but provides better midrange clarity and more intelligible vocals. Unfortunately, the treble is also splashier and more prone to exaggerating sibilance. The UE900, on the other hand, is smoother and carries more lower midrange emphasis for fuller, throatier vocals. Its bass is deeper and significantly more powerful, though also a touch boomy in comparison. Both earphones have similarly spacious soundstages with good depth and width.

VSonic GR07 ($180)

The GR07 is an audiophile heavy-hitter, providing benchmark performance from a single bio-cellulose dynamic driver. Compared to the UE900, the GR07 provides better clarity and a brighter sound with tonality closer to what I would consider “neutral”. The UE900 is warmer and provides more mid-bass impact with similar sub-bass depth. Its sound is more dynamic, however, and it avoids the sibilance-prone treble peaks of the GR07 in favor of a smoother, less fatiguing presentation. The UE900 also pulls away in soundstaging, with better depth and layering that make the GR07’s presentation appear flat and overly distant.

HiFiMan RE272 ($250)

The RE272 is another audiophile favorite and the latest in a series of increasingly accurate in-ears from HiFiMan. Compared to the somewhat bass-light RE272, the UE900 is warmer and punchier, with an overall presentation centered more on the bass and lower midrange, and a slightly “boomier” bottom end. The RE272 is more transparent and boasts better vocal clarity and treble sparkle, as well as better instrument separation. Its soundstage lacks a bit of depth in comparison, however, giving the UE900 an edge in layering and imaging.

Phonak PFE232 ($600)

Phonak’s flagship uses a dual armature setup but still manages to deliver sound that puts it near the top of the universal earphone game. The sound signature of the PFE232 is noticeably v-shaped, with more recessed mids and added treble energy compared to the UE900. The top end of the PFE232 is more crisp, sparkly, and extended. The low end of the Phonaks also presents less mid-bass emphasis for a slightly cleaner sound. The UE900, on the other hand, still manages good bass, both in depth and impact, but also provides more prominent and less grainy mids compared to the 232. Its presentation also has slightly better depth in addition to great width.

AKG K3003i ($1300)

The priciest universal-fit headset on the planet, the K3003i is AKG’s sole entry into the high-end in-ear market. Compared to the UE900, the dynamic bass driver of the K3003i provides more mid-bass impact and slower bass decay while the balanced armatures attain better top-end extension and crisper, more detailed sound. Its presentation is also more airy and layered better than that of the UE900, though the latter is definitely no slouch. The midrange of the K3003i is more recessed, however, with the UE900 providing better balance between the bass and mids. The UE900 also wins the smoothness battle as the AKGs are more prone to exposing harshness and sibilance.

FitEar ToGo 334 ($1350)

The TG334 is a flagship custom-come-universal from Japan-based FitEar. The UE900 puts up a good fight in this unfair comparison but the TG334 earns its otherworldly price tag with a noticeable jump in clarity and transparency over the UE900. The veil of the UE900 was most noticeable next to the FitEar—the more forward midrange of the TG334, despite the powerful bass, carries no veil whatsoever. Microdetail is brought forward and made more discernible compared to the UE900 and instrument separation is improved as well. Finally, the bass of the TG334 is also more dynamic and capable of delivering greater impact when called for.

Value (85/10) – With such a widely revered predecessor and an even more easy-going sound signature, the new Ultimate Ears UE 900 is a high-end earphone for the masses. The outgoing Triple.Fi 10 is still an audiophile icon but after more than half a decade it is undoubtedly a bit long in the tooth. The UE 900, despite the steep price tag, is a well thought-out replacement, both sonically and as an overall package. It provides better ergonomics, optional headset functionality, and an improved cable, as well as punchy, smooth, non-fatiguing sound that doesn’t butcher low-bitrate tracks. It’s not perfect, but with the UE 900 as its replacement the TF10 certainly won’t be missed by many.

Pros: Comfortable fit; spare cable included; nearly no cable noise; punchy bass; more balanced sound than Triple.Fi 10
Cons: Upper midrange can appear a bit veiled

(1C20) Sennheiser IE7

Added Mar 2013

Details: Previously popular model from Sennheiser’s original IE series
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $299.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 120 dB | Freq: 10-19k Hz | Cable: 4' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock short bi-flanges; MEElec balanced bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) - Single flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (3 sizes) silicone tips, foamhybrid tips (2 sizes), cleaning tool, over-the-ear cable guides, shirt clip, and storage case with integrated cable winder
Build Quality (4.5/5) - The housings are made of sturdy plastic and the kevlar-reinforced cable is light, smooth, and strong. It is not detachable like that of the pricier IE8 and the L-plug is not gold plated, so rotating it can cause a bit of static
Isolation (2.5/5) – As with the IE8, the IE7 is a shallow-fitting earphone with below-average isolation
Microphonics (5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent
Comfort (4/5) - The housings are large but lightweight and surprisingly ergonomic. They sit flush in the ear and are not overly sensitive to insertion depth, so the IE7 should be comfortable for all but those with small outer ears

Sound (8.2/10) – Part of Sennheiser’s original IE-series lineup, the IE7 provides a somewhat different sound signature than the more bass-heavy IE6 and IE8. The sound of the IE7 is more mid-focused, though bass is still plentiful. The low end is both impactful and full-bodied, and bass power should be ample for all but die-hard bass fans. Control is a bit disappointing, however – the IE7 suffers from a mid-bass lift and its low end is neither as tight not as quick as those of more modern dynamic-driver designs. The Monster Miles Davis Trumpet, for example, makes the IE7 sound boomy and bloated in comparison and offers up better detail and texturing throughout. The Atrio MG7, too, easily beats the IE7 not only in bass depth but also control, and the JVC HA-FX500 has a flatter, more realistic low end that causes it to sound more even-handed and natural compared to the IE7.

The midrange of the IE7 is warm, yet forward - those who find the IE8 veiled and recessed in the midrange would probably enjoy the IE7 more. The earphone sounds lush and smooth but lacks the detail of most BA-based and many dynamic-driver sets in its price range - the mids simply don’t have the best definition, especially down where the bass bleeds over. The JVC HA-FXT90 and Yamaha EPH-100 are two lower-priced dynamic driver earphones that have cleaner-sounding mids compared to the IE7.

The treble of the IE7 has good presence but isn’t very refined, lacking the delicacy, effortlessness, and detail of sets such as the HiFiMan RE-ZERO and Sony EX600. It can be a little edgy but doesn’t have a whole lot of sparkle and liveliness. The presentation, too, impresses with its spaciousness but boasts only average separation. The IE7 maintains the excellent soundstage and headstage size of the higher-end IE8 model. It sounds more expansive than competing sets such as the Monster Miles Davis Trumpets and even the open-backed JVC HA-FX500, but doesn’t have the imaging to compete with even the cheaper Yamaha EPH-100. The Sony EX600, which has a similarly large presentation, sounds cleaner and less congested, with more convincing layering and a coherent, versatile presentation.

Value (6.5/10) – Sennheiser’s now-defunct IE7 is a unique earphone – with a mid-forward signature, large headstage, and powerful bass, it would have a place on the market today were it not for the somewhat disappointing clarity and resulting lack of refinement. Like the higher-end IE8, the IE7 does not offer much isolation but boasts good ergonomics and an excellent cable, making it an easy earphone to use out and about. Its sound, too, works well on the go – it just isn’t as “Hi-Fi” as one might expect from an upper-tier Sennheiser product.

Pros: Excellent cabling, no microphonics, lightweight and comfortable, large soundstage
Cons: Mediocre isolation, lacks transparency and refinement

(1C21) EarSonics SM64 (v2)

Added Jul 2013

Details: EarSonics 3-way, triple-armature follow-up to the SM3
Current Price: $399 from amazon.com (MSRP: $399)
Specs: Driver: 3-BA / 3-way crossover Imp: 98Ω | Sens: 122 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4.2' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock bi-flanges; Westone STAR tips
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Double-flange silicone tips (2 pairs), foam tips (2 sizes), cleaning tool, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – Like the first-gen EarSonics models I’ve reviewed, the SM64 uses plastic shells reminiscent of the Westone stage monitors. The cords are now detachable, however, utilizing a common 2-pin socket, and have a memory wire section for a more secure fit. The twisted cables are similar to those used by Westone universals and most custom-fit earphones
Isolation (4/5) – Quite good with both the included silicone and foam tips
Microphonics (5/5) – Basically nonexistent, as with all similar designs
Comfort (4.5/5) – The new smooth, rounded housings are a major improvement over the angular design of the old SM2/SM3, fitting securely without applying pressure to parts of the outer ear like the SM3 shells did

Sound (9.3/10) – The sound of the SM64 bears a resemblance to its predecessor, the SM3, but at the same time offers a more conventional balance and presentation. First the sound signature – the SM64 is a warmish earphone with impressive bass quality and clear, yet forgiving sound. The low end of the earphones is outstanding – the bass has very good depth and control. It is boosted, yet maintains a good balance of mid- and subbass. The result is a low end that’s extended and powerful, yet very clean and controlled. It makes the bottom end of the VSonic GR07 sound a touch loose and intrusive and competes in quality with the decidedly less bassy Ultimate Ears 900.

The midrange of the SM64 maintains good presence but is not overly forward. Tonally, the EarSonics are slightly warm – warmer, for example, than Philips’ flagship Fidelio S2 model and the Ultimate Ears 900. Note thickness is impressive as well, and while the SM64 doesn’t have the emphasized upper midrange and treble that typically accentuate clarity, it is still about as clear as the flatter and more accurate-sounding VSonic VC1000 and Philips Fidelio S2, among others.

On the point of accuracy – the SM64 has an upper midrange dip, not unlike its predecessor, the SM3. However, the dip of the SM3 seems to be broader and has a greater effect on the sound, resulting in greater veiling and a darker overall tone compared to the SM64. The SM64 still cannot be called neutral, however, and lacks some of upper midrange presence and accuracy compared to earphones such as the Fidelio S2, UE 900, and VC1000, just to name a few.

The treble of the new EarSonics has pretty good presence, appearing more energetic than, for example, the EarSonics SM3, Westone UM3X, and Sony MDR-7550, but not harsh or sibilant. It seems to be a case of taking the middle ground- a little smoothed-over compared to accuracy-oriented in-ears such as the VSonic VC1000 and Philips Fidelio S2 but at the same time is not as smooth as the Sony MDR-7550. Still, while not perfect, it’s an improvement on the old SM3 and a fair compromise between risking harshness and losing crispness. The VSonic GR07, for example, is quite sibilance-prone compared to the EarSonics.

The presentation of the SM64 has good depth and width, and appears to be tuned for more universal appeal than the uniquely enveloping sound of the older SM3. Good bass control and a lack of midrange recession help the SM64’s separation and imaging. The VSonic GR07, for example, sounds a bit congested and lacking in soundstage depth in comparison and even the UE900, while spacious overall and more impressive in this regard than the GR07, still doesn’t quite have the depth of the SM64.

One last thing worth noting is that the SM64 is not very sensitive and was less efficient than all of the earphones I compared it against, especially the SM3.

Select Comparisons

EarSonics SM3 (discontinued)

Pitting the SM64 against its predecessor is telling of the direction EarSonics has taken with the tuning of the new model. While the SM3 remains a very unique earphone with its thick, lush mids and enveloping presentation, the SM64 boasts a more conventional – but at the same time more capable – sound. The low end of the SM64, for instance, is more focused on subbass and less on mid-bass, resulting in sound that is tighter and cleaner overall. The mids of the SM64 are not as forward as those of the SM3 and the note presentation is not as thick and creamy.

The thinner note presentation affords the SM64 a slightly clearer sound, which is also helped along by greater treble energy compared to the previous-gen model. The brighter treble results in a more neutral tone compared to the warmer SM3 – though the SM64 is not flat in FR, it is more balanced than its predecessor. The more mid-forward SM3 also boasts a more enveloping presentation, which is something that resulted in a lot of polarized opinions and heated debate. The new SM64 has a wider soundstage and a more conventional out-of-the-head presentation. Overall, while the two earphones are more different in sound signature than technical ability, I would rather listen to the new SM64 nine out of ten times.

Phonak PFE 232 ($599)

Phonak’s PFE 232 is a dual-driver design with a mildly v-shaped sound signature – quite a contrast to all EarSonics models, especially the old SM3. Compared to the new SM64, the 232 has brighter, more energetic treble and at times seems clearer and crisper, as tends to be the case with brighter earphones. However, the 232 also sounds a little “hot” and has a greater tendency towards sibilance when pitted against the more relaxed treble of the SM64. Its sound, especially the top end, seems thinner and less natural compared to that of the EarSonics.

The bass of the PFE is greater in quantity compared to the SM64 and tends to intrude on the more recessed mids of the Phonaks. The EarSonics, on the other hand, boast less aggressive bass and a fuller, more prominent midrage. That, combined with the smoother treble of the SM64, makes it more natural and easier to listen to than the PFE, which is why it has won my ear here.

Sennheiser IE 800 ($1000)

Sennheiser’s flagship in-ear boasts plentiful bass and a more v-shaped overall sound compared to the EarSonics. It offers greater mid- and subbass presence, as well as greater impact and note weight. The EarSonics, on the other hand, exercise a bit more bass control. The lower midrange of the IE 800 is more recessed but maintains clarity very well. At the same time the SM64, with its laid-back upper mids, sounds smoother than the somewhat splashy IE 800. Subjectively, the performance of these two is actually rather close, though the IE 800 did win my ear more often than the SM64 for its greater midrange accuracy and huge bass that does not sacrifice clarity.

AKG K3003 ($1300)

AKG’s BA-dynamic hybrid is yet another earphone with a more v-shaped sound compared to the EarSonics SM64. The K3003 is a set I’ve always rather liked, and that doesn’t change in head-to-head comparisons with the EarSonics. The AKG boasts more treble presence, energy, and sparkle, and the upper midrange is more filled-in, resulting in the K3003 appearing more detailed overall.

The bass of the K3003 is a little more powerful than that of the SM64, though the difference is not night and day. The mids of the SM64 are fuller and more forward, on the other hand, and the overall tone is warmer. The brighter, more v-shaped K3003 nonetheless sounds a little more neutral to me than the SM64, but it’s difficult to fault the bass and lower midrange of the EarSonics even next to the hugely pricy AKGs.

Clear Tune Monitors CTM-200 ($350)

The CTM-200 is an entry-level dual-driver custom monitor priced right near the SM64. Tuned for an accurate, musician-friendly sound, the CTM-200 is not as warm in tone as the SM64, with bass that rolls off earlier and lacks the impact of the EarSonics. The lack of proper subbass extension hurts the realism and accuracy of the low end – simply put, the EarSonics sound much more effortless and realistic when it comes to bass.

Aside from the bass, the dual-driver CTM-200 actually does offer some advantages over the SM64 – its mids, for example, are flatter overall and provide better accuracy. The upper midrange is more filled-in and the overall tone is cooler. Despite this, clarity is actually on-par between the two earphones and while the presentation of the CTM-200 is a bit more out-of-the-head, the SM64 keeps up very well in soundstage size, imaging, and overall sense of space. Choosing between these two earphones is a matter of choosing between the superior bass of the SM64 or the more accurate sound and marginally larger presentation of the CTM-200.

Value (8.5/10) – EarSonics broke onto the worldwide audio scene a few years back with the rather controversial SM3 – an earphone that, with some reservations, I quite liked. The sound of the new SM64 retains resemblance to its predecessor but also seems to be tuned for more universal appeal. It’s not tonally neutral, but it refines the formula in many ways - even the fit has been improved dramatically compared to the first-gen EarSonics products.

These days there are dozens of great-sounding earphones available at almost all price points so all high-end purchases are tough to justify, but there’s one thing I’ll freely admit - the SM64 is much more proficient than most at getting my toes tapping.

Pros: Great bass and presentation; very comfortable, especially next to old EarSonics models; good isolation and overall user-friendliness
Cons: Could be flatter between the upper midrange and treble

(1C22) Custom Art Music One

Reviewed October 2013

Details: Single BA model from Poland-based Custom Art, owned and operated by a long-time Head-Fi member piotrus-g
Starting Price: €189 (est. $260) from thecustomart.com
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 41Ω | Sens: 109 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Cleaning tool, Otterbox 1000 crushproof storage/carrying case, and compact clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (5/5) – The Music One is a full-shell silicone custom monitor with excellent shell quality. A fixed cable is standard, but detachable cabling is available as an option. The fixed cable lacks external strain relief but the silicone of the shells does the same job better. The cord itself is among my all-time favorites - very soft and slightly rubberized, it is resistant to both microphonics and tangling. There are also far more customization options available for the Music One than my other silicone customs, and Custom Art even offers themed visual designs dubbed “State of Art” at an extra cost. My unit has blue shells, clear tips, and color-coded nozzles, and came with a matching blue carrying case
Isolation (5/5) – Excellent, falling just behind my Spiral Ear 3-way Reference, which has a musician’s fit with longer canals
Microphonics (5/5) – None – the soft, rubbery cable is completely silent
Comfort (5/5) – The flexible, low-profile silicone shells of the Music One can be hard to grip and take slightly longer to insert and remove compared to more rigid acrylic customs, but are extremely comfortable and maintain seal better with changes to ear canal shape, such as while chewing or talking. Built around a single balanced armature driver, the Music One has the lowest profile of all my custom monitors and its soft cables are made more unobtrusive by the lack of a strain relief and memory wire. All in all, it is the most comfortable of all my earphones, custom-fit or otherwise

Sound (9.2/10) – From the first listen it was clear that the Custom Art Music One, which utilizes a vented balanced armature driver, is one of the best earphones in its class. It pursues a very coherent, natural sound that impresses with its weight and smoothness. The low end extends well and offers up good impact. It is tighter than the boomier, more mid-bassy 1964EARS 1964-V3 but, as with the other silicone customs I’ve reviewed thus far, there is a certain difficult-to-describe characteristic to the bass that makes the earphones seem more impactful while taking away slightly from the detail and texture, which I attribute to the silicone. This allows the Music One to maintain good bass control while providing ample presence – more than with the dynamic-drover HiFiMan RE-400 and the Ultimate Ears 600, for example – but also means it can’t quite keep up with the low-end resolution of, for example, the pricier EarSonics SM64.

The mids of the Music One are smooth and clear, with good note thickness and again a very natural presentation. The midrange is definitely one of the strengths of the earphone but doesn’t present as overly forward, likely due to the impactful bass. The HiFiMan RE-400 and Ultimate Ears 600 both seem a touch more mid-centric than the Music One, for example. Clarity is excellent as well, falling just a hair behind higher-priced sets such as the EarSonics SM64 and 1964EARS V3.

The treble of the Custom Art is a little less prominent but still remains in good balance with the overall sound, reminding me of the way recent HiFiMan releases have been tuned. It is not the most crisp-sounding, but tends to be natural and smooth. The same is true of the presentation – the Music One has a spacious sound, especially compared to the majority of other single-BA earphones. It also impresses with good soundstage depth and the ability to portray intimacy properly when necessary, further making it a great all-rounder.

Select Comparisons

MEElectronics A161P ($100)

The A161P is a single-armature earphone based on a Knowles ED transducer and tuned for a crisp and punchy sound. The A161P and Custom Art Music One are not exceedingly different in terms of balance, and on some tracks sound rather similar overall. With in-depth listening, however, it becomes clear that the Music One is a significantly more refined earphone.

While the A161P has good bass punch for a single-armature set, the Music One is more impactful and has a thicker, weightier note presentation. Its tone is warmer overall and it makes the A161P sound thin in comparison. The A161P tends to be brighter and, next to the rather smooth Music One, sounds somewhat harsh and grainy. The A161P is also more forward while the Music One offers a wider presentation with better depth and imaging.

VSonic GR07 ($179)

One of the many reasons the dynamic-driver VSonic GR07 has maintained its popularity over the past few years is that it can go toe to toe with many higher-priced sets. Pitted against the Custom Art Music One, it loses out in midrange and treble quality but partly makes up for it with great bass. The main differences lie in the midrange, where the Music One offers better presence and clarity. The GR07, in comparison, sounds slightly mid-recessed. This, in turn, accentuates the bass of the VSonics, which appears a little more impactful but also quicker compared to the Music One. The Custom Art unit offers smoother treble while the more energetic GR07 is susceptible to sibilance. The presentation of the GR07 tends to have good width and little else, while the Music One is more well-rounded and offers depth and imaging to match.

Etymotic Research ER4S ($249)

Long-time industry leader and innovator Etymotic Research first released the ER4 in 1991, and its ER4S tuning remains one of my all-time favorite universal-fit earphones. The Custom Art Music One and ER4S each have advantages over the other and it’s difficult to pick a clear winner here. The Music One definitely sounds fuller and warmer overall, thanks in part to its weightier low end. Despite the bass, however, it appears a bit more mid-centric overall. Its treble is less prominent and more forgiving, and its midrange – thicker and more attention-grabbing. The leaner ER4S can at times sound a touch clearer and has a small advantage in overall balance, while the Music One oftentimes sounds more natural thanks to its thicker, fuller sound.

ClearTuneMonitors CT-200 ($350)

The ClearTuneMonitors CT-200 is a dual-driver acrylic custom priced higher than the Custom Art Music One. It is a neutral-sounding earphone that rolls off gently at either end of the frequency spectrum. Compared to the CT-200, the Music One has an advantage in bass depth and impact. Its low end is more extended and powerful, and grants the earphone a warmer overall tone. The CT-200 is brighter overall, presenting more forward upper mids in comparison. It also sounds a touch clearer and its treble is more crisp, appearing a little more detailed as a result. In terms of presentation, the CT-200 is more spacious and open-sounding while the Music One tends to be slightly more intimate. Nonetheless, the Music One again sounds very natural in this comparison – arguably more so than the CT-200 thanks to its warmer, thicker sound.

Alclair Reference ($399)

The triple-driver, acrylic-shelled Alclair Reference is an accurate-sounding earphone that offers good presence across the entire frequency spectrum. It has similar bass depth and impact to the Custom Art Music One but tends to be a little tighter and more detailed. As with the VSonic GR07, its midrange is more recessed compared to the Music One, which has rather prominent mids. The Reference is still clearer, however, and seems more resolving as well. In general, the Alclair monitor sounds better up to the upper midrange, where it starts to display some stridency. Its treble is more prominent overall and tends to be peakier and more sibilant. The Music One, on the other hand, is smooth and far more forgiving, and sounds more natural overall in the treble region. Finally, the Reference is overall more spacious and images a little better than the Music One.

Value (10/10) – The Custom Art Music One is an excellent value, combining the noise isolation of custom-fit silicone shells with a single balanced armature driver delivering an organic, coherent sound. The ultra-light low-profile silicone shells of the Music One put its fit and comfort above not only universal monitors, but other customs as well. Lastly, in addition to great attention to detail spanning everything from the cable to the accessory pack, the Music One offers more customization options compared to other silicone CIEMs, making it an even tougher earphone to fault on any front.

Pros: Great isolation & comfort; fantastic cable; great audio performance
Cons: Low-profile shells can be tough to remove from ears

(1C23) Fidue A83

Reviewed Dec 2014

Details: Flagship earphone from Fidue utilizing a dynamic + dual balanced armature driver setup

MSRP: $399.95 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $280 from amazon.com; $299 on ebay.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic + Dual BA Hybrid | Imp: 11Ω | Sens: 104 dB | Freq: 9-31k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug, detachable with MMCX connectors
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Comply T400; Sennheiser short bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips, foam tips (1 pair), 6.3mm adapter, airline adapter, Otterbox-style crush-resistant carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The look of the A83 might take a bit of getting used to, but construction quality is excellent. The metal faceplates comprise the most prominent design element and give the housings a very solid feel. The detachable cables utilize MMCX connectors modified to stop them from rotating, which is something I found slightly annoying with a few other MMCX earphones such as the Shure SE535. Fidue does this using an extra pin on the outside of the connector. This results in the A83′s cable being incompatible with other MMCX earphones, but other manufacturers’ cables will still work with the A83. The quality of the stock cable is excellent and the connectors at the earpiece end are angled to facilitate over-the-ear wear. The only thing the cable lacks is a cinch, but with the memory wire it’s not really a must-have
Isolation (3/5) – Average due to somewhat shallow fit
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low in the twisted cable
Comfort (4/5) – The A83 uses an ergonomic housing design and is worn over the ear with the help of memory wire and angled cable connectors. It’s not a small earphone, but it is relatively lightweight and the shape, which reminds me of the Sennheiser IE7, manages the size well

Sound (9.2/10) – The Fidue A83 is a dynamic + dual BA hybrid earphone that improves on the design – and the sound – of Fidue’s dynamic-driver A81 model. Like other triple-driver hybrid setups, it doesn’t suffer from a lack of bass impact. However, aside from the warm and smooth Sony XBA-H3, it is the least v-shaped and arguably the most balanced of the hybrid IEMs I’ve tried. The overall balance of the earphones did benefit a good amount from a tip switch – the best results I got were with Comply foam tips and “short” Sennheiser double-flanges.

In this configuration the A83 has mids that are not as thin as those of the DUNU DN-2000 and T-Peos Altone200 and a top end that’s not prone to harshness or sibilance. Bass quantity is above what I consider flat or “neutral”, but lower than with most other hybrids including the XBA-H3, Altone200, and even AKG’s flagship K3003 in its “Reference” configuration.

The A83 is clearly bassier than flat-sounding BA sets such as the Etymotic ER4, VSonic VC1000, and Final Audio Heaven II, but also a little less tight and controlled. The Westone W40, which is not as flat as the sets listed above, still can’t keep up with the A83 in bass impact, but the quality of its bass is closer to that of the Fidue.

The midrange of the A83 is a little warmer than neutral. It is thicker and more full-bodied than a flat-sounding IEM such as an Etymotic ER4, VC1000, or even Heaven II, but also a bit less clear. Clarity lags a bit behind the pricier AKG K3003 as well. The A83 also lacks a bit of crispness compared to these other sets, likely because it just isn’t as level across the board, but this is only noticeable when comparing it to a flatter, more accurate earphone. On the other hand compared to the warmer and darker Westone W40, the more v-shaped A83 is actually a little clearer.

The top end of the Fidue A83 carries good energy and strikes a fine balance between sounding revealing and harsh. Among the hybrid earphones I’ve tried it is the best bet for those who are worried about the warmth and bloat of the XBA-H3 being excessive but don’t want to risk the brighter and occasionally harsher-sounding DUNU and T-Peos sets. The treble here is by no means smoothed-over – it just avoids some of the harshness and sibilance of the hybrid competitors and even flatter-sounding earphones such as the VSonic VC1000 and Final Audio Heaven II, which tend to have more treble energy. However, this also costs the A83 some crispness in comparison to those. The Westone W40, on the other hand, is less bright and even more forgiving. At the end of the day, the A83 is a compromise between the brighter sound of many other hybrids and the purposely smooth sound of something like the Westone W40.

The A83 has a very unique presentation, with impressive width and depth but a somewhat diffuse sound. The soundstage is spacious – surprisingly so, in fact – but the slight lack of crispness leaves the presentation a bit vague. Still, it a little more out-of-the-head than even the AKG K3003, which has a more “conventional” with more coherent soundstaging and better imaging.

Mini Comparisons

VSonic GR07 Classic ($99)

VSonic’s dynamic-driver GR07 is, by and large, a balanced-sounding earphone, and sounds quite neutral next to the more v-shaped A83. The top end of the A83 is highly tip dependent but tends to be a little brighter and more energetic overall. With the stock tips it can be more sibilant than the GR07, but with my preferred eartips it is actually smoother and less sibilance-prone than the VSonic unit.

The bass of the GR07 seems a bit deeper. This is likely due to it having less of a mid-bass hump to draw attention away from the sub-bass, rather than due to actually having more depth. In the midrange, the A83 sounds both clearer and a little more full-bodied than the GR07 – an impressive feat. It also has a slightly more 3-dimensional presentation with better depth and is quite a bit more efficient.

T-Peos Altone200 ($185)

The T-Peos Altone200 is close to the Fidue A83 in performance but offers up more bass and brighter treble for a more v-shaped sound signature. The bass of the Altone200 digs deeper and delivers more of both impact and rumble, though it is also a touch more boomy. The A83 is more neutral and a little more natural-sounding, though I can definitely see the more colored sound of the T-Peos being preferable with some genres (such as EDM), thanks in large part to the juicy bass. The mids of the A83 are not as recessed while the Altone200 has a thinner and more withdrawn midrange. The clarity of the T-Peos is much more striking, due in part to the Fidue having thicker mids and lower overall treble energy, though the A83 is also smoother and less sibilance-prone.

DUNU DN-1000 ($199)

DUNU’s original triple-driver hybrid makes for a good contrast to the Fidue A83. Though both earphones follow v-shaped sound signatures, they are tuned differently. The DN-1000 has deeper bass with noticeably more slam. The A83 has more neutral bass quantity, but actually sounds a little warmer thanks to a slightly larger mid-bass hump. It is also a bit thicker and more full-bodied in the midrange, though the more v-shaped DN-1000 seems a touch clearer. The highs of the DUNU unit are less forgiving while the A83 has smoother treble (probably its biggest advantage). That said, the A83 sounds a little less crisp and coherent, but more spacious, whereas the DN-1000 offers a slightly more congested sound.

DUNU DN-2000 ($300)

The A83 and DN-2000 are both high-end triple-driver hybrid earphones that, to my ears, differ most in presentation, with the A83 having a more out-of-the-head sound and appearing a little more distant and diffuse, and the DN-2000 sounding more focused, but also a bit more closed-in. The Fidue set carries less emphasis in the sub-bass region and more in the mid-bass region, which actually makes its low end sound a little more integrated into the overall sound. The midrange of the DN-2000 is a little more recessed but the A83 is lacking in the way of crispness in comparison. The A83 also tends to be a little less forgiving up top, though it falls closer to the smoother DN-2000 than the lower-end DN-1000 in this regard.

Sony XBA-H3 ($348)

Compared to the Sony XBA-H3, the Fidue A83 boasts a brighter tonal character and sound that’s more balanced overall. The XBA-H3 has more bass impact at the expense of greater bass boom whereas the A83 is both lighter and more controlled at the low end. The mids of the A83 are slightly clearer, but also thinner. The XBA-H3 has a more full-bodied sound but also appears a bit more veiled/muffled in the midrange. The Sony is smoother, too, while the A83 is brighter and less forgiving. Surprisingly, the A83 has a slightly more spacious presentation than the XBA-H3, which is already very impressive in this regard.

Value (8.5/10) – The Fidue A83 is a triple-driver hybrid earphone with sound that combines impactful, yet well-measured bass with mids and treble that are less recessed and more forgiving, respectively, compared to other earphones of this type. The overall sound is slightly v-shaped and not 100% neutral, but punchy and enjoyable. The earphones are also very well made, with the plastic-and-metal housings and good-quality detachable cables covering all the bases. Indeed, there’s a certain thoughtfulness and attention to detail permeates all aspects of the A83, from the packaging onward, enhancing the user experience. Wearing comfort for the ergonomic-fit housings is also quite good. I do wish there was a mic cable included, as with the less expensive A81 model, but for the price that would simply be too much good stuff.

Pros: Great construction; detachable cable; enjoyable, slightly colored sound
Cons: Treble quality is tip-dependent

(1C24) DUNU DN-2000

Brief: Second-generation hybrid earphone from DUNU

MSRP: approx $315
Current Price: $280 from amazon.com; $280 from ebay.com; $315 from mp4nation.net; $315 from CTC Audio (US/Canada)
Specs: Driver: Dual BA + dynamic hybrid | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 10-30k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Wide-channel single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down (preferred) or over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange wide-channel (3 sizes), single-flange narrow-channel (3 sizes), and bi-flange (3 sizes) silicone tips, foam tips, eartip spacer set (6 pairs in 3 sizes), ear fins (2 pairs), ear stabilizers (2 pairs), shirt clip, ¼” adapter, airline adapter, cleaning cloth, pair of cable guides, crush-resistant metal carrying case, and integrated cable wrap
Build Quality (5/5) – Like other DUNU earphones, the DN-2000 is very solidly constructed. The gold- and coffee-colored metal housings have a matte finish and the cable us DUNU’s typical TPE – soft, smooth, and tangle-resistant. “Genghis Khan” is printed on the side of the housings in Cyrillic script – not really sure why. The machined aluminum y-split, plug, and cable cinch add to the premium feel. The earfin retention nubs help identify left and right earpieces more quickly
Isolation (3.5/5) – Some of the best among hybrid earphones
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very good when worn cable-down; nonexistent when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (3.5/5) – The DN-2000 is similar to the older DN-1000 in size and shape. It is moderately large and a bit heavy for a straight-barrel design but can be worn cable-up, which makes it feel lighter in the ear. DUNU provides an extensive fit kit with plenty of eartips, three sets of eartip spacers (same ones included with the DN-1000), and new earfins in two different styles. The eartip spacers change where the eartip sits on the nozzle and can be used to position the housings farther out of the ear. They have an effect on sound similar to what is normally accomplished with tip rolling. However, some of the possible tip/spacer combinations make it easy for the tips to slip off the nozzles and it really does take some experimenting to find the optimal combination.

The earfins are installed using a retention arm on the side of the housing and are meant to keep the earphones in the ear more securely, likely a reaction to those who complained about the weight of the DN-1000 model. On the whole, DUNU has done all they can to make the earphone comfortable, allowing dozens of different combinations for the fit (and sound), but the DN-2000 still would not be my first pick for smaller-sized ears

Sound (9.3/10) – Having tested the hybrid IEM market with the impressive DN-1000, DUNU attempted to improve on the formula of combining robust dynamic-driver bass with clear mids and treble with a second-generation hybrid, the DN-2000.

The DN-2000 is by no means lacking in bass, but its low end is a little less emphasized than that of the DN-1000. There’s not really a mid-bass hump to deliver a conventional bass-heavy sound, but there is still plenty of low end presence on the whole. Bass extension is especially impressive – there is more depth to the low end of the DUNU than that of the pricier AKG K3003, for instance. Indeed, the AKG unit, in its “reference” configuration, delivers less enhanced but also slightly tighter bass than the DN-2000.

Compared to the VSonic VC1000, a high-end reference-flat BA earphone, the DUNU provides a bassier sound with a thicker, more natural note presentation. It comes out ahead of the TWFK-based VSonic set in overall SQ – something the DN-1000 didn’t quite manage.

The sound sig of the DN-2000 is a little v-shaped (or u-shaped, to be more exact) but its midrange is more prominent than that of the DN-1000, resulting in better overall balance as well as even better clarity and intelligibility. Clarity is just a hair behind the AKG K3003, which has slightly tighter bass and a thinner note presentation.

The treble of the DN-2000 is nicely extended and plenty sparkly. In fact, one of the earphone’s greatest strengths is great end-to-end extension, which is only made more apparent by its emphasis on deep bass and treble that carries much of its energy up high, as opposed to the upper-mid/low treble region.

Worth noting is that the DN-2000 is very sensitive to fit when it comes to treble quality. With the right combination of eartips, spacers, and insertion depth it’s quite refined for the quantity present. There’s definitely enough to properly convey the energy of cymbals, and yet compared to the DN-1000 the new model is slightly more tolerant of harshness and sibilance due to smoother lower highs. It’s still far from what I’d call “forgiving” and can be said to teeter just on the correct side of sibilance, but fares better than most earphones of the type.

The presentation of the DN-2000 is wide and airy – typical for a mildly v-shaped earphone with broad end-to-end extension, but more expansive than most. The soundstage is wider and more open compared to the DN-1000 and even the K3003, putting the DN-2000 well above average in that regard, but its low end can get boomier than that of the AKG unit on bass-heavy tracks, which doesn’t do the soundstage any favors.

Select Comparisons

VSonic GR07 Classic ($99)

Compared to the dynamic-driver VSonic GR07, the DN-2000 has an advantage in bass depth and treble smoothness, the note presentation is a little thicker, and the soundstage is a little more even in depth and width. The GR07 and even GR07 Bass Edition don’t have the sub-bass of the DN-2000 and sound more sibilant and less smooth up top. The DN-2000 has a slightly thicker and more natural note presentation, but bass control and overall clarity are on-par with the VSonics. The soundstage of the DN-2000 is a little more even in terms of width and depth and just better-imaged overall.

T-Peos Altone200 ($185)

The Altone200 is an impressive earphone, especially considering the much lower price tag, but lacks some refinement compared to the DN-2000. The DUNU is a little warmer and more balanced, with a more full-bodied midrange. However, the bass of the more v-shaped Altone2000 seems more impactful and digs deeper, standing out more next to its thinner, more recessed midrange. Clarity is very impressive with the T-Peos unit, augmented by its brighter treble. The DN-2000 can usually keep up in clarity, but only barely. Up top, the T-Peos is a little hotter through the upper mids and lower treble, with greater tendency towards sibilance, while the DN-2000 is smoother and more refined.

DUNU DN-1000 ($200)

The DN-2000 is about $100 more expensive than the model it supersedes. I don’t know if it can be called a direct upgrade over the DN-1000, but it does offer a few improvements. The most noticeable is the presentation – the higher-end model is more spacious. It creates a wider, airier, more spaced-out sonic image, making the DN-1000 sound more intimate and a touch congested in comparison. Part of the reason the DN-2000 is able to do this is a slight decrease in bass emphasis. Its sound is more balanced than that of the lower-end model, but it is by no means light on low end presence and maintains impressive bass impact, detail, and extension.

The midrange of the DN-2000 is more prominent and in better balance with the low end, which contributes to better vocal clarity. The treble has plenty of energy but seems to be a touch more refined on the newer model. The DN-2000 is nicely extended and just as sparkly as the DN-1000, but a little more tolerant of sibilance when it comes down to it. All in all, I consistently preferred the DN-2000, but the differences are subtle enough that I wouldn’t advocate DN-1000 owners to throw away their earphones just yet – hip-hop and EDM listeners, for example, may not see much benefit from the new tuning or even find the bassier, slightly more v-shaped DN-1000 preferable.

Fidue A83 ($280)

The A83 and DN-2000 are both high-end triple-driver hybrid earphones that, to my ears, differ most in presentation, with the A83 having a more out-of-the-head sound but appearing more distant and diffuse, and the DN-2000 sounding more focused and cohesive, but also a bit more closed-in. The Fidue set carries less emphasis in the sub-bass region and more in the mid-bass region, which actually makes its low end sound a little more integrated into the overall sound but takes away from the slam of the bass. The midrange of the DN-2000 is a little more recessed but has better crispness and definition in comparison. The DN-2000 also tends to be smoother up top with the right combination of tips and spacers.

Audiofly AF180 ($550)

Audiofly’s quad-driver AF180 is very good competition for the DN-2000, offering a slightly warmer and smoother sound at the expense of a bit of clarity and spaciousness. The DN-2000 has more bass quantity with deeper sub-bass reach, providing more “slam” on top of greater overall presence. It has a slightly more v-shaped signature, however, and sounds brighter than the AF180. The Audiofly unit boasts more upfront mids and sounds a little warmer and more natural. Clarity is on-par much of the time, but occasionally the brighter DN-2000 pulls ahead, which also affords it better intelligibility. Up top, the DN-2000 is a little bolder and can harsher as a result, whereas the Audiofly is a bit more tame and smooth. The DN-2000 also has a wider presentation while the AF180 sounds a little more intimate – but still plenty spacious and well-imaged for an IEM.

LEAR LUF-4B ($565)

The DN-2000 holds its own very well against the nearly twice as expensive LEAR LUF-4B, the bass-heavy version of LEAR’s universal-fit quad-BA earphone. The LEAR unit is a little warmer than the DN-2000, with slightly more powerful but nonetheless tighter bass. The DN-2000 actually sounds a little boomy next to the LUF-4B, but is brighter and otherwise clearer. The LEAR has more emphasis in the upper midrange and lower treble region, whereas the DN-2000’s brightness comes from emphasis higher up. This leads to the DN-2000 occasionally sounding smoother and more forgiving, but on most tracks the two are pretty even in that respect. The presentation of the LUF-4B is a touch more closed-in whereas the DN-2000 sounds a little more airy and open.

For the sake of fairness, I also pitted the DN-2000 against the less bassy LUF-4F model. The 4F puts up a better fight in ways that matter – while it still carries more emphasis in the upper midrange and lower treble, sounding harsher and less forgiving as a result, it is clearer than the DN-2000 and has a more neutral sound. Bass quality is even better than with the LUF-4F, though quantity is also reduced to below-DN-2000 levels. The bassier DN-2000 is warmer and a touch less balanced and coherent on the whole.

Custom Art Harmony 8 Pro (approx. $1100)

The Harmony 8 Pro is a high-end custom-fit earphone with a very clear, resolving sound that I thought would make for a good way to gauge how much room for improvement there is left with the DN-2000. The most noticeable difference between the two is in the bass region, where the H8P is rather flat and the DN-2000 isn’t. The bass of the DN-2000 is deeper, with greater sub-bass quantity as well as impact. However, next to the H8P, the low end of the DN-2000 sounds quite overbearing and fairly muddy. In addition to tighter bass, the Custom Art unit sounds more neutral. It also has an advantage in clarity and sounds more laid-back and spacious versus the more intimate DN-2000, with better imaging and detail resolution.

Value (9/10) – DUNU’s latest flagship, the DN-2000, pulls out all the stops in an attempt to improve on the preceding model. The packaging is significantly nicer and the accessory pack is bordering on excessive, adding several new bits and bobs to the DN-1000′s already-extensive kit to help stabilize the earphone in the ear. With all of the various eartips and accessories, it is a tinkerer’s dream, though that also means it requires more time and effort to use effectively.

In terms of sound quality, the DUNU DN-2000 is a successful hybrid design. It manages to leverage the bass of the dynamic driver without having it overwhelm the mids and highs, maintains pretty good coherency, and extracts the expected clarity and detail from the balanced armatures without losing note thickness. In its price range, it is one of the IEMs to beat for sheer performance.

Pros: Great end-to-end extension, deep bass, wide presentation, good clarity; very well-made; extensive fit kit and accessory pack
Cons: Physically large and a bit heavy in the ear

(1C25) FLC Technology FLC 8

Reviewed May 2015

Brief: Variable-tuning triple-driver hybrid IEM with a massive 36 possible sound settings

MSRP: approx. $350
Current Price: $318 from lendmeurears.com; $343 from amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Hybrid, dual BA + dynamic | Imp: 11Ω | Sens: 93 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges; MEElec M6 single-flanges; Comply T400
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), treble/midrange tuning nozzles (4 pairs), bass tuning ports (3 pairs + spares), sub-bass tuning ports (3 pairs + spares), keychain container for tuning parts, tweezers, over-the-ear cable guides (pair), cleaning tool, airplane adapter, 6.3mm adapter, and nice semi-hard carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The angular plastic housings of the FLC8 are well-made and surprisingly small considering the 3-way hybrid driver configuration. What really sets it apart from other high-end earphones, however, is the tuning system. The housings boast prominent front and rear ports, each with its own set of interchangeable plugs, as well as interchangeable nozzles. A word of caution – be careful when working on the earphones for fear of losing and/or damaging the small parts. Changing sound settings is not something I’d recommend doing on the go.

The cables are detachable, with 2-pin sockets that are slightly recessed on the cable end. Oddly, the included cable is a little on the short side, especially considering the over-the-ear fit. The 1.3m length listed in the product specifications is optimistic by about 10cm.
Isolation (3.5/5) – Good, though mild audio leakage through the vents can occur at high volumes
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low
Comfort (4/5) – In the standard over-ear configuration, the FLC8 is very lightweight and comfortable. Next to conventional ergonomic in-ears, like those manufactured by Shure and Westone, its nozzles are slightly unusual – wide and not angled relative to the earpieces. While maybe not perfect for those with narrow ear canals, this, together with the memory wire-less cables, allows the FLC8 to be worn cable-down as well as cable-up in some ears. The stock eartips of the FLC8 also have an unusual design and only come in three sizes but work well, perhaps reducing bass a touch compared to more conventional tips.

Sound (9.4/10) – The tuning system of the FLC8 is far more complex than any other I’ve come across, utilizing three different types of adjustment. There are four interchangeable nozzles, which control the mids and treble, three sets of plugs for the front tuning ports, which control the sub-bass, and three sets of plugs for the rear ports, which control the bass.

Altogether, this allows for 36 different sound signatures – a massive number compared to the three that you commonly get with other variable-tuning earphones such as the AKG K3003 and RHA T10i. To put it another way, if I were to A:B all of the possible sound configurations of the FLC8 against one another, I would have to perform over 600 comparisons.

I’ve summarized how each of the FLC8’s parts is designed to affect sound in Table 1 in the off-site version of this review. As always, the tuning parts work by restricting flow through the respective aperture of the earphones. They range from open ports, to various filters, to completely plugged vents. I attempted to determine the hardware setup of each part and included that information as well.

Subjectively, the sound tuning filters do perform as promised for the most part. In some cases the differences are immediately audible and in others – quite subtle.

The manufacturer includes five sets of recommended combinations for the tuning parts, by music genre. These are listed in Table 2 here. I’ve also added my own preferred setting, which is identical to the “balance” setting save for the heavier sub-bass port.

All of the manufacturer-recommended tunings can be grouped into two categories – those with flat/light bass (vocal, light music, and strings), which differ in the relative balance of mids and treble, and those with the FLC’s equivalent of flat mids/treble, which differ in the amount of bass (balance and pop/rap). My own preferred tuning falls in this second grouping as well.

In my view, then, the FLC8 is best viewed not as an earphone with 36 discrete sound signatures, but one with two or three base configurations that may then be subtly adjusted to one’s liking.

I spent some time trying to ascertain the exact effects of each set of tuning ports. I thought the light bass tunings – the clear sub-bass and bass ports – lacked a little in the way of depth and punch for my liking. The gray medium sub-bass port and the red high sub-bass port, on the other hand, provided plenty of depth and only differed from each other minutely. I ended up preferring the red front sub-bass port – thehigh setting.

The effect of the rear bass tuning port was more apparent. With the gray medium bass ports, the bass has very nice punch. FLC Technology utilizes the gray ports in their default “balance” tuning, but realistically the impact is greater than with a reference-flat earphone. The clearlow bass port is closer in bass quantity to a flat unit such as an Etymotic ER4 or the VSonic VC1000, but I found this setting to also impact the treble curve of the earphones with my preferred midrange/treble ports, moving some of the treble peaks closer to the “sibilance” range. Since the extra bass impact of the gray bass ports doesn’t take away from the overall clarity and resolution, I find that setting to be preferable.

The black high bass port increases the impact even further, to the level of enhanced-bass dynamic-driver earphones like the Shure SE215 and Sony MH1C, albeit with better bass quality. While this doesn’t do bass control any favors, high-end earphones with enhanced bass are few and far between, so it is a welcome option. However, I thought the black bass ports, like the clear ones, caused the highs to sound less smooth and refined compared to the gray medium bass filters.

The relative levels of the mids and treble are controlled by the nozzle filters, of which there are four sets. The dark gray filters, which FLC Technology uses in their neutral setting, ended up being my favorites as the smoothest and most pleasant all around. These are said to offer medium midrange and medium treble levels.

The green high treble filters were too bright for my liking and made the earphones more harsh and sibilance-prone. The gold high midrange/medium treble filters perform as expected, raising the midrange and upper midrange. This setting is still brighter than the gray filters I preferred, though fans of a forward midrange may very much enjoy it. The last set of filters, the blue medium-mids/low-treble, were the least impressive to me, lacking a little in the way of clarity compared to the stock gray filters with no discernible gains elsewhere.

Keep in mind that the filters are only independent to an extent – making changes to one outlet can affect airflow through others. Therefore, swapping from one filter to another may have slightly different effects depending on the settings of the other ports.

After testing all of the filters, I used the neutral configuration of the FLC8 in most of my listening and A:B comparisons, except where it was an especially poor signature match.

In this configuration, the FLC8 has powerful bass that hits harder compared to most balanced-armature in-ear monitors, even relatively bass-heavy ones such as the EarSonics SM64. The SM64 has a noticeably less rich and impactful – though also marginally more controlled – low end. Same goes for relatively balanced-sounding dynamic-driver sets, such as the Philips Fidelio S2 and VSonic GR07 Bass Edition. The bass quantity reminds me of another hybrid earphone, the Fidue A83, and falls short of truly bass-heavy sets such as the Sennheiser IE 800 and JVC HA-FX700. Bass extension is very good and bass quality is superb for the quantity.

Equally impressive is the clarity of the FLC8 – the mids, while not at all forward in the stock configuration, can’t be called recessed either and are impressively close in clarity to high-end analytical earphones like the Brainwavz B2 and VSonic VC1000. The FLC8 is noticeably clearer than the very capable TDK BA200, EarSonics SM64, and Philips Fidelio S2. There is no upper midrange dip as there is, for instance, on the SM64 and Fidue A83, which allows the FLC unit better crispness and overall resolution, as well as superior vocal intelligibility.

Moving on up into the treble, the FLC8 strikes a fine balance of presence and smoothness. Even in the stock configuration it’s not a very forgiving earphone and can probably be classified as “slightly bright” on the whole. At higher volumes it gets harsher, as is usually the case with this type of sound sig, but still fares better than the excellent DUNU DN-2000, for instance. As expected, darker-sounding earphones like the TDK BA200 and EarSonics SM64 are smoother and more forgiving, but lack the sparkle and energy of the FLC8. Its strong treble presence and excellent end-to-end extension also give the FLC8 some advantage in dynamics in soundstaging, beating the TDK BA200, SM64, and Fidelio S2 in width and, with the exception of the SM64, depth and dynamics, by a margin.

Interestingly, I also found the sensitivity higher than implied by the earphone’s specifications – despite the 93dB/mW stated figure, the FLC8 actually exhibited above-average efficiency in my testing.

Select Comparisons

Note: unless otherwise noted, the neutral configuration of the FLC8 was used for comparisons

VSonic GR07 Classic ($99)

VSonic’s mid-range heavyweight generally competes well with pricier earphones, but the FLC8 is out of its reach. The bass of the FLC8, even in its “neutral” configuration, is deeper and more powerful, but the GR07 still impresses with its bass quality, matching if not beating the FLC8 in control and the overall realism of its bass presentation.

The biggest advantage the FLC8 has over the GR07 is its midrange. There, the FLC8 is more natural, with a more crisp, resolving sound and vocals that are more upfront and realistic. The slight midrange recession of the GR07 causes the mids of the VSonic unit to sound less clear, less detailed, and significantly more laid-back, even distant, compared to the FLC8.

The FLC8 is a touch brighter overall. It can be more revealing, but still sounds more natural than the GR07, thanks in part to the more level midrange and to the GR07’s greater sibilance. Also worth noting is the higher efficiency of the FLC unit.

DUNU DN-2000 ($280)

The DN-2000 is perhaps the closest overall match for the FLC8 in my IEM collection. Like the FLC8, it is a triple-driver hybrid earphone with a sound signature slightly on the v-shaped side of neutral. Both earphones have similar strengths, including bass punch, clarity, and soundstaging. The differences between them are subtle, but add up.

The DUNU boasts a little more of both bass impact and depth, for instance. Modifying the configuration of the FLC8 from “neutral” by moving to the high sub-bass port helps in this regard, but the DN-2000 still maintains slightly better depth. On the whole, the FLC8 sounds a little warmer than the DN-2000, thanks largely to its less bright treble presentation. Its bass still provides plenty of impact when called for but on average is a little more subtle and less intrusive compared to the DUNU unit.

The FLC8 has an overall less v-shaped sound signature with a little more midrange presence. Combined with its marginally larger and more dynamic presentation, this makes for a slightly more natural sound. Up top, too, the DN-2000 is slightly brighter and more metallic-sounding, though both earphones tend to be rather revealing. In fact, depending on track I sometimes found the treble curve of the FLC8 to be more bothersome in terms of harshness and/or sibilance, and other times the DN-2000 was the bigger culprit.

InEar StageDiver SD-2 ($450)

The SD-2 is a warmer, more mid-centric sort of earphone than the FLC8, but it is one of the most capable such sets I’ve tried and makes for an interesting comparison with the “neutral” configuration of the FLC8. First, the FLC8 is a bassier earphone all around – depth, impact, rumble, and so on. The bass of the SD-2 is slightly tighter, but that is as expected due to the bass quantity difference. Taking the FLC8 into its low-bass configuration creates more parity between the two in bass quantity and quality, but makes the already-brighter FLC unit even brighter – a poorer signature match on the whole.

The FLC8 is clearer than the SD-2, due in part to its stronger treble, while the more level SD-2 appears mid-centric thanks to its lower bass quantity and duller highs. One advantage the SD-2 does have is smoother and more forgiving treble, which is something the FLC8 can’t match in any configuration. The presentation of the SD-2 is competent, but a mid-centric sound is never an asset when it comes to dynamics. On the whole, I found the FLC8 to sound more convincing more of the time thanks to a combination of better soundstaging and dynamics, clarity, and bass punch.

Westone W40 ($500)

The W40 is a quad-armature monster with a bit of bass enhancement and a warmer, darker sound signature. In its “neutral” configuration, I did indeed find the FLC8 to be more neutral than the W40 thanks to its brighter sound and broader frequency response. The bass of the FLC8 is not too different the W40 in overall power, but appears deeper thanks to a greater sub-bass focus and a less audible mid-bass hump.

The FLC8 is clearer through the midrange, but up top it sounds more harsh and sibilance-prone than the smoother, darker Westone unit. The FLC8 also has a wider and more “broad” presentation, as v-shaped earphones tend to do when compared to warmer or more midrange-focused ones.

I also switched the FLC8 to its bassier “pop/rap” configuration, but it didn’t make much of difference in this comparison. In this setting, the bass of the FLC8 was clearly more powerful than that of the W40 and the bass quality was more equal between the two. Despite this, the remainder of the comparison above still held true with the FLC8 remaining the brighter, clearer, and “wider” of the two earphones. Also, the FLC8 is more efficient than the quad-driver W40 in any configuration.

Audiofly AF180 ($550)

The signature of the AF180 is an interesting one, with some traits from smoother and more mid-focused sets such as the StageDiver SD-2 and TDK BA200, and others from brighter, more analytical earphones. Audiofly’s flagship IEM turned out to be a stronger competitor for the FLC8 than its counterparts from Westone and InEar, the W40 and SD-2/SD-3.

Once again, the FLC8 is the more efficient earphone. Its sound signature is more v-shaped, with deeper, more enhanced bass and brighter, more sparkly highs. This brighter tone is most noticeable with vocals. The FLC8 is a bit clearer as well, though also more prone to sibilance thanks to its extra treble energy. Where the AF180 shines is in providing a very flat and neutral midrange. Though vocals are a little more dull compared to the brighter FLC8, they end up sounding more prominent, full-bodied, and natural on the whole.

Value (9/10) – Despite the ever-increasing number of IEM offerings on the market in 2015, it’s rare to come across an earphone as unique as the FLC Technology FLC8. The main draw is the flexible 36-setting sound tuning system, though I found it best viewed as two or three “base” sound signatures that can each be altered slightly to one’s liking.

Not all of the possible tunings are brilliant and swapping out the ports is an exercise in patience and finesse even with the included tweezers and spare parts, but it’s pretty easy to alter the sound once you get the hang of it. Those who get tired of listening to the same sound signature – or aren’t yet sure of exactly what sort of sound they want – are certain to find extra value here.

It’s not just the tuning system that makes the earphone special, however – even if limited to the default tuning, the FLC8 would be a superb-sounding set with one of the lightest and most comfortable form factors among hybrid IEMs, and that already makes it worthy of a strong recommendation.

Pros: top-tier audio performance; functional sound tuning system allows for more adjustment than other variable-tuning IEMs; very lightweight and comfortable for a 3-driver hybrid
Cons: small, easy-to-lose/damage parts mean this is an earphone solely for enthusiasts

(1C26) LIFE Headphones

Added December 2015

Brief: dual-BA sports/lifestyle earphone being launched via crowdfunding
MSRP: $309
Current Price: $250 at Lifeacoustics.com
Specs: Driver: dual BA | Imp: 36Ω | Sens: 119 dB | Freq: 20-15k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug; detachable with 2-pin connector
Nozzle Size: 4 mm | Preferred tips: Earsonics double-flanges; MEElec A151 single-flanges/Shure flex sleeves
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), cleaning tool, and zippered carrying case (note: the tips run a bit small – XS/S/M rather than S/M/L)
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The LIFE Headphones use a two-piece plastic shell reminiscent of those used by professional in-ear monitor manufacturers such as Westone and EarSonics. The unusual shape of the earpieces seems a little more fragile than those monitors, but the earphones do use detachable, user-replaceable cables (with conventional 2-pin connectors) and are said to be sweat-resistant. The cable is similar to what is normally found on custom monitors – twisted and lightweight, with a medium length of memory wire at the earpieces and a slim L-shaped plug
Isolation (4/5) – Good with the right tips; on par with other balanced armature in-ears
Microphonics (5/5) – As usual with this type of cable, microphonics are nonexistent
Comfort (4/5) – The shape of the monitors is very unusual but surprisingly comfortable. Because only the bottom half of the earpieces ends up in contact with the ear, they actually feel like a compact Shure or Westone model when worn. The extremely light weight of the plastic earpieces and cables, together with the moldable memory wire section on the cords, makes the fit extremely secure as well

Sound (9/10) – One of several new crowdfunding-backed earphones I’ve tried in the past year, the LIFE Headphones are dual-armature IEMs tuned for a balanced sound. LIFE actually has a fairly lengthy – though at times oversimplified – explanation of the earphones’ specs on the company website, a pretty unique piece of content that implies a commitment to audio performance.

The two-way, dual-BA setup of the LIFE Headphones provides a broad frequency response and has very high sensitivity. This means a very clean audio source should be used – any hiss or electrical noise present will be heard clearly in the earphones. Even my FIIO E07k DAC, which has a fairly low noise floor, produces a small amount of audible hiss with the LIFE.

The sound of the LIFE Headphones is fairly unique for a dual balanced armature earphone – it is mildly v-shaped, with good bass punch, slightly laid-back mids, and bright treble. In many ways the tuning reminds me of the pricier triple-driver Alclair Reference custom-fit monitors.

To get a better measure of the performance of the LIFE headphones, I compared them to three of the best-performing dual-BA earphones I’ve tried – the recently-discontinued TDK BA200 and VSonic VC1000 and the Japan-import Audio-Technica ATH-IM02.

In terms of bass the LIFE falls about mid-pack. There’s a bit more bass power compared to the TDK BA200, but a bit less impact, depth, and weight compared to the Audio-Technica ATH-IM02. For a balanced armature earphone this is actually a very good amount of punch, and the bass quality is excellent as well. Of course, the LIFE isn’t a good match for listeners who prefer enhanced bass (and are willing to give up some tightness to get it). To put this in perspective, compared to Philips’ dynamic-driver in-ear flagship, the Fidelio S2 – itself a fairly accurate-sounding in-ear with only slight bass boost – the LIFE Headphones provide significantly lower bass quantity and better bass control.

The midrange takes a step back in emphasis – it is not as upfront and balanced as with the BA200 or VC1000 and tends to be a little less revealing of fine detail as a result. The IM02 from Audio-Technica, on the other hand, has clarity and detail levels similar to the LIFE Headphones but tends to sound a little more full-bodied. Keep in mind that this is all in the context of these four being high-end BA montors – the dynamic-driver Philips Fidelio S2 doesn’t manage the detail or clarity of the LIFE Headphones.

The highs of the LIFE Headphones pick up a bit and sound fairly bright – more so than the BA200 and ATH-IM02 and nearly on-par with the more energetic VC1000. The brightness helps the LIFE Headphones sound clearer, but they are also less forgiving and more prone to sibilance than the BA200 and IM02. Just like the popular VSonic GR07 monitors, I wouldn’t recommend the LIFE for listeners who are sensitive to sibilance.

My favorite aspect of the LIFE Headphones besides the bass is the presentation. The earphone’s soundstage is well-rounded and spacious, especially considering the sound tuning. The LIFE Headphones sound more dynamic than the flatter VSonic VC1000 and have a more natural soundstage with better depth compared to the Fidelio S2.

Select Comparisons

HiFiMan RE-400 ($79)

The RE-400 is one of the best-performing audiophile earphones in its price range and is tuned for a different type of balanced sound than the LIFE Headphones – one with more focus on the midrange and smoother, more relaxed treble. The LIFE Headphones deliver more linear bass with better depth and slightly greater punch compared to the RE-400. They also have brighter treble, which results in greater overall clarity compared to the RE-400 but also makes the LIFE headphones more prone to harshness and sibilance. Lastly, the more mid-centric RE-400 also tends to be a little less dynamic and doesn’t have quite as wide and versatile a soundstage as the LIFE Headphones.

VSonic GR07 Classic ($99)

Yet another tried-and-true in-ear monitor benchmark popular in the audiophile community, the GR07 is also tuned for a near-neutral sound but has significantly lower sensitivity and a slightly different sound signature with a bit more bass and less treble. The GR07 sounds a bit more scooped-out in the midrange, which makes me prefer the overall bass-midrange balance of the LIFE even though I appreciate the bass impact of the GR07. The LIFE Headphones have a thinner note and brighter treble with a similar amount of sibilance to the GR07 but slightly more harshness. The presentation, on the other hand, is slightly lacking in depth with the VSonics and is more well-rounded and three-dimensional with the LIFE unit.

Aurisonics Rockets ($249)

Like the LIFE Headphones, the Rockets are a Kickstarter-backed earphone that also happens to be similar in price ($250) and its lifestyle-oriented marketing message, including sweat resistance. Its straight-barrel metal form factor and dynamic driver are very different from the LIFE unit, however, and its sound much more closely resembles that of the HiFiMan RE-400.

Compared to the LIFE Headphones, the Rockets have slightly greater bass quantity and depth while maintaining similar bass quantity/tightness. The midrange of the Rockets is more forward, while the treble is more laid-back. The Rockets are smoother and more forgiving of harshness and sibilance, but also sound a little dull in comparison to the LIFE at times. The LIFE, on the other hand, has bright and energetic treble. The Rockets are also much less sensitive than the LIFE Headphones and will take a lot more power to hit the same volume levels.

InEar StageDiver SD-2 ($449)

The StageDiver SD-2 is a dual-balanced armature earphone, like the LIFE Headphones, but is designed and tuned primarily for stage use. Its sound is warmer, with more midrange presence and extremely smooth treble. The LIFE headphones sound thinner and clearer, partly because of the brighter treble. The downside is that they are more sibilant compared to the rather forgiving SD-2. The presentation of the SD-2 is more forward and intimate thanks to the more prominent mids, while the LIFE Headphones have a more laid-back sound and wider soundstage.

Value (8/10) – The LIFE Headphones are a comfortable and balanced-sounding in-ear monitor that combines the usual perks of BA drivers – clarity, tight bass, good noise isolation, and high efficiency – with a feature set made for active use. The memory wire cables keep the earphones securely in place and detachable cables make up for the plastic housings, though care should still be taken not to exert too much pressure on the thin part of the housings when changing tips or detaching the cords. With the advertised sweat resistance, the LIFE Headphones may just be the most audiophile-friendly purpose-made workout buds on the market.

Pros: Surprisingly comfortable in the ear; no cable noise; excellent bass quality and soundstage presentation
Cons: Can be sibilant at times; housings should be handled with care

Tier 1B ($400-600)

(1B1) Audio-Technica ATH-CK100

Reviewed Apr 2010

Details: Triple-driver flagship from Japanese audio firm Audio-Technica
Current Price: (discontinued) (MSRP: $649.99)
Specs: Driver: Triple BA | Imp: 23 Ω | Sens: 113 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrid, stock foamies
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down

Accessories (3.5/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes), heat-activated foam tips, and a soft magnetic-clasp carrying case
Build Quality (5/5) – The housings are made partially of Titanium and partially of thick plastic; an integrated strain relief protects the cables at the entry point. The thick and flexible cord (which is also used by the ATH-CK10) is internally braided for extra strength and is quite possibly the best in the industry. The well-relieved 3.5mm L-plug is shared with the lower-end ATH-CK90Pro
Isolation (4/5) – Sealed-back and very small, the CK100 gives a perfect seal every time and isolates very well with the foam tips and nearly as well with silicones
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Nonexistent when worn cord-up and barely noticeable when worn cord down
Comfort (5/5) – Small housings are designed to be worn cable-up but the offset stem means that they can be worn cord-down very easily as well. The small size and low weight make it easy to forget about them completely

Sound (9.2/10) – As a big fan of the older and wiser ATH-CK10, the CK100 has always had great appeal for me – appeal that was consistently counterbalanced by the $650 sticker price. When an opportunity to experience the CK100 for several weeks presented itself, I put all other reviews aside and began to prepare for the experience. I can say right up front that the CK100 is unlike any earphone or headphone I’ve ever heard. But let’s start at the beginning.

Initially everything is quite ordinary, with a subtle low end that gets bolder as the frequency counter approaches triple digits. Sub-bass is quite low on the CK100 – bass response definitely isn’t as linear as it is on either the CK10 or CK90Pro. Mid- and upper bass, however, is noticeably fuller on the CK100. Compared to the CK10 and CK90Pro, both of which have some of the shortest decay times of any IEMs I’ve tried, the bass of the CK100 actually carries more information. Still, the rumble commonly found in high-end dynamics is nearly nonexistent and the bass is very tight and fast. Naturally, there is no bass bleed. In fact, the CK100 are the only IEM I’ve tried so far in which the opposite is true – the lower midrange can overshadow upper bass.

This is counterintuitive for a reason – most headphones would need a gargantuan midrange boost to start drowning out the low end. The mids of the CK100 are indeed very forward, especially towards the top of the midrange. Listening to them side by side with the Ortofon e-Q7 makes the difference between mid-centric and mid-forward sound very obvious. The Ortofons are mid-centric – no part of their signature does anything to distract the listener from their midrange. The CK100s, on the other hand, do everything in their power to direct the listener to the midrange. Mids that are emphasized this much had better be good; and they are - with a single reservation – the CK100 has to like what it is plugged into (more on this later). The most striking property of the midrange of the CK100 is the extreme smoothness. Nearly as impressive is the transparency, which is partially responsible for the touchy nature of the earphones in terms of source pairing. Depending on the source, the mids of the CK100 can sound slightly cool or faintly warm. Towards the top of the midrange the emphasis reaches its peak without a trace of harshness or sibilance, resulting in a shiny but very controlled sound. Midrange detail is actually easier to discern with the CK100 than the CK10 due to the far greater midrange weight. Another effect of the peculiar balance is the low-volume prowess of the CK100 –only the Head-Direct RE252 can compete with them for minimal-volume listening enjoyment.

Moving on up into the treble, the CK100 maintains its incredible smoothness but due to the forward midrange, the treble seems less emphasized when compared to the ATH-CK10. Still, the CK100 can almost match the CK10 in extension and treble detail without sounding quite as bright or sparkly. Those who find the CK10 slightly sibilant should have no bones to pick with the CK100 – the shimmering and energetic treble is about as smooth as it gets without a sacrifice in quantity.

In terms of presentation the CK100 also holds its own quite easily against the best of the best. Though the soundstage is not the widest or deepest in absolute terms, instrumental separation, spatial positioning, and imaging are superb, especially in the midrange and treble. The forward nature of the mids results in a beautifully layered sound that works great with big band music and solo performances alike. Combined with the absolutely astonishing way in which the CK100 renders strings, woodwinds, and brass instruments this gives them an almost magical quality with string quartets and orchestral pieces. When vocals are present the CK100 always places them front and center. While this may not be to everyone’s liking, it really brings out more detail in vocals than I can hear even with my Heed-driven AKG K601, making them look like a great value compared to the $800 full-size rig.

Lastly, I want to discuss the one big caveat of the CK100 – the effect of source selection on that touchy and transparent midrange. When paired with a warm source, the mids of the CK100 are extremely sweet and actually somewhat relaxing. When paired with a source that is cold or neutral, the CK100 tends towards coolness and the quick-tempered midrange becomes a bit hard-edged, especially when it comes to female vocals. For this reason neither the Sansa players nor my iBasso D10 can elicit the full potential of the CK100. The S:Flo2 fares far better but buzzes very noticeably when paired with the CK100s. The buzzing is a problem with the player rather than the earphones but is annoying nonetheless. In order to kill the buzzing I had to run the S:Flo2 through an amp. The iBasso T4, though warm and very portable, actually detracts from the excellent resolution of the earphones. Ditto on my Music Valley RC-1. In the end, I settled on my aging DIY mini3, which is clearly overkill for the CK100 in terms of driving power but gives the desired tonality. If not for the tendency of the CK100 to reject otherwise decent sources for their tonal balance, I would have no problem declaring the CK100 the best sounding IEM I have heard; it certainly shows the most technical potential. But while it may be expected of high-end full-size cans, I consider this capriciousness of the CK100 a negative for an IEM and cannot put the CK100 a clear step above the other top-tiers.

Value (7.5/10) – Audio-Technica’s strict hold on distribution of their earphones makes the ATH-CK100 one of the world’s most expensive universals outside of Japan. Due to the inconsistent pricing, the touchy nature of the signature, and the fact that some people will love the forward mids and others will hate them, the value of the CK100 is extremely subjective. What isn’t subjective is the build quality, which is superior to any and all earphones I have held in my hands. Isolation, microphonics, and comfort are all far above average as well. As a total package the CK100 makes sense to me even with a $450 price tag. Just prepare to do some source tweaking to unleash their full potential.

Pros: Market-leading build quality, great comfort and isolation, addictively forward sound
Cons: Inconsistent pricing outside of Japan, love-it-or-hate-it midrange, picky with sources

(1B2) 1964EARS 1964-T

Reviewed Feb 2011

Details: Two-way, triple-driver custom from Oregon-based 1964EARS
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: est. $500)
Specs: Driver: Triple BA | Imp: 37Ω | Sens: 113 dB | Freq: 30-17k Hz | Cable: 4.6’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: N/A | Preferred tips: N/A
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Shirt clip, ¼” adapter, cleaning tool, ear mold lubricant, carrying pouch, and protective storage case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – At the heart of the 1964-T are twin Sonion 2015 armatures, used for the lows and mids, and a smaller treble driver I can’t identify molded in a dual-bore configuration. Molding quality is adequate – there are bubbles here and there and the finish around the cable socket and nozzle bores isn’t quite up there with what I’ve seen of Unique Melody molds. On the upside, the 1964-T utilizes a Westone Elite Series cable with a standard Westone socket (multiple lengths and colors are available). A recessed socket is available at an additional cost, as is custom artwork, custom colors, and carbon-fiber faceplates
Isolation (4/5) – The isolation provided by the fitted acrylic shells is excellent, though it may not seem so at first. The passive attenuation is slightly below what the higher-end Etymotic earphones are capable of but higher than the universal stage monitors from the likes of Westone and EarSonics
Microphonics (5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent, as is the case with all monitors fitted with Westone cables. The included shirt clip and cable cinch should still be used if the 1964-T was to be exercised in but for day-to-day use I don’t see myself bothering with either
Comfort (5/5) – The most obvious contrast to universal earphones is the lack of ‘suction’ created by the soft tips of most universals. Putting the customs in requires a bit of getting used to but the twisting motion eventually becomes second nature. The acrylic shells are hard but not in the least uncomfortable – sometimes I am aware of them and other times I forget they’re in my ears at all. Obviously fit will always depend on the quality of the initial molds and maybe a bit of luck but I can’t imagine a properly-fitting custom being uncomfortable. Naturally, 1964 offers a 30-day fit guarantee, which should be taken advantage of if the customs remain even a tiny bit uncomfortable after an initial break-in period.

Sound (9.2/10) - I ordered the 1964-T blindly, knowing nothing of its signature other than that it had less bass than the 1964-Q; that and the fact that two-way crossovers have always seemed sufficient to me in terms of covering the entire frequency spectrum - earphones such as the Fischer Audio DBA-02 are a testament to that. Those who have been following my IEM review thread or individual reviews have probably figured out that my preference leans towards leaner and brighter sound signatures – within reason, of course. The 1964-T, however, is neither lean nor thick, bright nor dark. It possesses one of the more neutral signatures I’ve heard out of an IEM which, I suppose, is the idea behind a stage monitor.

The bass is tight and controlled. Sub-bass roll-off strongly reminds of the Fischer-Audio DBA-02 and the mid-bass lift is only mild. In terms of impact and bass weight the 1964-T falls below earphones such as the EarSonics SM3 and Westone 3 but slightly above the Westone 2 and DBA-02 – around the level of a TripleFi 10 and more than adequate for my tastes. Next to bassier dynamic-driver earphones, the 1964-T suffers from no lack of texture or detail but the grunt isn’t really there. Those looking for a custom to match the bottom end of dynamic-driver sets such as the Sennheiser IE8 wand Monster MD will want to look elsewhere – perhaps at the 1964-Q. Despite barely keeping up with the UE TF10 in bass quantity, the 1964-T offers a more satisfying overall experience – its bass is simply more fleshed-out, more tactile. Texturing is better, individual notes are more resolved, and attack and decay times are more natural. The bass of the 1964-T is pretty much what one would expect from a very good armature-based earphone, much like that of the EarSonics SM3 but with slightly more clarity and bit less ‘viscosity’ and softness.

From the bass we move on to the midrange – a clean and crisp affair overflowing with texture. The 1964-T is the first earphone I’ve heard that nearly matches the CK10 and DBA-02 on both counts without sounding lean. It’s always been my opinion that high levels of texture are antithetical to what we commonly perceive as ‘smoothness’, and the 1964-T really isn’t a smooth earphone on that count. Thickness and articulation of note are both very impressive, falling closer to the healthy median of the Klipsch Custom 3 and Westone 2 than the thick-and-smooth SM3/UM3X or the leaner W3/CK10/DBA-02 crop. The 1964-T sounds tactile and well-weighted but not overly ‘creamy’. There is just a hint of warmth carried over from the bass but none of the ‘veil’ commonly attributed to such tonal characteristics. Although the mids are not particularly forward, I have no need to strain to pick out fine detail or tonal intricacies – my Triple.Fi 10 sounds both thinner and more smoothed-over in comparison. Indeed, the entire signature of the 1964-T is somewhat laid-back, with a low end that is a half-step more forward than the midrange and treble. Those looking for a forward, overly lush, liquid, or falsely sweet midrange will probably be best off looking somewhere else – what you get here is an earphone that’s slightly dry in sonic character but quite forthcoming with every little bit of information.

Not unlike the midrange, the treble is accurate and slightly laid-back. Crispness, clarity, and detail are all up there with the better universal earphones. Those looking for brightness or sparkle will be sorely disappointed – the 1964-T is offers neither – but when it comes to technical proficiency the single treble driver performs quite well. Neither sibilance nor harshness is an issue, unless of course sibilance is already present in the source material. Like the midrange, the treble is smooth and even on the whole but not ‘smoothed-over’ when examined more closely. In contrast to the 3-way EarSonics SM3, the treble of the 1964 triples never really sounds lacking in emphasis except at the very top and always remains relatively hard-edged when it comes to presenting detail. Those looking for a softened treble presentation would probably be better off with the Ortofon earphones or one of the high-end dynamics (RE262 or Monster MD). My personal tastes lean in the opposite direction and I find the 1964-T just aggressive enough to keep my attention most of the time.

Lastly we come to the presentation – perhaps the one aspect of the 1964-T’s sound least in-line with my expectations. For some reason I expected it to either be either thick, creamy, and mid-forward, like the UM3X, or spacious and airy, like the CK10, but the truth lies somewhere in-between. The soundstage of the 1964-T is above average in size but has neither the intimacy of the UM3X nor the wide-open feel of the CK10. A few months ago I would have been disappointed, but as I recently outlined in my EarSonics SM3 review, a stage of this size makes sense for an armature-based earphone. As I said in the SM3 write-up, a massive stage works (more or less) for something like the Sennheiser IE8, with its huge bass and immense dynamic presence, but an armature-based earphone would sound thinner trying to fill all of that space. In addition, the soundstage of the IE8 has an ‘inner limit’, meaning that it seems to start some distance away from the listener, but the ability to accurately portray intimacy is one of the necessary hallmarks of a good stage monitor. The 1964-T can indeed sound quite intimate, though not in the eerie centered-yet-enveloping way the SM3 can, but tends to spread things out more evenly across its stage. The stage is wider than it is tall or deep and the space is elliptical in nature, as is the case with most in-ears. The good, though not Monster MD-good, dynamics allow the 1964-T to portray distance as well as direction accurately and imaging is almost on par with what the thinner-sounding CK10 is capable of. Instrumental separation and layering are both good but stop short of what the Westone UM3X can achieve. On the whole, I don’t feel that the presentation of the 1964-T is necessarily better than that of most high-end universals but it does provide its - competitive - flavor.

Value (8/10) – The 1964-T currently runs $400 plus the cost of shipping, customization, and impressions. For most, the base model will end up running just over $450 – a price lower than that of some top-tier universals. For that you get the fit and isolation of a custom earphone, not to mention the build quality and customization options that come with venturing into customs territory. I won’t say that the 1964-T is better than every universal I’ve ever heard in every aspect of its signature, but as a total package it is very proficient. Is it the earphone for everyone? Not exactly. The 1964-T has a sound signature – as do all universals and, I imagine, all customs – and that signature may not be to everyone’s liking. Moreover, the sound signature of a custom cannot be modified with alternate tips or a different insertion angle as it can with universal earphones. A set of customs is also not as easy to walk away from – to return or re-sell – and not quite as simple to live with day-to-day. Once the 1964-T is in my ears, however, all of these considerations simply melt away. Even when driven by a low-cost portable player, its sound is still on par with my favourite universal IEMs and, in my opinion, well worth the price of admission.

Pros: Balanced, detailed, and accurate sound on-par with the best universals in most aspects; excellent long-term comfort
Cons: Correct insertion takes some getting used to; less isolating than silicone-shelled customs;

For my full, in-depth review of the 1964-T please see here

(1B3) Westone 4

Reviewed Mar 2011

Details: Westone’s new flagship and the first quad-driver universal earphone
Current Price: $449 from bhphotovideo.com (MSRP: $639.00)
Specs: Driver: Quad BA | Imp: 31Ω | Sens: 118 dB | Freq: 10-18k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Shure Gray Flex, Shure Olives, Earsonics Bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange conical (3 sizes) and rounded (3 sizes) silicone tips, triple-flange silicone tips, Comply foam tips (3 sizes), ¼” adapter, in-line volume control, filter and tip cleaning tool, and hard clamshell carrying case with carabiner
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The build of the W4 is almost identical to that the Westone 3. The housings are made of plastic and the multi-strand cables are twisted for extra strength. The y-split, housing entry, and 3.5mm L-plug are all very well-relieved
Isolation (3.5/5) – Quite good, especially with longer tips
Microphonics (5/5) – The W4 can only be worn over-the-ear and microphonics are nonexistent
Comfort (4/5) – As is the case with the W3, the shells of the W4 are quite ‘fat’ in comparison to those used by the Westone 1 and 2 and quite a bit heavier. The nozzle is also a bit short for my liking but, luckily, the sound of the W4 seems far less dependent on seal quality than that of the W3 so a wider variety of comfort-oriented tips can be used

Sound (9.3/10) – As the first quad-driver universal-fit IEM, the W4 brings with it an undeniably high level of expectations when it comes to sound quality, especially considering Westone’s expertise in portable audio. Having heard all of the company’s universal models except for the aging UM1 and UM2, I can honestly say that the W4 rules the coop. The UM3X, W3, and W2 are all top-tier earphones as far as I am concerned but they are not perfect. The W4 isn’t either, but it’s a tad closer, blending the best traits of the W2 and UM3X in a single, easy-going package. Interestingly, though the specifications of the W4 are remarkably close to those of the W2, I don’t find the earphone to be as sensitive to source as the lower-end W2 and W3 models. It does not hiss with my netbook and its sonic flavor remains fairly consistent across a wide range of sources, much like that of the ATH-CK10 and my 1964-T customs.

First, a note on the fit – while the W4 uses the same ergonomically-styled but somewhat tubby housings as the W3, it is far more forgiving of a less-than-perfect insertion angle. As a result, jamming it as far as possible into the ear canal really isn’t necessary and shorter tips such as the included gray single-flange sleeves will work just fine for many listeners. Once fitted, the W4 immediately surprises with the tame nature of its low end - for an earphone with two dedicated bass drivers, the W4 has undoubtedly been tuned for quality over quantity. Don’t get me wrong – there is still more bass than there would be in a strictly ‘flat’ earphone such as the CK10 – but the quantity trails the powerful and aggressive W3 by miles. In fact, the W4 seems to have a bit less bass body than the UM3X and only a touch more than the W2. The quality of the bass is very difficult to fault – it is extremely linear and speed and control impress even next to the ruler-flat ATH-CK10 and my 1964EARS customs. The bass is also very slightly soft in nature, providing a good compromise between the tight and decay-shy bass provided by more analytical earphones such as the CK10 and DBA-02 and the smoother, thicker, and more full-bodied low ends of the UM3X, SM3, and SM2. For me, the bass of the W4 is always plentiful but never excessive.

The W4’s midrange again strikes a good balance between the forward and creamy-sounding mids of the UM3X and SM3 and the thinner, slightly grainier midrange of the W2. In direct contrast to the slightly recessed midrange of the W3, the mids of the W4 are just a bit forward in the soundscape. They are also slightly warm and extremely smooth. Detail and resolution put the W4 on-par with other top-shelf earphones but clarity is still hindered slightly by the thickness in comparison to the CK10, DBA-02, FI-BA-SS, and other clarity-focused earphones. To me, the midrange presentation of the W4 sounds quite natural both in texture and tone but it really wouldn’t be much of a stretch to call the W4 a mid-centric earphone. In this particular case, however, the mids are so polished and refined that having them as the focus of the sound signature is fine by me.

The treble of the W4, too, achieves a compromise between the other Westone models. It is not as hot and exciting as that of the W3, nor is it as dull and lazy as that of the UM3X. Instead, it is smooth and inoffensive, with good extension and solid presence across the range. Detail is excellent as well and while the W4 isn’t nearly as sparkly or energetic as the ATH-CK10 or Fischer DBA-02, I can’t image anyone taking offense with its treble, either. It is definitely a sweet-sounding earphone on the whole, though, so those who are after something crisp and edgy will want to stick to the W3 or go with another brand.

The presentation of the W4 may just be the most impressive aspect of its sound. The soundstage is similar in size to that of the W3 but the outstanding separation and imaging are closer to those of the UM3X. The resulting sound is not nearly as intimate as that of the UM3X but remains full and coherent despite the greater soundstage size without becoming as ‘falsely’ enveloping as that of the Earsonics SM3. As stated in my review of the SM3, there is definitely a sweet spot for soundstage size in armature IEMs – too large and the earphones will start to sound ‘thinned out’; too small and congestion can become an issue. The W4 puts some natural-sounding distance between the listener and the music but does so without placing much of a ‘veil’ over the sound – an impressive feat. Though the UM3X does not sound notably veiled either, its notes are a bit softer than those of the W4 and its subdued treble results in decreased airiness compared to the new flagship. The tone of the W4, too, is slightly more neutral than that of the UM3X and the timbre is on-par with the SM3 and about as good as it gets for BA-based earphones.

Value (8.5/10) – With the introduction of the W4, Westone has once again raised the stakes in the driver wars between high-end IEM manufacturers – something they’ve done at least twice in the past. The fit, comfort, build quality, and isolation are all what we’ve come to expect from Westone products but it should come as no surprise that the sound of the W4 is an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, step up from the company’s previous flagships. The sound signature requires almost no qualifications for those familiar with Westone products – well-rounded, refined, and spacious, the W4 is a very difficult earphone do dislike. Clearly it is not for those seeking FAD-like clarity, exciting treble, or explosive bass but the balance and realism of the new Westones is difficult to fault. Easily one of the best universal all-rounders I’ve come across.

Pros: Impressive isolation, build quality, and accessory pack; no cable noise; excellent balance & soundstaging
Cons: Tubby shells may not be ergonomic for some

Huge thanks to rawrster for an extended loan of the Westone 4

(1B4) Shure SE530

Reviewed June 2011

Details: Shure's previous flagship and one of the first triple-armature universal-fit earphones
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $449)
Specs: Driver: Triple BA | Imp: 36Ω | Sens: 119 dB | Freq: 18-19k Hz | Cable: 18" I-plug + 3' extension (I-plug) or 9" extension (I-plug)
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock triple flanges, Shure Olives
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes) and triple-flange silicone tips, Olive foam tips (3 sizes), cleaning tool, over-the-ear cable guides, ¼" adapter, in-line attenuator, airline adapter, hard clamshell carrying case, 3' extension cable, and 9" extension cable
Build Quality (4/5) - The ergonomically-shaped housings of the SE530 are made out of shiny bronze-colored plastic. The nozzle is a separate piece (in contrast to the SE535) and the entire shell feels rather sturdy. Strain reliefs are extremely beefy and the modular cable is thicker than what's found on most portable headphones. Early production SE530s are infamous for cable cracking issues
Isolation (4/5) - As with most ergo-fit monitors, the SE530 isolates quite a lot with longer tips such as the included triple-flanges
Microphonics (4.5/5) - The SE530 can only be worn cable-up and microphonics are nearly nonexistent
Comfort (4.5/5) - The rounded housings and over-the-ear fit of the SE530 make the earphones quite comfortable for prolonged use and the fit kit provides plenty of tip options. Size-wise the SE530 is similar to the W3 but longer, more shallowly angled nozzle should make the fit more universal. One annoyance is the modular cable, which is quite thick and can be unwieldy

Sound (8.9/10) – Introduced back in 2005 as the E500 (not to be confused with the E5), the SE530 became one of the very first triple-driver universal IEMs on the market. The monitor utilizes a two-way design with dual low drivers – a configuration still common today. Unlike a few of the other multi-armature flagships, however, the SE530 is a consumer-oriented earphone through and through. Whereas the Shure E4 I owned a long time ago was mid-centric and neutral almost to the point of blandness, the SE530 overflows with sonic flavor. Tuned for a warm and full-bodied sound, it shares individual characteristics with a number of high-end IEMs but mirrors none in full.

Contrary to what I expected based on the hundreds of SE530 references I’ve read over the years, the low end is well-extended and lacks any significant mid-bass emphasis. Test tones are easily audible below 25Hz but the earphone lacks power, detail, and definition at the lowest of lows, making the usable frequency range a little narrower. Outside of sub-bass frequencies, however, the SE530 yields little detail to the new crop of high-end monitors and usually remains competent and polite. The character of the low end is reminiscent of the Earsonics SM2 but with diminished overall quantity. It is thick, full, and slightly round of note, with good punch and definition. The response also picks up weight and becomes more authoritative towards the lower midrange. Like the SM2, the SE530 is a touch on the boomy side for an armature-based earphone with fairly flat response. The Westone 4, which isn’t a whole lot leaner than the SE530, sounds significantly quicker and tighter.

The mids of the SE530 are powerful and upfront but despite the midrange bias the earphones sound fairly balanced. In my book, the presentation qualifies as mid-centric rather than mid-forward. The midrange is lush and full-sounding. It manages to be warm without coming off significantly veiled, partly because there is no bass hump getting in the way. It is detailed, but not aggressively so. Expectedly, some texture and microdetail ends up being sacrificed for the smoothness - the SE530 sounds very liquid next to my CK10, 1964-T, and even TF10. More noticeable are the sacrifices in clarity and transparency – the SE530 can’t quite keep up with the newer triple- and quad-driver models on the market on either front. I’ve seen the term ‘fat’ tossed around and I think it more or less applies to the midrange of the SE530.

The treble transition is extremely smooth and the earphone drops off more gradually than I expected at the top. There is no doubt that the high end is rolled off but my testing shows that it drops 10dB maybe 1kHz earlier than the (decidedly trebly) CK10. From a frequency response perspective, 1kHz isn’t much and the SE530 actually seems to perform better than the newer SE535 when it comes to absolute extension. What’s missing is treble energy – while the earphone is extremely non-fatiguing and polite, it is also quite laid-back and lacking in air. The top end is not at all sparkly or edgy – not even close – which tends to accentuate the roll-off and – as with the poor note weight at the extreme low end – sacrifice some realism. While the Earsonics SM3 and UM3X can be accused of the same, they do have greater resolution, clarity, and detail to make up for it. On the upside, the SE530 is one of the most forgiving earphones I’ve ever heard when it comes to compressed or poorly-ripped audio – probably not much consolation for seasoned audiophiles but it does make the SE530 more suitable for beginners.

In addition to its performance at the limits of the frequency spectrum, I was slightly underwhelmed by the presentation of the SE530. The soundstage is a bit above average in size, with good width and depth, but the lack of crisp, well-defined treble cuts down on airiness and the sense of overall space. As a result, the earphone leans towards intimacy with the way it presents music and tends to underemphasize the size of its stage. Imaging is average – sufficient, but not nearly as impressive as with the UM3X or SM3. Positioning precision, similarly, lags behind the CK10 and Westone 4, but not for lack of dynamics. Rather, the mid-centric balance messes with positioning cues and causes certain things to sound out of place. In addition, the sound simply isn’t very well-separated – the SE530 sounds blended, almost like a dynamic-driver set – in stark contrast to something like the UM3X or CK10. Of course for those who complain about armatures sounding artificial and consider a track to be more than a sum of its parts, the presentation of the SE530 may actually be preferable. In addition, the laid-back top end contributes to the tone leaning towards the dark side of neutral - not terribly so, but more than most of the competition. The earphones are also quite sensitive and will hiss more with poorly-matched sources than the competition.

Value (7.5/10) – The Shure SE530 has been a staple of the audiophile market for the better part of the past decade. In that time it has been challenged by a number of newer designs but – thus far – has managed to maintain a loyal following. As an overall package, the SE530 is indeed impressive, especially considering its age. Early-production cable issues aside, the set is well-designed and user-friendly. The sound is mid-centric, warm, and polite – a signature still considered by many to be the audiophile ideal. Shure obviously thought the earphone aged well enough, admitting publically that sonic changes to the newer SE535 revision were kept to a minimum. What follows is a more personal question – why can’t I bring myself to like the sound? To me, the SE530 has a definite midrange bias while the bass and treble are merely decent. Granted, monitors such as the Earsonics SM3 and Westone UM3X have a different purpose and different signatures, as do the more V-shaped TF10 and W3, but all of these perform better across the spectrum as a whole than the SE530 does. The Shures lose additional points for questionable positioning precision and texturing. For a triple-driver setup, the SE530 simply runs out of steam too early when it comes to the finer points of audio reproduction and, while I appreciate the role of the earphone in shaping the high-end consumer IEM market, the SE530 is a difficult one to recommend in 2011.

Pros: Ergonomic; well-accessorized; lush and sweet sound
Cons: Modular cable can be unwieldy; not great at frequency range extremes; not very impressive on a technical level

Huge thanks to carlsan for loaning me the Shure SE530 and SE535 for extensive head-to-head testing!

(1B5) Shure SE535

Reviewed June 2011

Details: Shure's latest flagship utilizing three armatures in a dual-low, single-high configuration
Current Price: $410 from accessoryjack.com (MSRP: $549.99); $40 more for Shure CBL-M+-K mic/remote accessory
Specs: Driver: Triple BA | Imp: 36Ω | Sens: 119 dB | Freq: 18-19k Hz | Cable: 5.3' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock triple flanges, Shure Olives, Earsonics bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes) and triple-flange silicone tips, Olive foam tips (3 sizes), porous yellow foam tips, cleaning tool, ¼" adapter, in-line attenuator, airline adapter, and hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) - With the SE535, Shure has beefed up the construction of the flagship earphone, integrating the nozzle into the housing molds and foregoing the modular cable for a detachable single-piece design. The housings are now less rounded in shape and available in two colors. The cable connectors use a locking and swiveling design akin to that found on some customs but seems to suffer from an unusally high defect/failure rate so far. Strain reliefs are again extremely beefy and the cable is much thicker than average. One interesting issue is with the cable cinch – while it may loosen up over time, it was extremely difficult to move on the test unit
Isolation (4/5) - As with most ergo-fit monitors, the SE535 isolates quite a lot with longer tips such as the included triple-flanges
Microphonics (4.5/5) - The SE535 can only be worn cable-up and microphonics are nearly nonexistent
Comfort (4/5) - With the SE530 as a starting point, it is difficult to imagine the SE535 being an improvement on the comfort front. Indeed, it isn’t - though the cable itself is lighter without the modular split halfway down, the connectors are big, bulky, and angled too far forward for my liking. The addition of a memory wire section doesn't help either – the entire setup makes the earphones more difficult to position and causes the angular housings to press against my ears

Sound (9/10) – The Shure SE535 replaces the aging SE530 – an earphone that, despite its unique and audiophile-friendly sound signature, certainly is not without flaws - as the company’s flagship. Admitting as much but downplaying the extent of the revision, Shure has gone on record commenting that while the core hardware of the earphone is unchanged, modifications to the housing have positively affected the treble and presentation of the earphones. Personally, I think the improvements go a little further than that, but then again the original SE530 failed impress me in any major way to begin with.

The low end is where the SE535 differs least from the previous model. The bass is flat and well-extended. Test tones are easily audible below 25Hz but power, detail, and definition are lacking at the lowest of lows. Bass detail is good and the low end lacks generally in neither control nor quantity. The bass is still punchy, full, and slightly round of note, but seemingly less so with the SE535 – the newer model sounds tighter and cleaner with quicker attack and decay compared to its predecessor. Other than a tiny bit of speed and recovery, the E535 is mostly identical to the SE530 at the low end. It still reminds me of the Earsonics earphones and, compared to the Westone 4 and 1964-T, is still just a touch too soft for my liking.

The midrange remains the focus of the presentation with the SE535. It retains the power and authority of the SE530 but sounds slightly less forward, mainly due to the greater treble presence. Despite a slight reduction in note thickness, the mids are still lush, full, and very smooth. Warmth is reduced slightly compared to the SE530 – the newer model is clearly the more neutral-sounding of the two. Detail levels are good but the detailing is not at all aggressive. Texture and microdetail levels lag behind many other BA-based earphones and even the dynamic-driver Sony EX1000 and JVC FX700. Clarity and transparency, similarly, are not strong suits of the SE535 next to the some of the other monitors in the price bracket.

The top end is where the SE535 deviates most from its predecessor – the treble is noticeably more prominent in the overall soundscape of the newer earphone. Strictly-speaking, there is still a similar amount of high frequency roll-off to the SE530 but the response stays stronger and cleaner right up to the roll-off point. Most of the differences between the two models stem from this minor change – the SE535 sounds a bit cooler, slightly less mid-centric, and a touch leaner than the SE530. It also carries more air and, unlike the SE530, can make claims to sonic balance. The overall amount of treble energy is a bit more realistic though the earphones are still quite polite and non-fatiguing. They are also a touch more critical of poor rips and recordings than the SE530.

The second area of “official” improvement is the presentation. I found myself slightly underwhelmed by the sizeable-yet-intimate presentation of the SE530. The extra air of the SE535 helps the earphone make better use of the sonic space and even the instrument separation seems (very slightly) improved. Overall soundstage size is still slightly above average, imaging is good, and the dynamic range is impressive. There still seem to be some minor positioning anomalies resulting from the relative strength of the midrange but nothing that would bother me. The characteristically ‘blended’ sound of the SE530 is mostly unchanged but the overall tonality is definitely closer to neutral. Clearly an improvement over the SE530 in my book but not one significant enough to warrant an upgrade for most current SE530 owners.

Value (8/10) - Though the market as a whole has changed drastically, high-end in-ear earphone hardware has seen little innovation in the past few years. Whereas UE has responded with drastic price cuts, Shure, Earsonics, and Etymotic Reseach seem bent on revising their products to maintain a higher price point. In the case of theSE530/SE535, the changes touch mostly on construction and performance. The build quality has undergone the largest improvement, with the modular cable dropped in favor of a fully detachable system. Unfortunately, the bulky cable connectors can make it slightly more difficult to achieve a comfortable fit with the earphone. The sound quality, too, has been improved but the changes are far from drastic. Shure managed to bring the signature closer to ‘balanced’, with improvements to the treble response affecting the rest of the spectrum in minor ways. The SE535 is, on the whole, a better earphone than the SE530, but sets such as the Westone 4 are quick to point out its remaining deficiencies. The new version, therefore, is not a must-have upgrade for SE530 owners but those buying a Shure product now will clearly be better off with the SE535.

Pros: Top-notch build quality, well-accessorized, performance improved over SE530
Cons: Detachable cable can be unwieldy

Huge thanks to carlsan for loaning me the Shure SE530 and SE535 for extensive head-to-head testing!

(1B6) Sony MDR-EX1000

Reviewed Aug 2011

Details: Sony’s dynamic-driver flagship monitor
Current Price: $480 from amazon.com (MSRP: $499.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 108 dB | Freq: 3-30k Hz | Cable: 4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrids, generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Sony Hybrid silicone tips (6 sizes), Hybrid silicone+foam tips (3 sizes), and carrying case (Note: US version includes an EX600 cable; non-US version ships with a nicer 4' cord plus a shorter 2' cable)
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The EX1000 housings are constructed of magnesium and plastic and styled in the typical Sony manner, with the driver positioned vertically outside of the ear. The detachable cable is held in place by a threaded bit, which seems pretty fool-proof except that I found myself gripping the threaded bit when removing the earphones, thereby unscrewing the cable a bit each time. The cord itself feels slightly underwhelming for a $500 product. It is very flexible but a little thinner than the Ortofon e-Q5 cord. The “memory wire” section is likewise very flexible, so it is more of a “suggestion wire” in practice. It can take a bit of time to settle into the desired shape and doesn’t retain form very well under its own weight. The cord is terminated with a slim 3.5mm L-plug
Isolation (2.5/5) – The nozzles of the EX1000 seem rather long but the earphones are not well-designed for deep insertion. Isolation is mediocre with the standard Hybrid eartips and very slightly better with the supplied foam-stuffed tips. Wind noise can be an additional issue when used outside
Microphonics (5/5) – The native wear style is over-the-ear and cord noise nonexistent in the soft cable
Comfort (4/5) – Though housings designed around vertically-positioned drivers often feature angled nozzles or other ergonomic improvements, the EX1000 is actually a straight-barrel earphone. It is quite large and tends to protrude farther than most earphones when worn, looking a bit like the ridiculous PFR-V1. On the upside, the long nozzles position the driver far enough away from the ear not to cause discomfort. The fit is not as secure as with most other high-end monitors but the soft memory wire works well enough in conjunction with the cable cinch. Still, I would prefer a little more ‘memory’

Sound (9.3/10) – The MDR-EX1000 slots in above the studio-oriented MDR-EX800ST/MDR-7550 in Sony’s lineup, competing directly with Sennheiser’s IE8 and JVC’s FX700 for the title of top consumer-oriented dynamic. Never having heard Sony’s previous flagship, or indeed any model higher up than the lowly EX300, the EX1000 was a complete mystery to me. What I found was a truly top-tier dynamic-driver earphone with a slight – but not unpleasant – treble tilt.

The low end of the EX1000 is accurate and controlled. In typical high-end dynamic-driver fashion, it is detailed and textured without losing body or fullness – clean, but relatively soft in the way notes are presented. There is no bloat and while the depth is not as immense as with the Monster MD or JVC FX700, the EX1000 is not severely rolled-off, either. Compared to the VSonic GR07, the Sonys skimp on speed just a little bit in favor a smoother and slightly softer presentation. The warmer, boomier Sennheiser IE7, on the other hand, is left completely in the dust by the bass control and detail of the EX1000. Not a bad tradeoff at all and one of my very favorite bass presentations among all universals.

The midrange of the EX1000 is neutral-to-bright, with a slight gain in emphasis towards the top. It is balanced very well with the bottom end, which is not quite something I can say for Audio-Technica’s dynamic flagship, the CKM99. The GR07, on the other hand, is a touch less prominent in the midrange, sounding flatter across the spectrum and slightly more neutral in tone than the EX1000 - not a huge surprise considering its pro-oriented tuning. The ATH-CK10 also sounds a bit flatter through the low end and midrange but treads on the brighter side of neutral, just as the EX1000 does, albeit without the benefit of dynamic-driver fullness. As expected, bass bleed is nonexistent with the Sonys and the smoothness is very impressive. The EX1000 is easily smoother and lusher than the GR07 and nudges the warmer, less clear, and noticeably less textured IE7 on both counts. Clarity is top notch, as is resolution, and there is only a very small bit of microdetail missing compared to top-tier BA-based earphones such as the CK10 and 1964-T. Overall, the detailing of the Sonys is very good but not very aggressive, which allows the earphone to remain extremely refined and liquid. The overall refinement is especially obvious next to a lesser dynamic such as the Sennheiser IE7, which lacks clarity and detail compared to the EX1000 and loses out by a fair margin in overall realism. Only in comparison to the 6-driver, custom-molded, hugely expensive UM Miracle does the EX1000 start to sound a little thin and lacking in note articulation.

The EX1000 picks up emphasis towards the upper midrange and treble but manages to keep its top end in control far better than the CKM99 does. Despite the moderate amount of emphasis, the EX1000 is only a hair hotter than the GR07 and manages to remain extremely smooth and refined without giving up crispness or resolution. It is not harsh and almost never sibilant. Over long listening sessions, the EX1000 can be a little more fatiguing than the GR07 but again not due to harshness or sibilance. Rather, it is the overall tilt towards treble that may grow tiresome for some listeners. Coming from the CK10, however, I wasn’t at all offended by it, though I prefer my treble emphasis higher up. On the upside, the EX1000 does an excellent job of conveying treble energy, which laid-back dynamics such as the RE262 and DDM2 simply cannot do. Interestingly, top end extension is not ‘bottomless’ – above average, certainly, but the EX1000 is on par with the GR07 in dropping off a bit earlier than my CK10 and 1964-T. Sony’s monitor is also a touch less revealing than the 1964-T - a blessing for those with a good number of mp3s in their library.

Whereas the signature of the EX1000 is lively and energetic, the presentation follows a more laid-back approach. Its soundstage is not quite the widest among all in-ears in absolute terms, but it is very spacious, airy, and open. There is not a hint of the confined, closed-in feel prevalent among stage monitors – the 1964-T, for example, sounds downright intimate in comparison. Surprisingly, the same can be said for the dynamic-driver Sennheiser IE7, though to a slightly lesser degree – the Sennheisers sound constrained and congested next to the Sonys. At the same time, the soundstage of the EX1000 is well filled-in and layered better than that of the GR07. The EX1000 also has an upper hand in dynamics, timbre, and overall refinement, though the GR07 is admittedly a bit more neutral in tone. Imaging and positioning are generally good but lag slightly behind a couple of the top-tier armature IEMs I’ve heard. Separation, similarly, is only above average. Those looking for extremely high instrument separation are probably better off with a BA-based monitor as the EX1000 takes a more cohesive approach. Likewise, those who want to be enveloped by the presentation will not get that ‘on stage’ feel with the EX1000 – the EX1000 tends to distance itself slightly and offers a higher degree of left-right separation. A BA-based monitor such as the UM3X, SM3, or 1964-T will give the on-stage feel in spades for those who require it. Personally, I do find that more coherent and centralized imaging provides a more realistic and involving listening experience but only my UM Miracle is capable of making that highly obvious in the Sonys without sacrificing airiness or soundstage size.

Value (8/10) – Blisteringly expensive when first announced, Sony’s MDR-EX1000 has recently been dropping low enough in price to compete with other top-tier universal dynamics. In terms of sheer performance, Sony’s flagship readily asserts its dominance over the hi-fi mainstays - the newly-developed liquid crystal polymer driver is one of the best dynamic transducers I’ve come across, alongside those used by HiFiMan and JVC, and the tuning showcases its abilities beautifully. The sound is clean, quick, airy, and dynamic – everything a high-end earphone should strive toward. The design is reminiscent of the higher-end Sony monitors of yesteryear but introduces replaceable cables and native over-the-ear fitment. Isolation is only moderate and wind noise can be an issue but those who are willing to suffer through the fit and aesthetics of the thing will be rewarded with what may be the finest dynamic-driver universal on the market.

Pros: No cable noise; amazing combination of clear, detailed, open, and spacious sound
Cons: Average isolation; fit can be frustrating; wind noise can be an issue

Huge thanks to esanthosh for the EX1000 loan!

(1B7) Alclair Reference

Reviewed May 2012

Details: Triple-driver acrylic custom from MN-based Alclair
Current Price $399 from alclair.com (MSRP $499)
Specs: Driver: Triple BA | Imp: 27Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4.2' L-plug
Nozzle Size: N/A | Preferred tips: N/A
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Cleaning tool, cleaning cloth, and hard-shelled Pelican carrying case
Build Quality (5/5) – The reference is a two-way, triple-driver monitor with dual low drivers – a setup similar to the 1964EARS 1964-T and several universal-fit monitors. The molding quality is very good, with clean shells and very clear faceplates. The excellent finish around the nozzles and cable connectors sets the Reference apart from my 1964EARS and Kozee customs. The cable uses a recessed Westone-style connector.
Isolation (4/5) – The isolation provided by the fitted acrylic shells is excellent -slightly below what the higher-end Etymotic Research universal-fit earphones are capable of with foam or tri-flange tips but higher than that of the ergonomic monitors from Westone and EarSonics
Microphonics (5/5) - Pretty much nonexistent as with all of the custom monitors I’ve tried
Comfort (5/5) – The nozzles of my Reference were cut to a medium length – a bit longer than those of my Kozees and 1964s but nowhere near my Spiral Ear 3-way. As with all customs, putting them in will require a bit of getting used to for first-time users but the twisting motion eventually becomes second nature. The acrylic shells are hard but not in the least uncomfortable when fitted correctly. If the earphones remain uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a refit is probably a good idea. There is added cost with shipping the monitors back and, if necessary, getting new impressions but on the whole a perfect fit is well worth the trouble

Sound (9.4/10) – The Alclair Reference utilizes a two-way, triple-BA setup with dual low drivers, much like that of the 1964EARS 1964-T. Its signature, however, is very different from the mid-focused sound of the 1964s. The Alclair pursues a more balanced response with some treble emphasis and a more laid-back presentation. At the same time the dual woofers give the sound a warm tone and fullness, making the Alclair Reference one earphone that can easily be enjoyed for casual listening as well as professional use.

The bass of the earphones is detailed and controlled, with good note thickness and minimal bleed. The low end is accurate, but impactful. It is crisper and more punchy than that of the Earsonics SM3 and similar in power but better-textured compared to a black-filtered Phonak PFE 232. Bass depth is also good - better than with the CTM-200 and 1964-T but not quite up there with the pricier UM Miracle, Spiral Ear 3-way, and AKG K3003. The Alclair Reference doesn’t produce a lot of sub-bass rumble but it sounds very clean and resolving across the range, as a good monitor should. It beats out the K3003 in clarity and control and produces a fuller, more realistic sound than the leaner CTM-200 – a good balance in my book.

The midrange of the Reference is balanced very well with the bass, making the Phonak PFE 232 sound slightly mid-recessed in comparison. It is warmed up a little by the bass and very well-detailed. Detail levels are higher than with the AKG K3003 and Spiral Ear 3-way and lag just behind the UM Miracle. The note presentation is on the analytical side but not overly so – the Reference is noticeably thicker-sounding than the CTM-200 as well as TWFK-based monitors such as the Fischer Audio DBA-02. The result is clarity worthy of a reference product without a drop in note weight and overall realism.

Things start to get a little complicated moving up from the midrange – the upper mids and lower treble of the Reference seem to be somewhat emphasized, likely tuned that way to give a boost to vocal clarity. There is a bit of treble unevenness, causing the Reference to sound a touch ‘hot’ with some tracks in a manner reminiscent of the VSonic GR07 and the Phonak PFE 232. The treble peaks of the PFE 232 come in a little higher up but are also slightly stronger, making the Reference less fatiguing for long-term listening, but I wouldn’t recommend either to those who generally prefer smooth and laid-back highs. On the upside, there is plenty of energy at the top, which can’t be said for the pricier Spiral Ear 3-way. Treble extension is good as well – not quite on-par with the Miracle or AKG K3003 but superior to the CTM-200 and vastly better than the 1964-T.

Presentation is a strong suit of the Reference – the soundstage is nice and spacious, with width similar to that of the CTM-200 but better depth and layering. It doesn’t have the best on-center feel – the AKG K3003 and Earsonics SM3 both do better when it comes to portraying elements that are up close but neither can match the sheer size of the Alclair’s soundstage. Instrument separation is also excellent and the Reference has good dynamics for a BA-based earphone. Overall coherence is also impressive, making obvious the slightly mismatched BA-dynamic sound of the AKG K3003 and the overly-mid-centric tuning of the 1964-T’s crossover.

Value (9/10) – Starting at $399, the Alclair Reference is a mid-level custom monitor that combines a versatile sound signature with the usual isolation, fit, and customization options of a full-shell custom monitor. The finish is nothing short of excellent and the standard recessed cable sockets make me less apprehensive of long-term cable durability, though some aftermarket cables may be more difficult to fit. More importantly, the sound signature of the Reference should make it the best crowd pleaser among all of the mid-level customs I’ve heard - the triple-BA setup produces a slightly warm, spacious, and energetic sound, an excellent compromise between accuracy and musicality and a potential upgrade to some very popular universals such as the VSonic GR07.

Pros: Great build quality; comfort of a custom monitor; slightly warm sound with good clarity, detail, and space; excellent bass & midrange quality
Cons: Treble may be hot for some

(1B8) Phonak Audéo PFE 232

Reviewed July 2012

Details: dual-driver follow-up to Phonak’s renowned Perfect Fit Earphone
Current Price: $599 from amazon.com (MSRP: $599.00); mic cable included
Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 47Ω | Sens: 104-109 dB | Freq: 5-17k Hz | Cable: 3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 3mm | Preferred tips: stock silicone, stock Comply, Shure Gray Flex
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) - Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes), Comply foam tips (3 sizes), 8 tuning filters (4 grey; 2 black; 2 green) & filter changing tool, cleaning tool, silicone ear guides, replacement cable with inline mic/remote, and zippered carrying case
Build Quality (5/5) – While the housings of the PFE 232 are plastic, they are very well put-together and the finish is top notch. The cable is flexible, tangle-resistant, thick below y-split, and – most importantly – detachable
Isolation (3/5) – Average with the included silicone tips but better with the Complys and some aftermarket tips
Microphonics (4.5/5) - Very low with the intended over-the-ear wear
Comfort (5/5) – Though the in-ear footprint of the 232 is a bit larger than that of the older PFE models, the earphones are still very lightweight and ergonomic and can really disappear during everyday use. The cable can be a little resistant to staying behind the ear but the fit is very secure with the included cable guides

Sound (9.2/10) – Released in 2008, Phonak’s original PFE has been widely revered for offering accurate sound in a lightweight, highly ergonomic form factor at a price that all but obliterated the competition. Those days are long gone – the PFE still sounds excellent but has appreciated in price and no longer leaves as large a berth between itself and its rivals. The original PFE made excellent use of a single armature, so it’s not surprising that the PFE 232, the company’s first all-new earphone since 2008, is a “mere” dual BA despite its ambitious price tag.

The sound of the PFE 232 has been re-tuned to offer a fuller, weightier musical experience without sacrificing accuracy. Like the first PFE, it utilizes a tuning system comprised of three sets of color-coded nozzle filters. The gray and black filters are similar to those included with the original PFE and the green filters are adapted from the cheaper Perfect Bass model.

The bass-heavy green filters attenuate the midrange and a bit of the treble in order to bring the low end forward. Like the original PFE, the 232 is not very efficient to begin with, but the green filters still manage to increase acoustic impedance noticeably. They provide a warmer, bassier sound at the expense of a portion of the transparency and resolution of the PFE 232. Compared to the gray filters, the green ones are muddier, with veiled, somewhat muffled-sounding mids, a more v-shaped response, and less air. The PFE 232 with the green filters still boasts less bass than the pricier AKG K3003 with its ‘Bass Boost’ filters does, as well as a more recessed midrange and brighter, harsher treble. As with the previous PFE model and the K3003, I feel that the bass-heavy configuration of the 232 sacrifices too much of what makes the earphone special, and that if I were willing to accept a poorer-sounding earphone in exchange for a little more bass, the $600 Phonaks would not be in consideration.

Happily, the black and gray filters of the 232 provide a more agreeable audio experience. While the black filters still de-emphasize the midrange and upper midrange for a more v-shaped response compared to the gray ones, they are far more tolerable than the enhanced bass configuration. Most of the veil present with the green filters is lifted and the acoustic resistance seems to be closer to the more unimpeded gray filters. The gray filters are still the most transparent and – to my ears at least – the most balanced-sounding of the three. They do have the most treble energy, but only by a small margin. The entirety of the below review is based on the gray filters except where otherwise noted.

The low end of the PFE 232 is quite consistent between all of the different filters – whichever tuning is chosen, the bass remains controlled but very impactful for a BA-based monitor. Bass punch is reminiscent of the VSonic GR07, trailing slightly behind the AKG K3003 but beating out TWFK-based monitors such as the ATH-CK10 and VSonic GR01 without sacrificing any control. The dynamic-driver GR07 has a bit more deep bass in comparison but doesn’t sound quite as full and fleshed-out overall. Indeed, the PFE 232 sounds very dynamic at all times and strikes an excellent balance between body and tightness with its bass. It is quick and clean as a good BA-based monitor should be, but the note presentation is never thin. Compared to the Earsonics SM3, the bass of the PFE is noticeably cleaner and crisper-sounding, appearing a little less boomy despite similar power and weight. Taken as a whole, the bass of the PFE 232 is very solid – easily some of the best BA bass I’ve heard.

The low end of the PFE 232 is emphasized slightly in comparison to the mids. As a result, the earphone doesn’t sound quite as level as the VSonic GR07 and ATH-CK10 do. Indeed, even the original, single-driver Phonaks have better bass-midrange balance than the PFE 232. That said, the quality of the midrange is very good – it is detailed and very transparent - most so with the gray filters in place. It is not as warm and smooth as that of the Earsonics SM3 but sounds cleaner and clearer. Like the bass, the midrange does not overstep any boundaries – note weight is good and yet the PFE 232 sounds very crisp. It is slightly fuller than the TWFK-based ATH-CK10 and a bit more textured and refined than the VSonic GR07 and Final Audio Heaven A.

With the gray filters, the treble transition is reasonably smooth and the top end is highly reminiscent of the original Phonaks. The PFE 232 has a lot of treble energy, boasting plenty of sparkle and good extension. It reminds me of the VSonic GR07 in being a touch hot without sounding overly bright in terms of tone, and can occasionally accentuate the sibilance on a track. In comparison to the PFE 232, the AKG K3003 has just as much treble energy and similarly faultless resolution but tends to be smoother and less offensive with its ‘Reference’ filters in place. The Final Audio Heaven A, on the other hand, has noticeably less treble energy and sounds a touch grainy compared to the PFE 232.

The presentation of the PFE 232 is very well-rounded – the soundstage has good width and depth, great separation, and believable, versatile imaging. It is much more conventional compared to the enveloping presentation of the Earsonics SM3 and yet loses only a bit of headstage size. The PFE 232 is not overly intimate and boasts a good center image, with better layering and a more 3D sense of space than the VSonic GR07, though not quite to the level of the AKG K3003. The K3003 is also airier and more open-sounding, with slightly better reach up top and great dynamics that make it more involving at the lowest volumes.

The above comparisons are based on A:B listening with the PFE 232 and a slew of top-tier universals. Priced as it is, however, the PFE 232 competes directly with quite a few custom monitors as well, even with the cost of ear impressions factored in. Below are short comparisons between the PFE 232 and the Clear Tune Monitors CTM-200 ($350) and Alclair Reference ($500).

A dual-driver custom monitor from Florida-based Clear Tune Monitors, the CTM-200 follows a balanced sound signature with a neutral tone. Compared to the slightly v-shaped PFE 232, the CTM-200 is flatter and more level, with mids that are not recessed and smoother treble. Its bass is a touch quicker but significantly lower in impact and not as extended as that of the Phonaks. The tone is a little cooler with the CTMs and the transparency is slightly better on the whole. In addition, the presentation is more spacious and the imaging is a tiny bit more convincing.

The Alclair Reference is a triple-driver earphone with solid bass and a warmer tone. It has very similar bass punch and clarity to the PFE 232 but offers up more pronounced mids and a less v-shaped signature. The top end of the Reference is similarly hot but the treble peaks come in lower, making it slightly more prone to vocal sibilance. The mids are warmer, drier, and a little more textured compared to those of the PFE and the presentation is larger and a bit more convincing in terms of positioning.

Value (8/10) – Phonak’s dual-driver follow-up to one of the best single-armature earphones on the market is a top-tier performer in every sense. The PFE 232 sounds excellent, though it differs greatly in signature from most of the top-tier Westone, Shure, and Etymotic monitors. Some listeners may be bothered by the slightly v-shaped signature and the edgy, revealing treble presentation but the PFE 232 provides some of the best bass I’ve heard from a universal and the clarity and resolution continuously impress. Plus, from the interchangeable cables to the lightweight, ergonomic housing design, the PFE 232 is one of the finest overall packages out there, making it worthy of recommendation despite Phonak’s ambitious pricing.

Pros: Very well-built with detachable cables, including a spare; lightweight & comfortable; clear sound with excellent bass and three tunings
Cons: Enhanced-bass tuning a step below the others; not as well-balanced as cheaper 112 model

Huge thanks to 5370H55V for the PFE 232 loan!

(1B9) 1964EARS 1964-V3

Reviewed November 2012

Details: 2nd-gen triple-driver custom from 1964EARS utilizing a new 3-way crossover
Current Price: $425 from 1964ears.com
Specs: Driver: Triple BA | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 119 dB | Freq: 12-17k Hz | Cable: 4.2' L-plug
Nozzle Size: N/A | Preferred tips: N/A
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Shirt clip, ¼” adapter, cleaning tool, carrying pouch, and crushproof Pelican storage case
Build Quality (5/5) – The 1964-V3 utilizes a brand new 3-way setup in a familiar dual-bore configuration. Molding quality is greatly improved compared to my old 1964-T, with no bubbles, very clear faceplates, and better finish around the cable sockets and nozzles. Like the 1964-T before it, the V3 uses a cable with a standard Westone socket, albeit with a shorter memory wire section and a different plug and y-split. Options include recessed cable sockets, custom artwork, custom colors, and various exotic faceplates
Isolation (4/5) – The isolation provided by the fitted acrylic shells is excellent -slightly below that of Etymotic Research earphones but higher than with stage monitors from the likes of Westone and EarSonics
Microphonics (5/5) - Pretty much nonexistent as with all of my custom monitors
Comfort (5/5) –The acrylic shells are hard but not in the least uncomfortable when fitted correctly. As with all customs, putting them in will require a bit of getting used to for first-time users but the twisting motion eventually becomes second nature. If the earphones remain uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a refit under the 30-day fit guarantee is probably a good idea. There is added cost with shipping the monitors back and, if necessary, getting new impressions but on the whole a perfect fit is well worth the trouble

Sound (9.4/10) – The 1964-V3 is the second-generation triple-driver custom from 1964EARS. The original 1964-T will always have a special place in my heart as my very first custom monitor, but there is no denying that it had room for improvement. With an additional crossover point for a true 3-way configuration, the V3 is superior to the old model in both tuning and ability.

The bass of the V3 is delivered by one of the twin Knowles CI armatures and bests the lows of the old 1964-T in both quantity and quality. The V3 takes on an enhanced-bass profile with warm overall tonality. The bass impresses in both extension and impact, with better depth, more punch, and a more natural note presentation compared to the old 1964-T. The V3 also sounds more effortless and dynamic overall, and despite the above-average note thickness remains quick and clean. Bass bleed is minimized by the prominent midrange, though the V3 still appears a touch boomy next to leaner earphones such as the Alclair Reference.

The midrange of the V3 is smooth and forward, with good note thickness and a pleasant warmth. It sounds lush and fluid, in stark contrast to the somewhat dry 1964-T. Clarity is improved as well, with the mids sounding more transparent and making the 1964-T appear a touch muffled in comparison. Detail levels are still not quite as impressive as with some of my higher-end monitors but definitely not lacking. The treble energy of the V3 is not too great, allowing it to remain a warm-sounding earphone. However, it is brighter and has better top-end extension compared to the old 1964-T. Predictably, the V3 is slightly more sibilance-prone than the smoother, more laid-back 1964-T, but also more lively and energetic.

The presentation of the V3 is solid as well – the V3 is better at portraying intimacy than 1964’s previous triple-driver and has better soundstage depth in addition to very decent width. The result is better layering and a slightly more spacious overall sound compared to the previous model – not quite to the level of the AKG K3003 or Alclair Reference, but not too far off. It’s worth also noting that the V3 is a very sensitive earphone and tends to hiss with some of my poorer sources. Even the generally quiet Fiio E7 isn’t quite dead-silent with the V3.

Select comparisons

Clear Tune Monitors CT-200 ($350)

The CTM-200 is a dual-driver custom monitor from Florida-based Clear Tune Monitors. Designed for stage performance, the CTM-200 boasts a leaner, flatter sound signature that is more accurate than it is musical. The 1964-V3 offers up more of both sub-bass and mid-bass, providing added power and punch. It is also a bit more forward in the midrange and provides a livelier, more dynamic sound. The CTM-200 is more accurate and sounds a bit cleaner as a result of its lower bass quantity. Its tone is quite neutral compared to the warmer 1964-V3 and its treble is smoother, reducing harshness and listening fatigue. However, detail resolution lags behind the 1964-V3 a little. Soundstage size is similar between the two earphones with the exception of depth, which is won by the V3. In general, the CTM-200 sounds a bit more laid-back and may be boring for the casual listeners, whereas the more colored signature of the V3 may be ‘just right’. The opposite is true for someone chasing a flat, accurate sound.

Alclair Reference ($399)

The Alclair Reference is a 2-way, triple-driver earphone with impressive technical ability. Originally priced at $499, the Reference has recently dropped in price, putting it in direct competition with the 1964-V3. Compared to the new 1964EARS, the Reference sounds more laid-back and spacious. Its bass has similarly good depth but less mid-bass emphasis for a cleaner sound and cooler tone. Both earphones have impressive bass punch and power. Detail resolution is slightly better with the flatter-sounding Reference while the V3 is smoother and would probably be considered more “musical” by most. Its sound is more intimate and its note presentation – thicker and more “fluid”. The treble of the V3 is also a bit more forgiving of sibilance compared to the Reference.

Ultimate Ears 900 ($400)

UE’s quad-driver flagship is a top-tier universal with a sound signature that does a good job of treading the line between accurate and “fun”. Compared to the 1964-V3, the UE 900 offers a flatter bass profile with better balance between mid-bass and sub-bass, less upper midrange emphasis, and a smoother top end more forgiving of harshness and sibilance. The V3 is warmer in tone but also offers brighter, livelier treble. Its sound is more dynamic, albeit a touch more fatiguing compared to the smooth UE 900. Its midrange is clearer and slightly more detailed, with guitars and vocals sounding raw and transparent, in sharp contrast to the somewhat veiled upper mids of the UE 900. The V3 also sounds more intimate but still provides a more 3-dimensional presentation with better depth and a stronger center image.

Phonak PFE 232 ($599)

Phonak’s dual-driver flagship easily competes with some of the very best universals but is somewhat less impressive when compared to the cheaper 1964-V3. In terms of sound signature, the PFE 232 is far more similar to the Alclair Reference, pursuing a slightly v-shaped sound with prominent treble, and deep, punchy bass. The tone of the 1964-V3 is warmer and the earphone places more emphasis on the mid-bass region. Compared to the V3, the PFE 232 sounds more distant and has a thinner note presentation as well as less mid-bass emphasis. The midrange of the PFE 232 is not as clear and intelligible as that of the V3. With the V3, the mids are much more forward but also more transparent. There is also a large difference in efficiency – the V3 is very sensitive for an in-earphone while the sensitivity of the PFE 232 is definitely on the low side.

Unique Melody Miracle ($949)

Unique Melody’s flagship utilizes a 3-way 6-driver design, beating out the V3 in technical ability, but at a much higher price. The sound signature of a Miracle is a more neutral one, with a flatter frequency profile for a more balanced sound. The Miracle has better detail resolution and a more spacious—but still very enveloping—presentation. The Miracle focuses on deep bass, with less mid-bass boost compared to the V3 resulting in less impactful but tighter, cleaner, and more resolving bass. The V3 sounds less textured and a touch boomy in comparison, though it avoids mid-range bleed by pushing the mids forward. The treble of the Miracle is both more forgiving and more extended, with a sharp gain in refinement over the cheaper 1964s.

Value (9/10) – Priced close to its predecessor but boasting a revised driver configuration and improved tuning, the 1964-V3 is an easy recommendation among entry-level custom earphones. Compared to similarly-priced universals, the V3 not only sounds fantastically good, but also offers the usual perks of going custom, including isolation, fit, and personalization options. The V3 also boasts better molding quality than my old 1964-T, competing with CTM and Unique Melody for the nicest shells I’ve seen so far. Sound-wise, the earphone still boasts full, forward mids but no longer sounds as mid-centric, offering deeper, more powerful bass and more energetic treble. The sound signature of the V3 is a warm and musical one – perhaps not ideal for monitoring purposes but very, very enjoyable in day to day listening.

Pros: Great molding quality; comfort and isolation of a custom monitor; warm sound with prominent mids, powerful bass, and a well-layered presentation
Cons: Colored sound may not be great for actual monitoring

(1B10) InEar StageDiver 2 (SD-2)

Reviewed December 2013

Details: dual-driver custom-inspired earphone from German in-ear monitoring experts InEar

MSRP: 359,00€ (est. $495)

Current Price: $450 from otojoyiem.com (USA) 345€ from thomann.de (Europe)

Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 40Ω | Sens: 119 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4.6' L-plug

Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, MEElec M6 bi-flanges

Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), hearing aid cleansing wipes (3 sets), ¼” adapter, and crushproof hard shell pelican carrying case with carabiner

Build Quality (5/5) – The StageDiver earphones are designed for longevity in professional applications and utilize extremely solid-feeling acrylic housings. Nozzles are protected by color-coded, interchangeable filters. Replacement filters can be purchased separately and come in sets of 15 pairs, complete with storage carousel and filter changing tool. The cable is sturdy and detachable, in the common 2-pin configuration

Isolation (4/5) – Very good even with the stock single-flange eartips

Microphonics (5/5) – No noise in the flexible twisted cable

Comfort (3.5/5) – The housings of the StageDiver earphones were designed based on an overlay of over 500 ear impression scans. The shape is very unique, even among “universalized” custom in-ears, because the shell extends into upper part of the concha. This provides an extremely secure and stable fit but with smaller ears the concha “fin” can exert some pressure on the ear, so I would recommend trying before buying for those with small ears

Sound (9.3/10) – The StageDiver 2 uses a 2-way, dual-armature configuration. Unlike its triple-driver sibling, the SD-2 is tuned for a balanced sound and impresses first and foremost with its impressive end-to-end extension.

The bass of the SD-2 is very level, offering slightly more overall presence than sets such as the Etymotic ER4S and VSonic VC1000. Compared to these, the SD-2 has a warmer tone, a-la HiFiMan’s RE-400, but still sounds pretty neutral overall. Its bass has very natural punch and excellent extension, maintaining presence all the way down.

The midrange of the SD-2 is well-positioned, coming across as neither recessed nor forward. Thanks to the natural and fleshed-out low end, the SD-2 never sounds mid-centric the way the HiFiMan RE-400 sometimes can. The StageDiver set also has more natural bass impact and depth than the Custom Art Music One while maintaining similar clarity and note thickness. The added bass makes the SD-2 appear less mid-focused than the Music One, but the note thickness keeps it from sounding mid-recessed or lacking midrange presence.

The top end of the SD-2 maintains a good balance of presence and smoothness. It’s not as bright as dual-driver earphones based on the Knowles TWFK driver, such as the Fischer Audio DBA-02 and VSonic VC1000, and as a result is not at all prone to harshness or sibilance. At the same time, it isn’t lacking in extension and has decent energy, resulting in a more balanced treble presentation than, for example, with the RE-400. For me personally, a little more treble energy wouldn’t be a negative but the SD-2 follows a treble curve that’s safe and comfortable, staying true to its stage-friendly name by avoiding listening fatigue.

The presentation of the StageDiver 2 is above average in size, reminding me of the EarSonics SM64. Both width and depth are excellent and the earphones sound very cohesive and natural, no doubt a result of the solid end-to-end extension and clarity across the entire frequency spectrum. Stereo imaging doesn’t leave anything to complain about, either.

Select Compasisons

InEar StageDiver 3 ($590)

The two StageDiver models share a very strong family resemblance – in fact, it’s tough to pick the better earphone between the two of them. The triple-driver SD-3 offers more bass presence, which is especially noticeable in the subbass region. Its bass is extremely deep and provides some of the best impact I’ve heard from a universal-fit BA earphone without giving up any bass quality to the SD-2. The SD-2, in comparison, has less punch, as well as less rumble and power.

As a result of the added bass presence, the SD-3 sounds a little warmer overall. The SD-2, on the other hand, appears a touch clearer and more neutral. Its presentation is less thick and full-bodied compared to the SD-3 but I found its balance to produce a more natural sound. Tonally, the SD-2 is a little brighter due to its lack of bass bias. The soundstages of the two earphones are very similar with the SD-3 sometimes sounding a little more forward and aggressive thanks to its bass emphasis and slightly more present lower mids.

HiFiMan RE-400 ($99)

The RE-400, a sub-$100 dynamic-driver earphone, is highly reminiscent of the StageDiver 2 in sound signature, though there is a substantial gap in performance in favor of the SD-2. The SD-2 has a touch more bass than the RE-400, with the difference being more apparent in the subbass region. It is also clearer and slightly more resolving, and boasts more treble energy while still remaining extremely smooth and non-fatiguing, beating HiFiMan at their own game. The RE-400, on the other hand, has more forward mids and sounds a little too focused on its midrange. The soundstage of the RE-400 also appears a little too forward and flat next to the spacious and well-layered StageDiver.

VSonic GR07 ($179)

Comparing the SD-2 to the GR07, one of my favorite sets in its price range, leaves no doubt as to the StageDiver’s superiority. Most apparent is that the SD-2 produces a clearer sound with tighter bass. The GR07 sounds bassier, with mids that appear recessed in comparison. The treble of the GR07 sounds splashy and exaggerates sibilance whereas the SD-2 is much smoother. Overall, the SD-2 sounds more neutral and more natural, making the GR07 seem colored in comparison.

Clear Tune Monitors CT-200 ($350)

The CT-200 is a dual-driver custom-fit monitor from Florida-based Clear Tune Monitors. The most noticeable difference between the SD-2 and CT-200 is in bass performance – the bass of the StageDiver is greater in quantity, extends much better into the sub-bass region, and sounds a great deal more effortless. The CT-200 lacks the more natural bass impact of the SD-2. In the midrange, the CT-200 sounds a touch clearer and has more presence in the upper mids. The SD-2 has less upper midrange presence and a darker overall tone. The CT-200 also has a slightly wider headstage, sounding more out-of-the-head overall.

Alclair Reference ($399)

The Alclair Reference is a 3-driver custom monitor with a “reference” sound signature. In many ways its performance is comparable to that of the SD-2 – bass quantity is about on par and while the Reference has slightly more recessed mids, clarity is similar between the two except at high volumes, where the Reference wins out. Tonally, the Reference is brighter and more peaky compared to the very smooth StageDiver. Its treble is hotter and more splashy, and sibilance is exaggerated compared to the SD-2. The treble of the SD-2 has less energy than I like, but still sounds more natural to me overall. The Reference has a wide soundstage similar to the SD-2 but boasts slightly better imaging.

Value (8.5/10) – One of the most well-rounded earphones I’ve ever had the pleasure of trying, the InEar StageDiver 2 amazes with its all-round accuracy, exhibiting tight bass control, level mids, and a good balance between treble presence and smoothness. It can go toe-to-toe with any universal monitor in my collection and provides a compelling upgrade for popular mid-priced sets such as the HiFiMan RE-400. Construction quality on-par with custom in-ears only further substantiates the price tag of these German-made wonders.

Pros: Well-balanced and extremely capable sound; stellar build quality

Cons: While very secure, fit can be tight in smaller ears

(1B11) InEar StageDiver 3 (SD-3)

Reviewed December 2013

Details: triple-driver custom-inspired earphone from German in-ear monitoring experts InEar

MSRP: 489,00€ (est. $670)

Current Price: $590 from otojoyiem.com (USA) 469€ from thomann.de (Europe)

Specs: Driver: Triple BA | Imp: 40Ω | Sens: 119 dB | Freq: 20-18k Hz | Cable: 4.6' L-plug

Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, MEElec M6 bi-flanges

Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), hearing aid cleansing wipes (3 sets), ¼” adapter, and crushproof hard shell pelican carrying case with carabiner

Isolation (4/5) – Very good even with the stock single-flange eartips

Microphonics (5/5) – No noise in the flexible twisted cable

Sound (9.3/10) – The StageDiver 3 uses a 2-way, triple-armature configuration with dual bass drivers. Perhaps not surprising is that it sounds very much like the less expensive SD-2 model except in the bass region, where the SD-3 has significantly more presence.

The bass of the SD-3 is enhanced, putting it alongside the likes of the EarSonics SM64 as one of the most bass-heavy BA-based earphones on the market. Bass impact is slightly lower than with the significantly more expensive quad-driver FitEar TG334 but bass control is similarly good. All in all, the SD-3 can compete with many dynamic-driver earphones when it comes to low end power. Extension is excellent as well.

The SD-3 is a bass-boosted earphone with a warm tonal character, and while its midrange is not recessed, bass-midrange balance is definitely better on the flatter SD-2. The StageDiver 3 sounds rich and full, though, and offers good note thickness. However, it lacks the midrange forwardness, as well as some of the clarity, of the FitEar TG334 and high-end custom-fit monitors such as the UM Miracle. There is also just a touch of vocal intelligibility lacking compared to sets such as the Etymotic Research ER4S, in part due to the more laid back upper midrange and treble.

The top end of the SD-3, maintains a good balance of presence and smoothness. It’s not prone to harshness or sibilance and, like that of the SD-2, is less bright than average but not lacking in extension. As with the SD-2, I would not mind slightly more energy in the upper midrange and treble, but I also love the forgiving nature of the SD-3.

The presentation of the SD-3 is very similar to that of the SD-2 - above average in size and with excellent soundstage width and depth. It lacks the layering and 3-D imaging of the pricier FitEar TG334, as well as top-tier customs such as the UM Miracle, but still provides satisfying imaging.

Select Compasisons

InEar StageDiver 2 ($450)

Ultimate Ears / Logitech UE900 ($399)

The quad-armature UE is a very capable earphone with excellent top-to-bottom extension and an energetic but non-fatiguing sound. The SD-3, in comparison, has quite a lot more bass impact, though the UE900 can keep up in bass depth/extension. The SD-3 also has mids that are a little more prominent and level overall while the UE900 has less presence in the upper midrange. The top end of the UE900 gains presence again and on the whole the UE earphones sound brighter than the StageDiver 3. The SD-3, on the other hand, is smoother and sounds more natural overall despite its enhanced bass.

EarSonics SM64 ($399)

A triple-armature monitor with enhanced bass, the SM64 is one of very few BA-based earphones that can best the SD-3 in bass quantity. It has a little more subbass presence with more rumble compared to the SD-3, which also makes the EarSonics a little warmer tonally. The midrange of the SM64 is “sweet”, but thinner in comparison. The EarSonics have no advantage in clarity, though – in fact, the SD-3 oftentimes provided a slightly clearer sound. The StageDiver is also smoother in the treble region and lacks the upper midrange dip of the SM64. Overall, the SD-3 sounded more neutral to me but lacked some of the “fun” factor of the EarSonics—it definitely has more of a conventional warmer/darker signature while the SM64 is very unique, and it’s very difficult to pick a winner between the two.

Audeo Phonak PFE 232 ($599)

While it uses a dual-driver setup, the Phonak PFE 232 produces plenty of bass and makes a natural competitor for the similarly-priced SD-3. Bass impact between the two earphones is similar – both feature enhanced bass that is definitely on the heavy side for BA earphones. The PFE 232 has more recessed mids, however, and its treble sounds hotter and sharper. The smoother SD-3 sounded more natural to me, making the tone of the PFE 232 seem rather metallic in comparison. Both earphones boast similarly spacious presentations but overall, the SD-3 sounds more realistic compared to the PFE 232, especially in the midrange and treble.

Value (8/10) – Turning up the bass on the less expensive StageDiver 2 model, the InEar StageDiver 3 makes a compelling case for itself as one of the few balanced-armature earphones well-suited for fans of hard-hitting lows. The midrange and treble of the SD-3 strike a good balance between energy and smoothness and the overall value is reinforced with stellar build quality that rivals high-end custom IEMs. The only reservations when it comes to the StageDiver 3 are the tight fit in smaller ears and the less expensive but equally capable SD-2 model, which differs only in sound signature.

Pros: Enhanced bass with great overall audio quality; stellar build quality

Cons: While very secure, fit can be tight in smaller ears

(1B12) Olasonic Flat-4 Nami TH-F4N

Reviewed March 2014

Details: Dual-dynamic earphone built for Olasonic by Japan-based Ocharaku
MSRP: $499 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $499 from aloaudio.com
Specs: Driver: Dual Dynamic | Imp: 18Ω | Sens: 104 dB | Freq: N/A | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Comply foam (included)
Wear Style: Straight down (preferred) or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Comply foam eartips (2 sizes) and protective tin carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The construction of the Olasonics is solid, utilizing thick plastics with metal reinforcement. It is a dual dynamic driver earphone with a metal sound pipe connecting the two driver chambers. The cable is excellent, similar in quality to that of the Dunu DN-1000. It lacks a sliding cinch, but with the large size and unique shape of the Nami, I’m not sure one would have been of much use
Isolation (3/5) – Average, limited in part by the shallow fit of the Nami
Microphonics (5/5) – The smooth and supple cable carries no noise
Comfort (4/5) – The earphones are fairly large and stick a fair distance out of the ear when worn, but are very lightweight and the nozzles are angled slightly, improving ergonomics. Overall, the Olasonics are comfortable, especially with the included Comply eartips, and sound good with a shallow insertion. They are not particularly great for over-the-ear wear, but with the noiseless cable it doesn’t really matter

Sound (9.2/10) – The Flat-4 Nami is a dual-dynamic earphone built for Olasonic by Japanese Hi-Fi house Ocharaku. The twin 10mm drivers of the Flat-4 are oriented back-to-back, with a “sound pipe” connecting the chamber in front of the rear driver to the primary sound tube just before the nozzle. This is claimed to eliminate the 6 kHz ear canal resonance that is common with in-ear earphones (the US patent for this technology can be found here). The Flat-4 Nami nonetheless doesn’t have the smoothest treble response, but it does impress in several other ways. It boasts superb clarity and very tight bass, sounds airy and open, and has a very unique overall sound signature.

The bass of the Nami offers up excellent extension but the earphones are hardly bass-heavy - I expected greater bass quantity after reading the product description. Instead, the low end of the Nami tends to be tight, lean, and delicate. On tracks that call for bass it can beat sets such as the HiFiMan RE-400 in impact but still offers less bass and a cooler tonal character than, for example, the Philips Fidelio S2 and Dunu DN-1000.

Overall, the sound of the Nami is balanced to slightly v-shaped, not so much due to the mids being recessed (they aren’t), but more because of the emphasized upper midrange/treble region. It is a little more v-shaped than the Knowles TWFK-based VSonic VC1000, for instance, but less so than the VSonic GR07. The mids of the Flat-4 are very detailed and clear, albeit at the expense of some note thickness – compared, for example, to the GR07 and Fidelio S2, the Nami is clearer, but also less full-bodied.

The Nami carries a lot of energy through its upper midrange and treble. It tends to be somewhat bright and at higher volumes the treble emphasis can cause it to sound harsh. It is brighter, for example, than the Fidelio S2, with a treble peak that’s higher up, which makes the top end of the Nami a little splashier. Compared to TWFK-based earphones such as the VSonic VC1000 and Dunu DN-1000, the Nami also has a different treble presentation, tending to be a little harsher, but more tolerant of sibilance. To its credit, the Nami seems to avoid sibilance pretty well in general, perhaps as a result of the target 6kHz reduction. It works best with warmer sources and is a treat at lower listening volumes, which is not a tough order as the Nami isn’t a very sensitive earphone.

The presentation of the Olasonic Flat-4 is wide and a little distant. It is among the more open-sounding earphones I’ve tried – more so, for example, than Fidelio S2 and DN-1000, the latter of which is limited by its slightly boomy (in comparison) bass. It lacks the 3-dimensional imaging of certain top-tier balanced armature earphones, such as the Westone W40 and InEar StageDiver SD-2, but is plenty capable overall.

Select Comparisons

VSonic GR07 ($179)

The VSonic GR07 is a popular accuracy-oriented earphone with a fairly neutral sound signature. Compared to the GR07, the Flat-4 Nami sounds brighter and has tighter bass. The low end of the GR07 is a little more impactful and the VSonics are warmer and fuller-sounding, but also appear more mid-recessed and a touch veiled in comparison to the Olasonic unit. The sibilance of the GR07 is quite prominent next to the Flat-4, especially at lower listening volumes.

Westone W40 ($500)

Westone’s W40 is a quad-armature earphone similar in price to the Flat-4 Nami. The W40 boasts a warmer tonal character compared to the Flat-4, with more bass impact and a more full-bodied sound, while the Flat-4 is less bassy but more controlled at the low end. The W40 is a little veiled in the midrange, while the Olasonic sounds clearer. The W40 has smoother, less prominent treble, and darker overall tonality. The Nami is harsher, especially at higher volumes, but also makes the W40 seem lacking in upper midrange presence. The W40 does have a slightly more well-rounded presentation and imaging, and is significantly more sensitive than the dual-dynamic Nami.

Phonak PFE 232 ($599)

I had to break my PFE 232 unit out of retirement as my initial listening to the Flat-4 Nami made me think of the Phonak unit many times, especially when it comes to treble and soundstaging. The most striking difference between the two earphones is at the low end – the PFE 232, even with the gray filters, offers up significantly more powerful bass. It sounds a little more v-shaped as a result, but also thicker and more full-bodied. However, the Olasonic unit has clearer, less recessed mids that are extremely nuanced and delicate in a way the PFE 232 can’t match. Both tend to have good treble energy and though their treble character differs slightly, it’s hard to put one above the other in treble quality. The earphones have similarly wide soundstages and good overall imaging ability.

AKG K3003 ($1300)

AKG’s dynamic-armature hybrid was among the first in the current crop of $1000+ hyper-IEMs. I prefer to use the K3003 with the “Reference” tuning, though in this case the Treble Boost tuning makes for a slightly better signature match with the Flat-4 Nami. The K3003 offers up more bass impact, which gives it a slightly more dynamic sound compared to the lighter-at-the-low-end Olasonic unit. Both earphones have some treble hotness, but emphasize different areas of the treble, which is also true when comparing the Flat-4 to any other TWFK-based earphone. The Flat-4 ends up sounding a touch harsher than the AKG, but the difference is small. The K3003, like the Westone W40, also boasts a slightly more well-rounded presentation but isn’t far enough ahead of the Nami to justify the price difference.

Value (7.5/10) – In many ways the approach taken by Olasonic with these earphones makes me think of another Japanese headphone manufacturer—Final Audio. The Olasonic Flat-4 Nami has the same combination of no-frills, audio-focused design, genuine innovation, and clever marketing. The Nami is not just an interesting-looking earphone with a hefty price tag, however—the sonic signature of the earphones is very unique on the US market and listeners are sure to be impressed by the open sound with excellent clarity and bass control. To me, the Flat-4 sounds best for relaxed, low-volume listening, losing none of the sonic detail or energy and keeping its bass completely under control. It’s a niche product, but for this sort of application it’s as good as anything else I’ve tried.

Pros: Excellent clarity, open presentation, lean & tight bass; no cable noise
Cons: Mediocre-at-best noise isolation; scant accessory pack

(1B13) LEAR LUF-4 (LUF-4F / LUF-4B / LUF-4C)

Left: transparent purple shells/“metallic” faceplates; Center: transparent light blue shells/black “true texture” carbon fiber imitation faceplates; Right: opaque white shells/“illusion/imaginary color” pearlescent faceplates

Reviewed September 2014

Details: custom-made universal IEMs from Hong Kong-based LEAR
MSRP: HKD 4,388 (approx. $565)
Base Price: Approx. $565 from lear.hk / Approx. $560 from treoo.com
Specs: Driver: Quad BA | Imp: 22Ω (4B), 28Ω (4F/4C) | Sens: 120 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Sony MH1C tips, MEElec M6 single-flanges, stock single-flanges, stock foam
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Hybrid-style single-flange (3 pairs), bi-flange, and triple-flange silicone tips, Comply-style (1 pair) and generic (1 pair) foam tips, cleaning tool, cleaning cloth, Otterbox crush- and water-proof carrying case, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (5/5) – The LUF-4 earphones are essentially custom monitors cast in a universal mold. Build quality is on-par with high-end CIEMs, as are the customization options. Two types of detachable cable sockets are offered – conventional 2-pin is standard, with MMCX available at extra cost. There are more than a dozen options for shell and faceplate colors, and the faceplates can be upgraded to a different material – anything from wood to metal to denim – or outfitted with custom artwork, at an extra cost
Isolation (4/5) – Isolation is impressive thanks to the hefty shells, long nozzles, and ergonomic design
Microphonics (5/5) – No cable noise with the twisted cables
Comfort (4/5) – The housings of the LUF-4 earphones are large, but the bulk is msotly in their thickness, making for one of the more comfortable custom-come-universal designs out there (alongside Noble Audio’s universal-fit offerings). The longer nozzles allow the shells to sit comfortably without fatigue, and while the earphones do still require larger ears, they have a smaller footprint than, say, a FitEar TG334, StageDiver SD-2, or Shure SE846

Sound (9.3/10) – The LUF in LUF-4 stands for LEAR Universal Fit, and is the universal interpretation of LEAR’s pricier LCM-4 series customs. Unlike other custom-come-universal earphones, however, the LUF-4 models remain fully customizable, starting with the sound. There are three tunings available, as follows:

LUF-4F “Flat”
LUF-4B “Bass” (enhanced bass)
LUF-4C “Crystal Clear” (enhanced treble)

The LUF-4 models each have four drivers in a rather unique 3-way configuration – 1 low, 2 mid, 1 high – and utilize a dual-bore design with metal sound tubes.

The three tunings have a lot in common and only differ a little in sound profile. The LUF-4B model, for instance, is quite a bit more impactful than the LUF-4F, but otherwise pretty much identical. As expected, the extra bass makes it sound warmer and towers over the mids a bit more, but bass quality is still very good and not much changes overall compared to the 4F.

The LUF-4C boasts a brighter top end compared to the LUF-4F and 4B. As expected, this makes the sound seem somewhat clearer, but treble quality is maintained – the 4C is no harsher or more sibilant than the 4F. In the real world, the tuning of the 4C results in the perception of slightly lower bass quantity, also making the 4F and 4B seem warmer in comparison.

Since the LUF-4 earphones are more similar to each other than they are different, throughout the following write-up I am referring to the LUF-4F unless otherwise noted.

Despite the fact that the F in “4F” stands for “flat”, the LUF-4F is a slightly v-shaped earphone (all three of the LUF-4 tunings are) and its bass is somewhat enhanced. All of the LUF-4 earphones sound quite a bit punchier compared to sets such as the TDK BA200 and more analytical BA-based earphones such as the Rock-It Sounds R-50 and VSonic VC1000. The bass power of the LUF-4F is below Dunu’s hybrid DN-2000 model, which has a separate dynamic driver for bass. The low end of the LUF-4B, however, is more powerful than that of the DN-2000, but also tighter and more controlled. The DN-1000, Dunu’s lower-end hybrid, is bassier still, providing a warmer, thicker, and more full-bodied sound, but cannot keep up with the LUF-4 earphones in bass quality.

The mids of the LUF-4 earphones fall slightly behind the bass in emphasis, creating a mildly v-shaped sound signature. As a result, “reference” earphones such as the TDK BA200 sound more mid-centric in comparison. Nonetheless, the mids on the LUF-4 sets are not as thin and recessed as they are, for example, on T-Peos’ Altone200 hybrid. The treble emphasis of the LUF-4 earphones also provides superb perceived clarity – better than that of the BA200 and DN-1000 and on-par with brighter, faultlessly clear sets such as the Altone200 and Rock-It Sounds R-50.

All of the LUF-4 earphones have quite a bit of presence in the upper midrange and lower treble. This type of tuning usually sounds best at reasonable volumes, and the LEAR units are no exception – as the volume is turned up, they get somewhat bright. Compared to the Dunu DN-2000, which uses a hybrid driver setup, the LUF-4F and 4B are not brighter overall, but the emphasis falls in the upper midrange and lower treble. With the Dunu unit, the treble energy is higher up, and as a result the earphone sounds smoother and more forgiving on some tracks.

The presentation of the LEAR units is on-par with other top-tier IEMs – well-imaged and spacious enough not to sound congested even with the enhanced-bass LUF-4B tuning. The Dunu DN-1000, for instance, is more intimate and not as open-sounding, whereas the popular VSonic GR07 lacks the depth and more versatile imaging of the LEAR units.

Select Comparisons (Note: in each comparison the LUF configuration with the best signature match was selected)

VSonic GR07 ($99) (vs. LEAR LUF-4F)

VSonic’s GR07 is a long-time favorite benchmark of mine, and with the latest version priced at just $99, will likely remain one for years to come. The LUF-4F made for the closest signature match here, with bass that is just a touch less impactful and full-bodied than that of the dynamic-driver VSonics and the most similar treble energy.

The biggest difference is in how veiled and muffled the midrange of the GR07 sounds next to the LEAR unit – there’s just no comparing the clarity between them. The LUF-4F is also significantly more sensitive, and while it has a little more upper midrange presence, it is still a touch less sibilance-prone than the VSonic set. Overall, the GR07 keeps up with the LUF-4F in several ways – bass quality, for example, is excellent on both units – but the clarity deficit is just too great to overcome.

InEar StageDiver SD-2 ($449) (vs. LEAR LUF-4F)

InEar’s custom-come-universal StageDiver SD-2 is a “mere” dual-driver, but one that offers a remarkably balanced and coherent sound. The bass of the LUF-4F is more powerful than that of the SD-2, but not emphasized enough to match up with the pricier (and more bass-heavy) SD-3 model.

As expected, the less bassy SD-2 sounds just a hair tighter than the LUF-4F. It also has flatter, more forward-sounding mids than the somewhat v-shaped LEAR. The LUF-4F has stronger upper mids, providing more emphasis in the “presence” region for electric guitars and appearing a little clearer overall. At the top, the StageDiver 2 is smoother and significantly more forgiving while the LUF-4F is brighter. The SD-2 has a wide and spacious soundstage but seems to lack some of the depth of the LUF-4F.

Westone W40 ($500) (vs. LEAR LUF-4F)

First off, compared to the fully customizable LUF-4F, the interchangeable red, blue, and black plastic shell inserts of Westone’s quad-driver model are rather unimpressive. Its sound, thankfully, is more competitive.

Overall bass quantity is similar between the two units, but the LUF-4F tends to sound a little tighter, with less bleed into the lower midrange. The mids of the W40 are less clear, even muffled, in comparison. The difference stems not only from the tighter bass of the LUF-4F, but also from the W40 having an upper midrange dip where the LEAR unit has emphasis. Forward vs. recessed upper mids make a very big difference on certain tracks, especially with vocals and especially at lower volumes.

The brighter, clearer LEAR unit is not as forgiving as the Westone, tending towards harshness, but both units have similarly well-rounded presentations. Tonally, both units are slightly short of perfect, with the W40 losing out thanks to its darker sound with more recessed upper mids and the LUF-4F – for moving too much in the opposite direction. Overall, however, I found myself preferring the LUF-4F, especially at lower volumes.

EarSonics SM64 ($499) (vs. LEAR LUF-4B)

The EarSonics SM64 is closest to LEAR’s enhanced-bass tuning, but tonally warmer and darker. The LUF-4B is more v-shaped, making it more prone to harshness and sibilance. Partly due to the brighter tonality, the LEAR unit is slightly clearer, but the clarity of the SM64 is still impressive considering its smoother sound and lower upper midrange energy. Vocals are still clear and highly intelligible with the EarSonics.

It’s worth noting also that the LEAR LUF-4B is much more sensitive. Overall, it is quite hard to pick between these two, but at lower volumes I found the LUF-4B preferable as the clarity boost makes a bigger difference and its extra upper mid/treble energy is kept in check. At high volumes, however, the smoothness of the SM64 made it very compelling.

AKG K3003 ($1300) (vs. LEAR LUF-4B)

AKG’s ultra-pricy hybrid flagship also has three available tunings, albeit in the form of interchangeable nozzle filters, of which I prefer the middle “Reference” configuration. The enhanced-bass LUF-4B is closest to the dynamic-driver bass of the AKGs, though the K3003 still provides a little more bass impact and a more full-bodied sound with the LUF-4B sounding thinner in comparison.

Clarity is similarly excellent between the two earphones, but LUF-4B doesn’t suffer from the slight lack in coherency of the hybrid system. It does have a little more energy at the top end, however. The K3003 has never been one to disappoint for lack of treble presence, but its sparkle comes from some well-controlled peaks whereas the LEAR has a general upper midrange/treble lift, causing it sound brighter and also making it a bit more prone to harshness and sibilance.

Etymotic Research ER4S ($299) (vs. LEAR LUF-4C)

All of the LUF-4 earphones sound a little v-shaped on the whole, but the least bassy LUF-4C made for the best comparison with the ER4S. The 4C unit still offers quite a bit more bass punch and sounds warmer due to the greater low end emphasis, but not as much as the other LUF-4 variants. The bass of the ER4S is a little gutless in comparison, as it tends to be next to bassier earphones.

The ER4S is not as full-bodied as the LUF-4C, but is also flatter and more balanced overall, with more midrange presence compared to the somewhat v-shaped LUF-4C. The LUF-4C is a touch less forgiving, but overall treble quality is similar. The LEAR unit has a more 3-dimensional presentation, which, admittedly, has never been a strong suit of Etymotic earphones.

Olasonic Flat-4 Nami ($499) (vs. LEAR LUF-4C)

Olasonic’s Flat-4 earphones utilize a dual dynamic driver configuration, but – surprisingly – are tuned for a little less bass impact than the BA-based LUF-4C. The LEAR unit has a stronger low end and more full-bodied sound. Both earphones have excellent clarity but the thicker note presentation of the LUF-4C is a little more natural. The Flat-4 is a bit brighter and can be slightly harsher, but ultimately neither earphone is very forgiving. In terms of presentation, the Flat-4 Nami sounds a little more airy and open, but the LUF-4C is more well-rounded and three-dimensional.

Value (8/10) – The LEAR LUF-4 models offer a competitive, yet well-differentiated alternative to more mainstream multi-BA earphones. The three slightly different takes on a v-shaped sound signature are consistent with each other, yet each delivers exactly what it promises without significant downsides compared to the “flat” 4F tuning. The unprecedented level of customization for universal IEMs is noteworthy as well – certainly a draw for those planning to spend over $500 on a set of in-ears.

Pros: Unprecedented customizability among universal-fit earphones; superb craftsmanship; excellent bass quality and clarity
Cons: Best suited for fans of v-shaped sound signatures; top-end emphasis can be too much at high volumes

Tier 1A ($600-1500)

(1A1) Final Audio Design FI-BA-SS

Reviewed Feb 2011

Details: Single armature setup from FAD most notable for its steep price tag
Current Price: ~$1100 from musicaacoustics.com (MSRP: est $1100)
Specs: Driver: Vented BA | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4.6’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrids, Fischer Bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and oversize zippered carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The slim, elongated shell of the FI-BA-SS is made entirely of stainless steel and reminds me, in both size and weight, of Audio-Technica’s CK100, The nozzles contain non-replaceable mesh filters and the hard stems, while quite solid-feeling, lack real strain relief. The cable is very soft and smooth but thinner than most of the cords found on higher-end earphones and slightly prone to tangling
Isolation (3/5) – The BA-SS is vented at the rear and isolates surprisingly poorly for a BA setup, though still sufficiently for use on most public transport
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Though thin, the cord is pretty much silent even in the cord-down configuration
Comfort (4.5/5) – The slim, long shells of the BA-SS are tapered on either end and quite easy to fit. Insertion depth is limited by the hard stems and the FADs are definitely on the heavy side for a set of IEMs but on the whole the fit is still excellent with the right tips

Sound (9.2/10) – If the price is the most shocking aspect of the FI-BA-SS, the sound signature definitely comes in a close second. As a fitting segue, it’s worth noting that the type of transducer used in the FI-BA-SS has apparently been the source of some contention as the promotional materials claimed a proprietary “balanced air movement” technology but a blown-up sketch of the internals showed what looks like a conventional balanced armature. The transducer of the BA-SS is indeed a single armature but one that, against all convention, is vented. I’ll be the first to admit that the driver of the BA-SS has the best range of any single-armature transducer I’ve come across. In fact, except for slight roll-off at the lowest of lows, the FI-BA-SS can pretty much match my ATH-CK10 for presence across the frequency spectrum. Also worth noting is how sensitive the FI-BA-SS is to tip choice – bore opening and length seem to have a noticeable effect on the sound and especially the presentation of the earphones. I’ve had good results with narrower-channel tips such as the Sony Hybrids, Monster Single-flanges (or gel supertips), and FA Eterna bi-flanges – often with shallower-than-usual insertion. Comply tips can be used to tame the treble a bit but soak up a bit of the airiness of the FADs. As always, whether that’s desirable is a matter of personal preference – for the most part I got on just fine with silicone tips.

As noted above, the FI-BA-SS gives up a bit of bottom-end extension to multi-driver setups such as the CK10 and SM3, as well as many higher-end dynamics. Impact is greater than with the CK10 or DBA-02 but falls slightly short of the dedicated low-range armature of the SM3. It can be said that the BA-SS is a bit less ‘stingy’ with its bass than the CK10 or DBA-02, sacrificing some of the speed and tightness of the dual BAs for a healthy amount of impact. Texture and resolution are still very good so there is not much to complain about from a technical perspective. Indeed, the bass is the only part of the FAD’s signature that could be called a middle ground or, alternatively, ‘unremarkable’.

The midrange of the FI-BA-SS is more interesting, reminding me of both the smooth-yet-detailed CK10 and the warmer, more liquid Ortofon e-Q5. The noticeable gain in bass impact and body over the CK10 makes the BA-SS sound warmer while retaining the crystal clarity of the Audio-Technicas. On a ‘macroscopic’ level, the BA-SS is also quite smooth and level in the midrange but, while the more liquid-sounding e-Q5 tends to gloss over microdetail, the BA-SS, if anything, is guilty of magnifying it. The texture and detail levels of the FADs are indeed very high and the resulting transparency is simply off the scale – even the CK10 sounds slightly veiled next to the BA-SS. No other earphone I’ve heard gives quite the same sense of ‘nakedness’ to the sound – with the BA-SS it’s simply you and the track (note: I didn’t say ‘the music’ because the BA-SS is hugely unforgiving of source material; only with perfectly recorded, mastered, and ripped material will it be ‘you and the music’). Combined with the excellent balance of the earphones, this transparency has a strange result – the BA-SS certainly qualifies to be called a refined earphone but at the same time it’s quite aggressive and has a ‘raw’ edge to it.

Expectedly, the treble is just as revealing as the midrange and boasts equally impressive clarity and detail. Extension, far as I can tell, is on-par with the CK10, which is more than a little impressive for a single-armature design. There is, however, a bit of treble unevenness, leading to slight harshness and even occasional sibilance. This is not helped by the highly transparent nature of the earphones, which makes them all the more sensitive to any and all artifacts already present on the track. This raises a question - is it possible that an earphone can be too detailed, too clear, and too transparent? Even among high-end earphones there are still a few that elicit complaints of poor clarity when compared to the competition, but the BA-SS clearly breaches the opposite extreme. The BA-SS is the earphone equivalent of an unretouched hi-res image – it may be the technical ideal for many, but ultimately some things are better off airbrushed, if only slightly. It can be argued that the FI-BA-SS is simply taking the next logical half-step over the usual crop of top-tier clarity- and detail-heavy earphones – Audio-Technica’s CK10, Fischer Audio’s DBA-02, Etymotic’s ER4, and so forth – or taking the signature a step too far. Either way, it is an invaluable earphone in demonstrating that, as with most things in audio, there is a fine line for transparency that can be crossed and that clarity and detail need to be balanced against smoothness and cohesiveness – otherwise minor imperfections can simply get too distracting.

Next to the sound signature, the presentation of the FI-BA-SS is fairly pedestrian for a high-end earphone. Soundstage width and separation are compliment-worthy – the BA-SS may not sound ‘wide open’ like the JVC HA-FX700 but is quite airy and spacious. The tonality, on the whole, is just a tad on the bright side of neutral and the timbre, though not quite up there with HA-FX700, is quite good for an armature-based earphone – better than with the ATH-CK10, for example. Imaging, on the other hand, though very good, is just a tad less believable than with the Audio-Technicas. Lastly, the sensitivity of the BA-SS is quite high – higher than with any top-tier earphone I’ve heard recently. The earphones benefit very little from a dedicated amp and actually hiss slightly out of all my amps and DACs. A portable player is really more than powerful enough to drive the BA-SS, though fidelity is a different matter. Plugging one of the world’s most revealing (and most expensive) earphones straight into my $20 Sansa Clip does feel a little strange but I’ll take that over carrying the Fuze->D10 brick with a decrease in usability and increase in noise floor.

Value (7/10) – It is difficult enough putting a value on earphones costing $400, but the price tag of the FI-BA-SS is nothing short of ridiculous. Even with diminishing returns factored in the FI-BA-SS would have to be the best earphone I’ve ever heard to truly justify its price tag – and in some ways it is. As a total package, however, the BA-SS is still a luxury item designed for those with a chunk of disposable income seeking the ultimate in both fidelity and exclusivity. The strangely ‘photorealistic’ sound of the BA-SS is clear proof that there is substance to FAD’s marketing claims and value in their patented Balanced Air Movement (BAM) technology – the BA-SS is as clear, detailed, and transparent as I can imagine an earphone being. At the same time, it is absolutely merciless when it comes to poor rips and recordings, too sensitive for most amps & DACs, and probably less than ideal in signature for the iPod crowd – not a mass-market seller, to say the least. Still, it is an invaluable proof of concept as any reasonably-priced FAD earphones utilizing BAM technology are now far less likely to pass me by unnoticed. Even as it stands, the FI-BA-SS might be the destination earphone for some but I am hanging on to both of my kidneys for the time being.

Pros: Class-leading clarity, detail, and transparency, comfortable form factor
Cons: Thin cabling, no strain relief on cable entry, mediocre isolation

Huge thanks to takoyaki7 for the FI-BA-SS loan - I highly doubt I'd ever have heard them otherwise

(1A2) Unique Melody Miracle

Reviewed Jul 2011

A bit of backstory: This particular Miracle was a gift to me from the Head-Fi community. Frequenters of the portable forum may have seen the original thread started by 12345142. At his suggestion, a fund was created to purchase a high-end custom in-ear for yours truly. Though the JH13Pro won the public poll, those who actually contributed to the fund settled on the UM Miracle. Much credit is due to rawrster, who did most of the footwork, to Stephen Guo of custom-iem.com for the discount he was able to provide, and of course to everyone who contributed. An earphone of this caliber is far, far outside of my budget and I never would have experienced it had it not been for the community.

Details: Three-way, sextuple-driver custom from Unique Melody
Current Price: est. $949 from custom-iem.com (MSRP: est. $949)
Specs: Driver: 6-BA; 3-way crossover | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 114 dB | Freq: 18-19k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: N/A | Preferred tips: N/A
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (3/5) – Cleaning tool and fancy oversize storage case
Build Quality (5/5) – The molding quality is phenomenal. The shells are perfectly clear – no bubbles, no cracks, no opaque areas – and the finish is superb. The stock Miracle cable is just as good as the Westone Elite Series cord found on so many other high-end earphones. The cable connectors are recessed by default but UM will make them flush on request
Isolation (4.5/5) – My Miracle has longer nozzles and fits deeper than most of my other full-shell customs. The isolation is on par with the very best universals and just behind silicone-shelled customs
Microphonics (5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent
Comfort (5/5) – As with my other acrylic customs, the shells are hard but not uncomfortable – I often forget they’re in my ears at all. Normally, a well-fitting custom can be worn for hours on end with no fatigue, and the Miracle is certainly no exception. Obviously fit will always depend on the quality of the initial impressions, the skill of the technician making the earphones, and maybe a bit of luck. Naturally, UM will do refits if the fit is less than perfect

Sound (9.8/10) - It can be argued that I would have been better off going straight for a top-tier custom instead exploring the 200-some universal monitors I’ve had my hands on over the years. However, I feel that moving up the hierarchy as slowly as I’ve done has allowed me to appreciate the Miracle that much more - there is simply no substitute for experience when it comes to putting things in perspective. Admittedly, the Miracle is not my first custom IEM – that honor went to the 1964EARS 1964-T – but again owning the 1964-T makes the performance of the Miracle that much more striking. The 1964-T has been invaluable in showcasing what customs may be able to offer over similarly-priced universals but, as I’ve said before, really didn’t offer an increase in sound quality over the best universals I’ve tried. The Miracle, however – does – and I can say that with confidence having owned – or auditioned – nearly every top-tier universal monitor on the market at the time of this writing.

Though the UM Miracle is a "mere" 3-way system with dual drivers set up to handle each portion of the spectrum, its response is amazingly coherent and its presentation - entirely effortless. The low end extends without flinching to the limits of my hearing, performing beautifully right down to the extremes. In terms of quantity, the bass presents as quite flat, with no discernable mid-bass hump, but offers more presence across the range compared to the usual "level bass" suspects such as the Audio-Technica CK10 and Etymotic ER4. Bass detail and texture are the best I’ve heard from any headphone, portable or full-size. The bass is well-defined and articulate down to the lowest of lows, in stark contrast to the Shure SE535 I reviewed recently. The SE535, being a two-way system, has less-than-stellar performance at the limits and tends to sound a bit vague and dull below 40Hz. The Miracle, on the other hand, retains the ability to distinguish and texture notes all the way down.

The tight, punchy bass of the Miracle makes the Earsonics SM3 sound bloated and muddy. Compared, on the other hand, to TWFK-based earphones such as the CK10, the Miracle offers up significantly more body and more realistic note sustainment. As with the Klipsch Custom 3, Ortofon e-Q7, and a number of other high-end universals, the bass of the Miracle occupies a happy medium, appearing neither thick and bloated nor overly quick and thin. It is still armature-type bass, replete with immense resolution and clarity, but there is a sensation of vast power reserve behind every kick. One side effect of the highly detailed and yet punchy bass is superb low-volume performance. The Miracle is the best earphone I’ve used for listening at minimal levels to date, with around 10-15% of full volume with the Cowon J3 sufficient for relaxed listening and 20-25% plentiful on a busy street.

Like the bass, the midrange of the Miracle stands above all of the other IEMs I’ve heard when it comes to the balancing act of thickness vs. clarity. The mids are smooth and fleshed-out, much like those of the Earsonics SM3, but without the clarity sacrifice that comes with the Earsonics. The Miracle can match the natural clarity of the ATH-CK10 and Sony EX1000 despite being neither bright nor thin-sounding. Balance-wise, the midrange is very nearly on-par with the low end but has a laid back character that causes the bass to sound very slightly more forward overall. The Miracle is extremely detailed but not in the forward, aggressive manner of the CK10 and Ety ER4. Instead, everything sounds natural, dynamic, and effortless, though the detail and texture are certainly still all there. Tonally, the mids are a touch warm but not as much as with the SM3. The SM3 is actually made to sound quite veiled by the clarity and crispness. The 1964-T, similarly, sounds both thicker and more grainy, sacrificing a good amount of the smoothness and clarity of the Miracle, and yields in overall detail retrieval as well.

The treble of the Miracle is excellent in its own right, pairing well with the slightly laid-back midrange and bringing a bit of energy and excitement to the sound. Most obvious next the SM3, the treble emphasis of the Miracle balances the earphone out nicely. On the whole, the Miracle sounds neither bright nor dark and the sparkle is well-measured and controlled. Compared to the 1964-T, there is definitely more treble presence but the difference is not night-and-day. I have experienced no listening fatigue with the Miracle although the earphone is very revealing. Sibilance can be problematic if it is present in the recoding but the Miracle does not accentuate such flaws the way the CK10 or Westone 3 might. Top end extension is excellent and the natural tone puts the slightly hot and tizzy treble of the CK10 to shame. Overall, the Miracle sounds crisp yet coherent, with effortlessness of detailing that is simply staggering.

A signature as balanced as that of the Miracle deserves an equally well-rounded presentation, which it has. From the first listen it is obvious that the Miracle was not tuned to be a stage monitor. It lacks the forwardness of the Earsonics SM3 and Westone UM3X and makes the 1964EARS 1964-T sound small and confined. The presentation is enveloping but no to the same extent as that of the SM3. Those who like the clear-cut left side – right side soundstage of Etymotic earphones or the Sony EX1000 would probably be better off staying away but those who found the imaging of the SM3 pleasing, if mildly overdone, will be happy with the Miracle. The Miracle sounds wider than the SM3 and provides a more realistic, slightly distanced feel but still shares the centering ability and three-dimensional feel of the Earsonics. The noticeably greater clarity, along with the larger soundstage and headstage, help provide incredible imaging and positioning. Certain sonic cues take on an out-of-the-head character I’ve only previously heard from semi-open dynamic-driver earphones. Instrumental separation is excellent and dynamics are better than with any other BA earphone I’ve heard so far. The Sony EX1000 was often able to keep up with the Miracle but lower end dynamic-driver sets such as the ATH-CKM99, VSonic GR07, and Sennheiser IE7 were left completely in the dust. On the whole, the presentation of the Miracle really is an immense tuning achievement on the part of Unique Melody, and one that I don’t see myself getting tired of.

Value (9/10) – The jump in sound quality from top universals and entry-level customs to the Miracle is significant, but so is the price gap. The fit and finish of the earphone certainly are as sublime as the price tag indicates, though, and the performance is fantastic as well – the Miracle offers a different sort of sound compared to the 1964EARS 1964-T and stage-destined universals like the UM3X and SM3 but still surpasses them in technical ability. I’ve drawn comparisons to the presentation of the SM3, but the Miracle offers all of the advantages – coherent imaging and great on-center feel for maximum immersion – with none of the drawbacks of the over-enveloping SM3. The signature, too, is extremely pleasing, with surprisingly strong but very controlled bass, clean and detailed midrange, and strong, extended treble. One of the Miracle’s greatest strengths is its ability to remain crisp and retrieve all of the detail without appearing aggressive, even at minimal volume levels. Instead of turning the volume up to get the detail and texture out, the Miracle encourages you to lower the volume, offering up assurances that not a single nuance will be lost.

I have to insert one of my usual disclaimers here - the fact that the Miracle is the most proficient earphone I’ve heard is not necessarily an indication that more drivers mean better sound, nor does it mean that throwing more money at your portable audio rig will result in significant performance gains. All I can say is that having occasion to use the Miracle still puts a smile on my face and I plan to enjoy it for years to come – thanks, of course, to the Head-Fi community.

Pros: Excellent long-term comfort; high isolation; superb finish; fantastic overall sound quality
Cons: Correct insertion takes some getting used to; no portable carrying case included

Huge thanks to 12345142, rawrster, Stephen Guo of custom-iem.com, and everyone who donated to make this present a reality. Thanks also to average_joe for lending me his SM3 for comparisons.

(1A3) AKG K3003i

Reviewed May 2012

Details: AKG’s flagship IEM, built around a hybrid BA+dynamic driver setup
Current Price: $1299 from amazon.com (MSRP: $1499.00)
Specs: Driver: Dual BA + Dynamic | Imp: 8Ω | Sens: 125 dB | Freq: 10-30k Hz | Cable: 3.9' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: HiFiMan large bi-flanges, Sony Hybrids, stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (6 pairs in 3 sizes), 3 pairs of tuning filters, airline adapter, TRS adapter, and genuine leather carrying case
Build Quality (5/5) – Hand-made in Austria, the K3003 boasts a very solid construction and great attention to detail. The housings are machined from stainless steel and most of the hardware is trimmed in brushed metal. The interchangeable nozzle filters feature color-coded o-rings and are stored threaded through a steel plate. Strain relief is good and the cable is tangle-resistant. While not detachable, the cord is thick and nylon-sheathed below the y-split, and of average thickness above. The cable cinch can be detached from the right-side cable and moved above the microphone
Isolation (3/5) – Decent with the right tips but the large housings limit insertion depth, especially with the stock single-flanges
Microphonics (5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent
Comfort (4/5) – The K3003 is a straight-barrel earphone with off-center strain reliefs. While it is neither the overly large nor exceedingly heavy, the cable actually wraps around the rear of the earphone before entering the strain relief, which adds to the diameter of the housings and can cause problems for those with smaller ears. The earphones can be worn cable-up, which puts the cable exit point outside of the ear and makes them more comfortable. Longer aftermarket eartips help as well.

Sound (9.4/10) – The first time I heard the AKG K3003 was at a show, side by side with my Unique Melody Miracle. While the Miracle was and still is my best-performing custom monitor, following a 20-minute A:B test I had a strong feeling that the K3003 was the best universal-fit IEM I’d heard to date - a feeling that I've now had a chance to confirm with a much lengthier audition.

The K3003 is unique not only because it is AKG’s first properly high-end earphone or because the price tag is sure to send most consumers into shock – it is also unique because of the “hybrid” driver configuration. Combining a dynamic driver with one or more balanced armatures, “hybrid” setups are seen by some as the Holy Grail, capable – at least in theory – to capitalize on the individual strengths of both technologies.

Hybrid designs have been around for years – UE’s Super.Fi 5 EB combined a rather large dynamic driver with a single BA back in 2005. However, the K3003 is the first universal-fit three-way hybrid, combining a single dynamic driver - mounted at the rear of the cylindrical housing – with a dual balanced armature (TWFK) unit mounted in the nozzle.

The K3003 also utilizes a tuning system not unlike that of Phonak’s PFE earphones. The sound is changed by swapping between the three included nozzle filters, dubbed ‘Bass Boost’, ‘Reference’, and ‘Treble Boost’. In contrast to the tiny filters used by the Phonak PFEs, which can only be removed with the included tool, the K3003’s filters are macroscopic and can easily be unscrewed and swapped by hand.

Tuning filters are - by nature – subtractive. They shape the sound by attenuating some frequencies over others. In the case of the K3003, the Treble Boost filter is just a grille, taking nothing away from the unfiltered sound. It provides a bright but refined signature, with plenty of treble that is really quite smooth for a TWFK-based earphone. There is no problem with treble quality when it comes to the Treble Boost filter but the quantity may push the tolerance limits for some, causing long-term listening fatigue.

The Bass Boost filter acts to attenuate the mids and treble with the intent of bringing the bass forward. Though not quite to the same extent as Phonak’s green filter, it raises acoustic impedance, requiring several extra notches of volume for the same listening level. Compared to the middle ‘Reference’ filters, the Bass Boost setting indeed shows increased impact and a warmer, more consumer-friendly sound. Unfortunately the filters also reduce the fantastic transparency of the K3003, sacrifice some of the texture for a smoother sound, and result in a drop in audible treble extension. I can see why the bass filters are included – as a sort of insurance policy against consumers who buy the K3003 on a whim and then attempt to compare the bass to a Klipsch S4 or Beats by Dre – but don’t see them being popular around Head-Fi as – again like the green Phonak filters - they waste too much of the earphones' potential.

The remaining filter is dubbed ‘Reference’ and provides the most reasonable combination of tone and performance without masking detail or causing excessive treble fatigue. The below review is based on the Reference filter except where otherwise noted. It’s worth saying that even with the reference filter the K3003 doesn’t have a flat response – not in the way an Etymotic ER-4S or a well-tuned TWFK might. Instead, the K3003 is an earphone for those convinced that while a balanced armature can produce excellent clarity and detail, it just can’t match the realistic power of a conventional dynamic driver in the bass and sub-bass regions.

With the Reference filter the K3003 boasts a mild mid-bass boost with good depth and punch. Note thickness is also good and the bass sounds full and weighty, likely in the realm of what most would consider ‘natural’. It is not slow by dynamic-driver standards – certainly on-level with high-end bass-heavy earphones such as the JVC FX700 – but simply doesn’t have the speed and tightness of a balanced armature. Impact is good – bass quantity is closest to the green filters of the Phonak PFE 232 and has similar weight and fullness to the Earsonics SM3, albeit with more immediate punch and better dynamics. Texture and detail are both very good for a dynamic driver and the bass gives the K3003 some warmth in comparison to most armature-based sets. At the same time midrange bleed is mostly kept in check by the generally prominent mids and treble.

As expected, there is a slight coherence issue with the hybrid BA-dynamic system, stemming largely from the difference in note presentation between the drivers. The dynamic driver has greater note thickness and generally sounds softer and less crisp. It is helped greatly by the excellent dynamics but the armatures handling the midrange and treble are still more detailed and resolving – an audible disconnect with some tracks. The Bass Boost filters, which tone down the upper midrange and lower treble, make this less obvious to my ears but the coherence isn’t problematic enough to justify using them.

Moving up into the midrange, the K3003 impresses with sound that is extremely clear and detailed, yet very smooth and completely without grain. On both counts it performs a bit better than the grey-filtered Phonak 232s and the j-Phonic K2 SP, two of the clearest and most resolving universals I’ve heard. It sounds even cleaner next to the Earsonics SM3, which seems dull and muffled in comparison as a result of placing significantly more weight on the lower midrange and less emphasis on everything above it. Note thickness is typical of a TWFK-based earphone and the smooth and liquid midrange presentation of the K3003 is quite similar to that of the Audio-Technica CK10.

The treble of the K3003, while prominent in the overall mix, is smooth for a TWFK-based earphone, falling somewhere between the VSonic GR01 and Fischer Audio DBA-02 in emphasis. It and sounds clean and detailed, with plenty of sparkle and good air. While fans of Earsonics earphones and the Shure SE530 will find the top end overly prominent, it is on the whole smoother than that of the Audio-Technica CK10 while granting cymbals similar energy and excitement. It sounds refined and resolving at all times and has an uncanny ability to escape sibilance – a trait that makes it easier to listen to for long stretches than a gray-filtered Phonak 232 or VSonic GR07. Overall brightness is a touch behind the j-Phonic K2 SP and Phonak 232 with gray filters, though this can be reversed by using the Treble Boost port on the K3003.

The presentation of the K3003 is one aspect that continues to impress me – for a universal-fit earphone the AKGs are very spacious, yet still capable of portraying intimacy exceptionally well. Soundstage width is good but the K3003 also boasts excellent depth and layering, making earphones such as the VSonic GR07 sound flat and distant. The K3003 is on the whole more forward than the Phonak PFE 232, too, but also has the layering to make it sound 3-dimensional and immersive. Nevertheless, the presentation of the AKGs is more conventional than that of the overly-enveloping Earsonics SM3. The fleshed-out bass helps fill out the soundstage and give the earphones a big, full sound. It definitely doesn’t hurt that the dynamics of the bass driver are exceptionally good.

Instrument separation is also excellent and imaging is on-par with the Audio-Technica CK10 and among the best I’ve heard out of universal-fit monitors. The only area of concern is the bass, which can be a touch heavy next to the CK10 and can exaggerate the presence and prominence of low notes in the recording. On the upside, instrumental timbre is quite good – the K3003 sounds more natural than my j-Phonic K2 SP and ATH-CK10 and oftentimes beats the Earsonics SM3, which has some of the best timbre among all armature-based in-ears.

It’s worth noting that the K3003 is revealing but not overly punishing of poor recordings, rips, and masters, as stage monitors such as the j-Phonic K2 SP tend to be. It is also very easy to drive and scales up only moderately with amplification and higher-end sources – less so than the K2 SP and PFE 232, for example. Low-volume performance is also quite good, albeit potentially limited by the isolation in noisy places.

While the review above references only other universals in comparison to the AKG K3003, pitting the K3003 against custom-fit earphones played a large role in its evaluation. Below is a short set of A:B comparisons between the K3003 and three of my customs – the ClearTuneMonitors CTM-200, Alclair Reference, and Unique Melody Miracle.

The ClearTuneMonitors CTM-200 is a balanced-sounding dual-driver custom with neutral tone and a wide soundstage. In comparison, the K3003 is somewhat v-shaped in response, with stronger bass impact and bit more treble presence giving it a livelier, more exciting sound. The K3003 is significantly bassier, boasting more impact, body, and depth. Its bass is more dynamic and detailed, making the low end of the CTM-200 sound a bit flat and lifeless in comparison. The presentation of the K3003, though similar in width, is much deeper and more adept at portraying intimacy.

The Alclair Reference is a triple-driver earphone with a smooth sound on the warm side of neutral. It is a little more detailed and refined than the K3003 in the bass and midrange regions with smoother treble and similar soundstage size. The bass of the K3003 extends slightly better but sounds a touch boomy compared to the dry, tight bass produced by the dual bass drivers of the Reference. The K3003 also has slightly better on-center feel and a presentation that extends a little further inward. There is a tone difference as well – the K3003 is a bit brighter but no more fatiguing than the Reference, which has a slightly dry and analytical note presentation. The overall performance of these two earphones is very, very close.

The Unique Melody Miracle is the very first earphone I compared to the K3003, a test that convinced me that the K3003 may just be the best universal-fit earphone I’ve heard. The Miracle is clearer and more detailed in the midrange and treble and significantly tighter and cleaner in the bass region. The response is smoother overall and most of the time the Miracle sounds more natural and realistic. It has a wider presentation than the K3003 and better air, sounding more spacious with a better sense of dimensionality. The K3003 does boast a different sound signature, with quite a bit more mid-bass compared to the Miracle and a better ability to ramp up the punch and rumble on bass-heavy tracks. What’s impressive is how close the K3003 comes to the Miracle for sheer enjoyment, which wasn’t the case with the universal demo of the Miracle I heard a number of months ago.

Value (8/10) – While its price tag is shockingly high, the AKG K3003i represents a new class of portable product. The remote control unit - a seemingly blasphemous feature on a high-end headphone – may be evidence of a coming shift in portable Hi-Fi spending. With highly capable media devices becoming more widespread, consumers are likely to become more open-minded to spending good money on a headset, just as many have become receptive to pricy portable cans following the Beats by Dre craze.

Of course the K3003 is expensive even by celebrity headphone standards; those in search of value-for-money can safely give it a pass. Comparing the headset’s performance to similarly-priced full-size headphone and speaker setups makes no sense either – the K3003 is a solution for those who value portability. While its performance may not match that of a similarly-priced custom-fit earphone, it is almost certainly easier and more practical to obtain, avoids all of the extra costs and delays associated with re-fits, and should retain more resale value. Like the Fitear ToGo! MH334 and several FADs, then, these AKGs are a niche product pretty much in a class of their own. They may not provide the most bang for your buck but I can see very few reasons why those who can afford them wouldn’t be delighted with the sound.

Pros: Excellent overall build quality, exquisite packaging and presentation; very capable and enjoyable sound
Cons: Cables not detachable; moderate noise isolation; may not be comfortable for those with smaller ears; slight differences in note presentation between armatures and dynamic driver

(1A4) Spiral Ear SE 3-way Reference

Reviewed June 2012

Details: Silicone-shelled custom from Poland-based Spiral Ear
Current Price: €595 (est $790) fixed cable, €665 (est $885) detachable cable from spiralear.com
Specs: Driver: Triple BA; 3-way crossover | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4.2' L-plug
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Cleaning tool and hard-shelled custom-printed carrying case w/detachable lanyard
Build Quality (5/5) – The Spiral Ear IEMs use silicone shells that are completely filled in. Shell transparency isn’t as good as it can be with Acrylic monitors but the structure is solid, with a relatively small amount of give. The fixed-cable version utilizes Westone-style cables with the connectors encased within the silicone shell. Detachable cables (optional) boast internally-anchored, recessed connectors with conventional Westone ES-style plugs.
Isolation (5/5) – The isolation of the deep-fit silicone shells puts every other earphone in my collection to shame, outperforming even my custom-tipped Etymotic Research earphones
Microphonics (5/5) - Pretty much nonexistent
Comfort (5/5) – The silicone shells of the SE 3-way take slightly longer to insert and remove compared to a more rigid and slippery Acrylic shell but once fitted the 3-way is just as comfortable as my UM Miracle and seems to maintain seal a tiny bit better with changes to the ear canal shape, such as while chewing or talking. Being a custom monitor, the comfort of the 3-way is highly dependent on the quality of the initial impressions and final mold so if the earphones remain uncomfortable after an initial break-in period a re-fit is probably a good idea.

Sound (9.5/10) – While a number of promises are made on the 3-way Reference product page, extended listening to the earphones causes none to ring as true as that of “rich and organic” sound. The 3-way is a listening experience unlike anything else I’ve heard, providing a neutral, highly polished signature but also causing all of the other BA-based monitors I’ve heard to sound thin and underpowered in comparison.

The sound of the 3-way takes some getting used to – it isn’t designed to immediately wow with detail and clarity, sparkly treble, or a wide, out-of-the head presentation. Instead, it impresses in the long term – around the time 4 hours and 3 full albums have passed. Most impressive is the bass – there is a certain disconnect between the neutral tone of the 3-way Reference and the voluminous bass. The bass has great body and good punch. On bass-heavy tracks the 3-way is capable of effortlessly producing more impact than any other armature-based earphone I’ve heard, beating out the Earsonics SM3 and the bass-heavy filters of the Phonak PFE 232 and competing with the dynamic-driver bass of the AKG K3003. The bass response scales back quite well when it is not called for, too – dynamics are some of the best among armature-based IEMs, slightly better than with the SM3 and far superior to anything built around a full-range TWFK driver, for example. As a result, the earphones can still sound rather balanced on the whole but are also capable of really belting out the low notes on cue.

While most of the power comes in higher, the low end of the 3-way is well-extended – better, for example, than that of the Alclair Reference. Note weight is on the heavy side and some of the fine detail is not as audible as it can be with a thinner-sounding earphone such as a UM Miracle or Alclair Reference, but the 3-way sounds very natural and detailed in its own way. It is not one for analytical listeners but the excellent note thickness and dynamics make for a uniquely tactile and powerful bass presentation – one that is smooth, yet easily felt. The Earsonics SM3 – which is also rather thick-sounding - has a similar overall feel to its bass but can’t quite match the depth, resolution, and control of the 3-way Reference, sounding a little loose and bleeding up into the midrange more.

The midrange of the 3-way Reference is smooth and rich without sounding excessively warm. Indeed, for the amount of bass the Spiral Ear can produce, the mids are surprisingly free of bass bleed and the overall balance is quite good. There’s no sense of the mids being pushed forward artificially but also not as much distance placed between the listener and the performers as, for example, with the ClearTune CTM-200 or the popular VSonic GR07.

On the whole, the 3-way doesn’t adhere to a typical high-end BA sound - it does not push for the greatest possible clarity and detail, instead focusing on a thicker, more natural note presentation and overall coherency across the spectrum. In this way it is highly reminiscent of the Earsonics SM3, though the 3-way is noticeably more transparent. Combined with the lack of bright, emphasized treble, this means that the overall clarity is not immediately impressive as it is with the UM Miracle or CTM-200. The detailing is also not at all aggressive – the 3-way does not push fine nuances forward as many analytical earphones do. The detail is mostly there, but it takes some listening for. Overall, it sounds very natural and pleasant.

The top end of the 3-way Reference is among the smoothest and most non-fatiguing I’ve heard from an IEM. Comparing it to the AKG K3003, Alclair Reference, and Phonak PFE 232 reveals peaks in their treble presentations that just aren’t there with the Spiral Ear. The treble is clean and detailed but – much like that of the Earsonics SM3 – lacks some sparkle and energy next to other high-end earphones. Most likely it was tuned this way to prevent listening fatigue over long listening sessions but as a result the 3-way has a darker tone and can sound a bit boring at low volumes compared to brighter earphones. Treble quality is good but again the top end of the UM Miracle is not only more prominent, but also has better detail and extension, resulting in a more airy sound and a boost in perceived clarity.

The presentation of the 3-way is very well-rounded – similar in size to that of the Phonak PFE 232 but with better layering for a more ambient and 3-dimensional feel. The 3-way gives a good sense of space but provides a less open, more intimate sound compared to the UM Miracle and Alclair Reference. Separation is very good, as are the dynamics, resulting in good imaging and allowing the 3-way to recreate very fine nuances, especially in live recordings. Listening to a Phonak PFE 232 with the green +bass filters (which result in the most similar, albeit still more v-shaped, balance) makes very apparent just how much more detailed the 3-way is.

In addition to the mentions above, I thought I’d add more concise comparisons against my two other higher-end custom monitors – the Unique Melody Miracle and Alclair Reference.

The Alclair Reference ($399) pursues a slightly warm sound signature with a drier presentation and some treble emphasis. Compared to the Spiral Ear 3-way Reference it has a more laid-back soundstage with a thinner, more analytical note. The tone is brighter overall and it can sound slightly ‘hot’ with some tracks due to emphasis in the lower treble region. As a result of the treble emphasis, the perceived clarity is a bit better than with the 3-way but natural clarity is similar between the two. The 3-way, on the other hand, has much smoother treble for a less fatiguing sound and darker tone. It provides a better sense of 3-D space and better on-center feel. It also sounds more effortless at the bottom end, with better bass weight, power, and impact compared to the Alclair.

The UM Miracle ($950) is a spacious, highly detailed monitor with a very slightly u-shaped response. Like the Alclair Reference, the Miracle sounds brighter and clearer compared to the 3-way. Despite being more laid-back in the midrange, the Miracle still provides better detail and texture in addition to being more airy and spacious. However, while the Miracle’s bass depth and subbass power are similar to those of the 3-way, its mid- and upper-bass response is far leaner. The 3-way has much more bass body and sounds thicker, with more bass weight and impact but also a bit of boominess and slight lack of detail next to the Miracle. This gives the 3-way a very dynamic sound but causes the Miracle to appear more resolving overall.

Value (8.5/10) - The Spiral Ear 3-way Reference is a versatile and well-rounded custom monitor that eschews the usual analytical tendencies of high-end BA-based earphones for a holistic approach to sound more akin to that of EarSonics monitors. It is not for fans of a thiner note presentation, leaning instead towards the lush end of the spectrum, but its smooth, powerful, and full-bodied response is something that simply needs to be experienced, especially by those who claim dynamic drivers always sound more natural than armatures. The filled silicone shells offer similar comfort to acrylic shells (provided both are well-fitted) but easily best acrylic monitors – and every other earphone I’ve tried – when it comes to isolation. With the option to add detachable cables at additional cost, the only downside is that the Spiral Ear is limited in customization options compared to most of its acrylic counterparts. In addition, with its effortless low end and excellent dynamics, I feel that this is one custom monitor potentially suitable for bassheads as it is incredibly adept at making sure that whatever bass is on a track can be felt as well as heard.

Pros: Immense isolation; incredibly dynamic, powerful, and full-bodied sound
Cons: Inserting and removing silicone shells takes some getting used to

A full review of the SE 3-way with additional photos can be found here

(1A5) FitEar To Go! 334

Added Dec 2012

Details: Custom-turned-universal IEM from Japan-based FitEar. This TG334 was gifted to me by the Head-Fi community and I would like to sincerely thank the organizers, including shotgunshane, james444, rawrster, Inks, and Anaxilus, as well as everyone else whose efforts made this a reality. It was an incredible display of generosity that makes me proud to be a part of this community. The original thread can be found here

Current Price: $1345 from musicaacoustics.com (MSRP: est. $1350)
Specs: Driver: Quad BA | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5 mm | Preferred tips: Audiofly single-flanges; stock single-flanges, MEElec long single-flanges, short double-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes) & bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, cleaning tool, drawstring carrying pouch, and Pelican 1010 carrying case
Build Quality (5/5) – The TG334 is probably the best-constructed earphone I’ve come across; the fit and finish are top-notch--the shells have a very solid feel to them and the cables are sturdy and detachable, albeit with non-standard connectors. The cords don’t tangle but are a bit stiff compared to the cables on my custom-fit earphones
Isolation (4/5) – Very good for a universal – the TG334 fills up much of the outer ear and can provide excellent isolation with a good seal
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Quite low despite the stiff cable
Comfort (4.5/5) – The housings of the MH334 are on the large side, but quite ergonomic. The in-ear footprint isn’t too big and the bulk of the shell ends up outside of the ear. The stiff memory wire also keeps the weight in check

Sound (9.5/10) – FitEar’s first mass-produced universal-fit earphone, the TG334 is derived from the company’s MH334 custom-fit model. It is noteworthy not only for being one of the few quad-driver universal earphones, but also as part of the exclusive $1000+ club. The sound signature of the MH334 is an interesting one and is best characterized as mildly off-neutral, with some emphasis on the bass and midrange relative to the top end.

My first listen to the TG334 left me slightly stunned – it was the best universal-fit earphone I’d heard, but its sound signature was also quite different from what I had expected. The bass surprised me most of all – so thick and full compared to the vast majority of the other BA-based sets I’ve heard. Unlike many other armature-based sets, the TG334 can move some serious air and bass depth is very good as well. The sub-bass rumble stops just short of bass-heavy dynamic-driver sets such as the JVC FX700. The TG334 still trails the dynamic driver of the AKG K3003 and the custom-fit Spiral Ear 3-way Reference in sheer impact, but only by a small margin.

The slightly thick note also means that the TG334 just doesn’t sound as tight and quick as a crisper BA-based set might. In fact, this bass presentation can at times make it difficult to pin the TG334 down as a BA-powered monitor altogether. Compared, for example, to the more level bass of the ATH-CK10, the TG334 sounds noticeably boomy but gains more natural power and depth at the bottom end. Unlike the CK10, the TG334 can produce some serious rumble when necessary – a rarity even among higher-end armature-based monitors.

The midrange of the TG334 is clean and prominent, quite possibly the best feature of the earphone’s sound for me. Even though the TG334 is not as entirely neutral to my ears, it manages to maintain top notch transparency. Its midrange is among the clearest I’ve heard, exhibiting no veil whatsoever--clearer, for example, than the mids of the Phonak PFE232 and the custom-fit Spiral Ear 3-way, and more forward and transparent than those of the AKG K3003. Vocals are incredibly intelligible and the mids are very smooth and full-sounding overall.

Moving on up, the TG334 remains smooth and refined. The top end is a bit laid-back on the whole, resulting in a slightly darker tone. The AKG K3003, for example, is both brighter in tone and more edgy in treble presentation, even with the ‘reference’ filters in place. Still, despite the soft treble, the TG334 remains pretty neutral – it is not as dark as the Spiral Ear SE 3-way, for instance. There are also no sibilance-accentuating peaks and sets such as the PFE232 and Audio-Technica CK10 sound downright splashy next to the FitEar. Top-end extension is good but doesn’t seem quite as impressive as that of the UE 900 or even the AKG K3003. As a result, the TG334 is not an extremely airy-sounding earphone, but the presentation is great regardless.

The ambient presentation is my second favorite aspect of the TG334 after the euphonic midrange. The earphone provides a very good sense of space for a universal – it may not sound as wide as the Sony EX1000, but the headstage has excellent height and depth in addition to good width. Add in great separation and it’s clear why the TG334 images extremely well. Due to the forward mids, it has a slight tendency to stay intimate and in-the-head but the overall versatility is impressive. The soundstaging is noticeably better than that of the PFE232 and the Alclair Reference customs – two very solid mid-tier earphones – and the imaging is at least as good as with any other universal-fit earphone I’ve heard.

Select comparisons:

HiFiMan RE262 ($149)

Perhaps the most reasonably-priced IEM I would dare pit against the TG334, the RE262 is a dynamic-driver design from one of Head-Fi’s favorite manufacturers. Compared to the far more expensive TG334, the RE262 yields in bass extension and power but sounds a bit tighter and quicker. It lacks the dynamics, deep bass presence, and overall impact of the FitEar, and at times can sound downright recessed at the low end in comparison.

The midrange of the 334 is slightly clearer, thicker, and fuller compared to the RE262 but the overall tonality is quite similar between the two earphones, with both sounding a little warmer/darker than what I would consider neutral. The treble of the RE262 is a little more laid-back but the overall balance is still good, seemingly benefitting from the lighter bass. Finally, the TG334 wins the soundstaging battle easily with a bigger, more out-of-the-head presentation along with better layering and separation and a more convincing center image.

VSonic GR07 ($180)

VSonic’s dynamic-driver reference monitor boasts a fantastic price/performance ratio but falls very short of the TG334 in a head to head comparison. While its bass is tighter and more controlled than that of the TG334, the GR07 fails to make up for its lack of midrange and treble performance. The midrange of the GR07 sounds overly lean and distant compared to that of the TG334. Vocals are less intelligible and generally sound less natural and refined. The mids of the TG334, on the hand, sound fuller and simply more “mature” than those of the GR07.

Moving up, the GR07 is brighter and has the treble energy that the TG334 lacks. However, in doing so it tends to be significantly more harsh and sibilant. Compared to the soft, yet detailed treble of the TG334, the GR07 seems unrefined and ultimately much less satisfying. The presentation, too, is no match for the FitEar. The layering and soundstage depth of the TG334 make the GR07 sound flat and distant and highlight its lack of a strong center image and the ability to portray intimacy properly.

Ultimate Ears 900 ($400)

UE’s latest and greatest boasts a similar quad BA configuration to the TG334 but fails to provide the transparency and spaciousness of the pricier FitEar. Compared to the UE900, the TG334 boasts more powerful and dynamic bass and more prominent mids. Its sound is significantly clearer and more transparent, with better detailing and better instrument separation. The UE900 sounds downright veiled in comparison but, on the upside, has slightly better treble presence and extension compared to the TG334.

1964EARS 1964-V3 ($425)

1964EARS’ second-gen triple-BA custom monitor is a mid-level custom earphone, but it does a surprisingly good job of keeping up with the FitEar. The TG334 does have slightly deeper bass and sounds more dynamic and natural than the V3. On tracks with heavy bass presence, overall bass quantity is quite close between the two but the TG334 does a better job of scaling down its bass response when necessary. In comparison, the bass of the V3 can be slightly more boomy and intrusive.

Both earphones have clean, upfront mids, but the TG334 doesn’t sound quite as forward as the V3, due in part to its superior layering and separation. Its sound is fuller, as well as slightly more detailed and refined. The V3 boasts more emphasis in the upper midrange and treble for a brighter sound. It can also sound just a touch harsh in comparison but generally remains well-behaved. The presentation battle is won by the TG334 with a more spacious soundstage and better imaging, but by a much smaller margin compared to the RE262 or GR07.

Unique Melody Miracle ($949)

The Miracle is a 3-way, 6-driver custom monitor priced slightly below the TG334. To my ears, the Miracle is a hallmark of full-range sound presented in an immersive way. The bass of the Miracle provides the best qualities balanced armatures have to offer, with great extension and a lack of mid-bass emphasis. The result is tight, quick, and very detailed bass that makes the low end of the TG334 sound slightly bloated. It would not be impossible to mistake the TG334, with its greater mid-bass impact and thicker note presentation, for a dynamic-driver earphone when comparing it to the more textured and detailed Miracle.

From the midrange upward, it becomes more difficult to split the two earphones except on preference. The TG334 sounds warmer overall, with more emphasis on the bass, mids that are more upfront (especially next to the more laid-back Miracle), and less prominent treble. Resolution is fantastic with both earphones but the brighter Miracle has a slight edge in perceived clarity. The greater sparkle and treble energy of the Miracle contrast the softer, smoother, more relaxed treble presentation of the darker FitEar very nicely without sounding harsh or grainy.

The presentation of the Miracle is wider and more spacious compared to the TG334. The TG334 has an impressively out-of-the-head soundstage and very good imaging for a universal-fit earphone but it can’t quite match the sheer size of the Miracle’s presentation, nor the psychoacoustic top-to-bottom and front-to-rear space. The tighter bass of the Miracle also gives it a leg up when it comes to providing a clean and well-separated sonic image.

Value (8/10) – The FitEar TG334 earns its hefty price by joining off-the-charts construction quality with impressive sonic performance. The clean and strong midrange and excellent sense of space combine with soft treble and rich, full-bodied bass to appeal even to those who normally prefer dynamic drivers. The question many will be asking is whether the TG334 performs as well as similarly-priced custom monitors. Based comparing it to just the UM Miracle, the answer seems to be "not quite", but more than one data point would be needed for certainty. What I do know is that for many the TG334 is likely more practical to obtain than a custom, avoids all of the extra costs and delays associated with impressions and re-fits, and should retain more resale value. There is no question that the 334 is a niche product, but as a universal-fit earphone it is simply sublime.

Pros: Fantastically clear and strong midrange; great imaging and sense of space; high isolation; amazing build quality
Cons: Bass could be tighter

Huge thanks to shotgunshane, james444, Anaxilus, Inks, rawrster, and everyone else who pitched in to make this TG334 a reality!

(1A6) Ultrasone IQ

Added Feb 2013

Details: Ultrasone’s flagship earphone built around a hybrid BA/dynamic driver system
Current Price: $899 from bhphotovideo.com (MSRP: $949)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic/BA Hybrid | Imp: 20Ω | Sens: 106 dB | Freq: 17-21k Hz | Cable: 3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Etymotic triple-flange, Westone TRUE-FIT Foam
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 pairs standard, 2 pairs cone-shaped), Comply foam tips (2 pairs), spare cable with inline mic/remote, TRRS smartphone adapter, airline adapter, and magnetic-clasp carrying case
Build Quality (5/5) – The build is rock-solid, boasting sturdy die-cast housings and detachable cables with coaxial connectors. Filter-less nozzles, together with the lack of a wax loop in the accessory pack, may be an issue for those with waxy ears, though the included Comply tips provide wax guards. The clear-coated cables are soft and flexible, similar to the cords on MEElectronics earphones
Isolation (3.5/5) – Isolation is above average with the stock silicone tips and better with the included Comply foams as well as my preferred triple-flanges
Microphonics (5/5) – Nonexistent in the coated cable
Comfort (3.5/5) – The housings are cube-shaped and on the large side, holding both a balanced armature and an 8mm dynamic driver per side. The profile reminds me of the Earsonics SM3 and the overall volume of the housings isn’t much bigger than some of the mutli-armature sets on the market. However, “cube” is not the most ergonomic shape in the world and the housing corners can cause soreness after some time unless longer tips are used to allow the housing to sit farther outside the ear

Sound (9.3/10) – Ultrasone’s first in-ear monitor utilizes a hybrid driver system with an 8mm side-mounted dynamic driver and a single balanced armature. Quite a few hybrid setups have been released in the past year but it is still an unusual choice for a company’s first foray into IEMs. Happily, Ultrasone pulls the IQ off rather well, with the exception of one issue - the tuning seems to favor a deep insertion while the included eartips, in conjunction with the large housing, favor a shallower fit for average-sized ears.

With the stock tips the treble response of the IQ peaks heavily right in the sibilance region, making many tracks sibilant and some - downright uncomfortable. The silicone tips are the worst offenders, followed closely by the Complys. After a few hours of tip rolling, I found the Etymotic triple-flange tips to cut the sibilance completely while retaining an acceptable amount of treble energy for me. An inline impedance adapter can tame the treble a bit more, likely due to the non-linear impedance characteristic of the balanced armature driver. Using both the Etymotic tips and impedance adapter together results in a drastic change but proved unnecessary, so this review and the subsequent comparisons were all done with the Etymotic triple-flange tips as the only modification to the IQ.

No matter the eartips, the bass delivered by the 8mm dynamic driver of the IQ is surprisingly poised and precise. The IQ is an enhanced-bass earphone, no doubt, but the bass is textured, quick, and not at all overbearing for a dynamic-driver set. It is somewhat reminiscent of the AKG K3003 in this respect. Bass extension is good, with plenty of sub-bass rumble, and the overall impact is still impressive, in the realm of the armature-based Phonak PFE 232 and FitEar TG334. Bass bleed is minimal and the IQ, again like the K3003, does not sound particularly mid-recessed despite its v-shaped sound profile.

The midrange is clean and clear, with surprisingly little warmth for an earphone with such robust bass. The mids are lagging in emphasis compared to the low end but not enough to warrant being called recessed, and the upper midrange and treble have good presence. Despite the treble spikes that annoy me with the stock tips, the IQ is not a particularly bright earphone – it doesn’t have the treble energy of the AKG K3003 or the Audio-Technica ATH-CK10, for example; it just seems to hit all of the sibilance-prone areas. The treble presentation with the stock tips does hurt tonality, reminding me of Ultrasone’s HFI-780 headphone – a fun but slightly metallic-sounding full-size set. The HFI-780 never appealed to me over Utrasone’s more balanced Proline models, and the IQ likewise is a tad too colored with the stock eartips. With proper eartips it remains only slightly harsh, to an extent that can be dismissed except when pitted side by side against something like the K3003.

In terms of presentation, the IQ is competent all around. It is a spacious-sounding earphone with a very consistent and even-handed presentation. Its soundstage is larger compared to many other top-tier universals, including the Phonak PFE 232, but doesn’t stay as free of congestion due to the nature of the dynamic driver. Imaging, however, is good and the IQ can provide a very enveloping sonic presentation without sounding forward. It’s worth noting the high sensitivity as well – the IQ is well above average in this regard and is both revealing of source matching issues and very, very easy to drive.

Select Comparisons

UE900 ($400)

Logitech UE’s latest and greatest is a quad-armature monster boasting excellent presence across the frequency spectrum and a sound signature somewhere between “neutral” and “Triple.Fi 10”. The UE 900 seems to miss out on the full, natural bass impact of the IQ’s dynamic driver but matches its low-end extension. The bigger, more dynamic bass of the IQ emphasizes the fun factor, but also scales up more convincingly on bass-heavy tracks.

The midrange of the UE 900 sounds a little muffled in comparison to the IQ, likely due to the upper midrange dip noted in my original review. The IQ remains flatter through the midrange, though its treble is not quite as smooth as that of the Ultimate Ears. I prefer the greater treble energy of the IQ once it is tamed with my aftermarket tips, but with both earphones using their stock fittings the UE 900 bothers me less. In terms of presentation, both sets are spacious and image very well, with no clear winner for me.

Phonak PFE 232 ($600)

Yet another detachable-cable universal with a massive price tag and headset functionality, the PFE 232 is rather bassy for an armature-based earphone and proves to be good competition for the dynamic-driver bass of the IQ. Indeed, the bass presence of the two earphones is quite similar, with the Ultrasone providing a bit more punch and body. The overall sound of the PFE 232 is more v-shaped, with less prominent mids compared to the IQ. The lower midrange especially is set a little too far back with the Phonaks, which does them no favors when it comes to intelligibility. The IQ, meanwhile, sounds clearer and flatter through the midrange. Treble is a close call – both earphones have good treble presence and the Ultrasone only wins out in refinement when paired with aftermarket eartips, and even then just barely. The gray-filtered Phonak ends up just a touch hotter and thinner-sounding. The soundstage of the IQ is larger, providing a slightly more out-of-the-head listening experience and superior imaging.

AKG K3003i ($1300)

Similarities between the K3003 and the IQ abound – each is a flagship product from a company with a history of headphone Hi-Fi, each uses a hybrid driver setup, and each has a borderline shocking sticker price. The K3003 utilizes a 3-way setup, with dual armatures handling the midrange and treble. Surprisingly, however, its bass driver is not as well-optimized as that of the IQ. The low end of the K3003 ends up sounding slightly more intrusive and less controlled, with the resulting fuller bass note leading to poorer coherence between the drivers compared to the IQ.

The lighter, snappier bass of the IQ affords it even less midrange bleed. Both earphones have minimal midrange recession and energetic, prominent highs. The K3003 (with the Reference tuning filter) has a bit more treble energy but still sounds smoother and more refined than the IQ. Both have large, well-layered presentations, with the K3003 having a slight upper hand when it comes to portraying a more convincing soundscape.

1964EARS 1964-V3 ($425)

1964EARS’ triple-driver model is a high bang/buck earphone for those willing to invest in a custom-fit product. Compared to the IQ, the V3 pursues a more aggressive and intimate sound, with forward mids, an enveloping presentation, and very high sensitivity. The dynamic driver of the IQ can’t quite keep up with the speed of the V3’s bass but provides similar slam. The V3 seems less bassy due to the forward mids but its sound is overall more colored than that of the slightly v-shaped IQ. Neither set has the most refined treble, nor is picking a winner easier when comparing the broader soundstage of the IQ to the smaller but more 3-dimensional presentation of the V3.

Unique Melody Miracle ($949)

The Miracle is a 3-way, 6-driver custom that, with the cost of impressions and shipping factored in, would be priced just above the IQ. The Ultrasone competes with this flagship custom monitor surprisingly well despite its more colored, v-shaped sound signature. As expected, the Miracle is flatter and more accurate overall, with mids that are less recessed, more extended treble, and a slightly broader presentation not bogged down with the heavier bass of the IQ’s dynamic driver. It is smoother and more refined, especially in the treble region, while the Ultrasone ends up sounding warmer and harsher. Still, the IQ provides a bassier sound with little sacrifice in the way of clarity and overall resolution – a feat in and of itself. It also does a good job of keeping up with the imaging and dynamics of the Miracle, which few other earphones, custom or universal, manage to do.

Value (7.5/10) – Ultrasone’s new flagship in-ear takes a page right out of the Edition playbook, providing an on-the-go listening experience for the well-to-do. The IQ is a top performer in many ways but seems to sound better with a difficult-to-achieve deep seal. It is an interesting proposition – an earphone that doesn’t quite impress out of the box but has tons of potential for those willing to work towards a good fit. Is this reasonable for such a high-end product? I’m not so sure, but the fact remains that the IQ can make a good case for itself in the sound department.

Audio quality aside, the IQ scores high marks for its superb construction, including die-cast housings, detachable cords, and soft, tangle-free cabling. Cable noise is nil and noise isolation is good compared to the Sennheiser IE 800 and AKG K3003. High sensitivity and a secure, over-the-ear fit add to its versatility. It’s not going to win over the value-minded, but the IQ is yet another simpler, easier alternative to spending copious amounts of cash on a custom-fit monitor.

Pros: Sound can be very competent; solid crafstmanship
Cons: Treble response poorly sculpted with stock tips; awkward housing shape; no nozzle filters or wax loop included

(1A7) Hidition NT 6

Added Jun 2013

Details: One of two flagship models from Korea-based Hidition
Current Price: est. $1200 from hidition.co.kr
Specs: Driver: 6 BA / 4-way crossover | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4.2' I-plug
Nozzle Size: N/A | Preferred tips: N/A
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Custom hard-shell carrying case, cleaning tool, and cleaning cloth
Build Quality (5/5) – The build quality of the NT 6 is excellent, with thick acrylic shells and a well-made cable featuring angled connectors and a metal Palics plug. The cable is braided and covered in heatshrink tubing for extra protection but is prone to the memory effect, maintaining its shape after being coiled up for storage. On the cosmetic side, Hidition offers a massive number of customization options, including some very unique mother of pearl faceplates (one of which is shown)
Isolation (4.5/5) - The isolation provided by the deep-sealing shells is excellent - slightly below that of my silicone-shelled customs but higher than with my other acrylic-shelled units
Microphonics (4.5/5) – The heatshrink-wrapped cable produces slightly more microphonics than the cables on my other customs
Comfort (5/5) – My NT 6 was built with a musician fit, extending to the second bend of the ear canal. As with all acrylic customs, the shells are hard but comfortable when fitted correctly. If the earphones remain uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a refit may be required

Sound (9.9/10) – Hidition’s lineup is notable for having not one but two six-driver flagships – the NT 6, which features a 4-way passive crossover, and the NT 6-PRO, which adds another crossover point for a 5-way setup. The PRO model promises enhanced bass, while the vanilla NT 6 is said to be more neutral.

The overall signature of the NT 6 is balanced, with a slight treble emphasis. The earphone impresses most with its bell-like clarity, but there’s a whole lot more to like. The bass is linear, with a small boost in the sub-bass region. The low end is a little leaner compared, for example, to the JH13 Pro and Westone ES5, but remains extremely tight and controlled at all times. Overall accuracy is great and the neutral bass quantity is very welcome, though perhaps a little surprising considering the triple bass drivers of the NT 6. One may expect more bass boost, but the low end of the NT 6 is punchy when it needs to be, otherwise staying out of the way.

The midrange is flat and level, boasting striking clarity and detail. There is no bass bleed and the mids are not in the least bit recessed. With nothing to get in the way of the midrange, detail resolution and overall definition are fantastic. Vocal intelligibility is excellent as well – better compared to the UM Miracle and Heir Audio 8.A, for example. Only the JH13 Pro competes in clarity, and even then its mild bass boost puts it at a slight disadvantage to the NT 6.

On the whole, the NT 6 is well-balanced aside from an upper treble bump, which gives it a characteristically brighter, cooler tone. It is not a forgiving earphone but, happily, the top-end emphasis falls above the 4-8 kHz range where sibilance typically originates, so the NT 6 does not introduce sibilance or harshness to recordings. Treble extension is excellent, contributing to an airy and open sound with entirely unconstrained dynamics.

The tight, clean sound of the NT 6 does wonders for the presentation of the earphone. The Hidition boasts a wide and spacious soundstage but does not lack in the way of a central image. Overall imaging is excellent, resulting in a convincing presentation, and while soundstage depth and layering aren’t quite on-par with the JH13Pro or UM Miracle, they are certainly close enough to compete.

Select Comparisons

JH Audio JH13 Pro Freqphase ($1099)

Like that of Hidition, JHA’s lineup offers two flagships, the 8-driver JH16 and the 6-driver JH13, and, like the NT 6, the JH13 is the more neutral-sounding of JHA's two flagships. For me, these two monitors are the cream of the crop – both impossibly clear and resolving, with very good imaging and lifelike presentations. The differences between them lie largely in sound signature, with the JH13 being very close to – but a pinch on the warm side of - neutral and the NT 6 being slightly bright.

While the low end of the NT 6 is extended, punchy, and dynamic, the Hidition just doesn’t crank out quite as much bass the JH13. Personally, I don’t find the low end of the JH13 excessive but the bass of the Hidition is flatter in profile and a little tighter as a result. The bassier JH13 carries a slightly warmer tone as well, though the mids on both earphones are completely free of veiling and fantastically clear. The NT 6 is brighter, with more emphasis on higher frequencies, but it also has a more fluid note presentation. On the soundstage front, the JH13 sounds a little more 3-dimensional and enveloping while the NT 6 has slightly less depth to it. The JH13Pro is significantly more sensitive.

Unique Melody Miracle ($949)

Unique Melody’s 6-driver flagship remains one of my favorite earphones even after more than two years of ownership. On the whole, it keeps up rather well with the NT 6. The NT 6 is overall brighter, crisper, and more resolving than the Miracle, with a flatter midrange presentation and better vocal intelligibility. Despite its cooler tone, the NT 6 has a bit more bass impact while the Miracle is a little softer and more polite.

The Miracle boasts smoother, more relaxed treble while the NT 6 has more energy, coupled with outstanding treble extension and a very wide and airy presentation. The Miracle, in comparison, is a little more constrained, with a narrower soundstage and slightly less dynamic overall sound. Like the JH13, it gives up some of the width of the NT 6 for better depth and a slightly more enveloping presentation, but unfortunately loses some of the effortlessness of the Hidition and JHA sets in the process.

Lime Ears LE3 (est. $690)

The LE3 from Poland-based Lime Ears may be a mere triple-driver, but it is the most balanced such setup I’ve heard. Compared to the Lime Ears, the much-pricier NT 6 has some advantages – its bass is both tighter and more impactful, and the earphone is a little clearer overall – but the difference on all counts is not night and day. Tonally, the LE3 has less treble emphasis for a more neutral overall sound compared to the brighter NT 6. Its treble is smoother, but also doesn’t quite have the extension of the Hidition. The presentation of the NT 6 is also larger and more dynamic, though the LE3 is no slouch itself.

Value (9/10) – The market has changed a lot since my first review of a high-end custom IEM, the UM Miracle, more than two years ago. The inception of a new breed of hyper-expensive universals and dozens of new CIEM companies from all around the world have made the market more crowded – and more confusing – than ever before. One thing is clear in trying to make sense of it all – sound signature remains the key to finding the perfect earphone, custom or otherwise, for every individual.

That said, the NT 6 is undoubtedly one of the very best earphones I’ve had the pleasure of trying, combining incredible clarity and resolution with tight, level bass and extended treble with plenty of energy. Top to bottom, the NT 6 does not lack presence at any frequency and is the ideal earphone for those who want accuracy, avoiding any and all bass bloat and providing a leaner sound with a neutral-to-bright tone. Hiditon’s excellent build quality, deep-sealing shells, and plethora of customization options are just icing on the cake.

Pros: Great finish; high isolation due to deep fit; outstanding audio quality
Cons: Cable more Microphonic than most custom cables

(1A8/1A9) Lime Ears LE3 and LE3B

Added Jul 2013

Details: sister flagship CIEMs from Poland-based Lime Ears
Current Price: 529€ (est. $700) from limeears.com
Specs: Driver: 3 BA / 3-way crossover | Imp: 46Ω | Sens: 109 dB | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4.3' L-plug
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) - Hard-shell crushproof carrying case and tube of ear lubricant
Build Quality (5/5) – Construction is on-par with the likes of 1964EARS and Alclair, falling just short of pricier UM and Hidition sets. The acrylic shells have a very smooth finish and while my LE3B unit has some mild internal imperfections, the shells of the newer LE3 are very clear. The earphones boast recessed 2-pin connectors in the common configuration. There are five standard colors and myriad other customization options available. The cables have a smooth feel but suffer from a bit of memory character, maintaining their shape after being coiled up for storage. On the upside, unlike most clear cables found on custom monitors, these don’t seem to oxidize and turn green over time
Isolation (4/5) – Similar to my other shallow-fit acrylic customs and slightly below that of the Hidition NT6 and Etymotic Research universals
Microphonics (5/5) – Nearly nonexistent in the smooth clear-coated cable
Comfort (5/5) – The LE3 and LE3B have medium length nozzles and are very comfortable when fitted correctly. As usual, if the CIEMs seem uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a refit is probably a good idea. There is added cost with shipping and, if necessary, getting new impressions but on the whole a perfect fit is well worth the trouble

Sound (9.5/10) – Lime Ears currently offers two different configurations of their triple-driver flagship. The standard LE3 provides a balanced and neutral sound while the LE3B, built by request only at this time, is an alternate tuning meant to supply a warmer tone with more bass kick. This review will cover both units.

The standard LE3 offers up a balanced sound with a very mild warm tilt, akin to the JHAudio JH13 or, from the realm of universals, a newer HiFiMan set. To my ears, it is more uncolored than the vast majority of my other custom-fit earphones. The Hidition NT6, for example, is brighter than the LE3 and tends to emphasize treble more while the Spiral Ear SE-3 is warmer with its deep, visceral bass. The bottom end of the LE3 lacks a little in the way of extension – while not exactly poor in this regard, it definitely gives up depth to its enhanced-bass sibling.

That’s pretty much the extent of the LE3’s concessions, however – moving up from the subbass region, it boasts punchy and controlled bass and clean, accurate mids with no hint of recession. It remains smooth through the upper midrange and treble, coming across as quite forgiving for an IEM with such a neutral tone. There is a bit of crispness missing compared to higher-end sets but nothing drastic and despite the soft treble character, the LE3 does not sound dark, again reminding me of current-gen HiFiMan earphones. The LE3 also provides a sonic image that’s neither forward nor too far back, thanks to its prominent, veil-free midrange. Compared to higher-end custom-fit sets, the only thing its presentation is a bit of depth – in this regard it is similar to top-tier universals such as the AKG K3003.

Switching over to the LE3B, the enhanced bass immediately makes itself known. The two earphones have many similarities – as they should, using identical drivers and all, but the LE3B delivers on its promise of extra bass, putting out perhaps the best combination of quantity and quality I’ve heard out of a single bass driver. In this regard the LE3B competes with the pricier Westone ES5. Compared to the LE3, the warmer and bassier LE3B boasts not only more punch but also less roll-off while the extra bass impact and depth lend it a richer, fuller, more dynamic sound.

The bass of the LE3 on the other hand, lacks the depth and rumble of the LE3B’s bass and its presentation actually seems more intimate next to the more dynamic LE3B. The less prominent bass of the LE3 results in a cooler overall tone and slightly cleaner mids. The difference in clarity is small between the two, however, and the treble is very similar - smooth but not lacking in presence.

Select Comparisons – Lime Ears LE3

Clear Tune Monitors CTM-200 ($350)

The most reasonably-priced of my customs, the CTM-200 is a dual driver that strives towards a flat/neutral sound, which made it the perfect starting point for LE3 comparisons. Compared to the CTM-200, the LE3 has better bass presence and sounds a little warmer overall. The bass is both deeper and more impactful, which results in the Lime Ears having a more natural and dynamic sound. The midrange of the CTM-200 seems more forward overall while the LE3 is more relaxed. The treble of the LE3 is smoother, though the CTM-200 is not a harsh-sounding earphone. The differences in the midrange and treble are minor and can easily be chalked up to preference. Presentation, however, is a win for the Lime Ears – they are simply more spacious and well-separated, with better imaging and depth that cause the CTM-200, with its more forward mids, to sound a bit flat and dull in comparison.

Alclair Reference ($399)

While still pricier than the CTM-200, the Alclair Reference recently underwent a $100 price drop to a more comfortable price point, which has worked in favor of its value proposition. The Reference keeps up with the LE3 very well, with the only major differences stemming from its midrange and treble presentation. Signature-wise, the Reference is a very mildly v-shaped earphone that reminds me more of the UM Miracle and VSonic GR07. Its lower midrange sounds a little withdrawn compared to the more balanced Lime Ears but otherwise the two earphones have a lot in common right up to the upper midrange, which is noticeably grainier on the Reference. This theme continues through the treble, which is more harsh and sibilant with the Alclairs. The extra treble energy of the Reference does make it seem clearer at times, but it’s a dubious tradeoff that causes me to choose the LE3 almost every time.

Unique Melody Miracle ($949)

A top-tier flagship that has been popular for several years running, the Miracle is a mildly v-shaped earphone, though one with fewer caveats than the cheaper Alclair Reference. Compared to the LE3, the Miracle has better deep bass, with extension that easily matches the bass-heavy LE3B tuning of the Lime Ears, but without of the bloat. The UM is a little warmer overall and suffers from a slightly recessed midrange in comparison to the LE3, which actually appears more balanced as a result. The Miracle does catch up in treble presence, with a top end that is more prominent but still a little more refined and just as smooth as that of the Lime Ears. Overall, I was impressed with how well the LE3 kept up with the Miracle - its downsides were not as obvious as those of the LE3B and its midrange was actually preferable much of the time.

JHAudio JH13 Pro Freqphase ($1099)

Currently my CIEM of choice, the JH13 Freqphase is yet another neutrality-oriented custom that made for a natural comparison with the LE3 – indeed, I found the signature of the JH13 to be more similar to the Lime Ears than those of the Alclair and Unique Melody sets. In terms of performance, the LE3 is less extended at either end and not as clean, crisp, and resolving as the JH13. The JH13 also offers up a bit more bass punch, exercises tighter control over its low end, and provides slightly more convincing imaging but the two earphones definitely share a similar sound signature, with the LE3 approximating the sound and performance of the JH13 as well as can be expected for the price.

Select Comparisons – Lime Ears LE3B

EarSonics SM64 ($399)

Like the LE3B, EarSonics’ universal-fit flagship utilizes a 3-way, triple-armature setup and pursues a sound on the warm side of neutral. Compared to the SM64, the bass of the LE3B is a little more enhanced – not in depth, but certainly in impact and overall power. Despite this, the clarity of the LE3B is slightly better and overall detailing appears better as well, likely because the upper midrange dip of the SM64 is not present. There also is more treble energy with the LE3B which, combined with the flatter midrange-treble transition, makes it less forgiving and more prone to exposing sibilance. That’s not to say the LE3B is sibilant on its own – it isn’t – but the SM64 is a more tolerant of such artifacts in recordings. Lastly, the presentation of the LE3B is slightly wider whereas the SM64 appears more intimate, though still far from congested.

1964EARS 1964-V3 ($425)

1964EARS’ triple-BA model is tuned for a decidedly consumer-friendly sound with big bass and sparkly, energetic, treble. The enhanced-bass Lime Ears boast a bit less bass than the V3 and offer a slightly clearer and more neutral overall sound. The midrange of the LE3B is flatter, in contrast to the bumped-up, more forward mids of the V3. The treble is smoother, with less sparkle but also less danger of harshness and sibilance. The V3, on the other hand, tends to be fairly revealing of sibilance and more colored-sounding overall. In terms of presentation, the V3 is more aggressive while the Lime Ears are more laid-back.

Unique Melody Miracle ($949)

Unique Melody’s flagship IEM offers a level sound signature more in line with the regular LE3, but for the sake of posterity I decided to compare it to the LE3B as well. Unsurprisingly, the results are much the same as when the LE3B is pitted against the LE3. Next to the Miracle, the LE3B sounds mid-bassy and bloated, with a warmer overall tone and a slight loss in overall clarity and refinement. The Miracle boasts more treble presence/energy, is more neutral in tone, and enjoys a slightly more spacious presentation. Still, though I found myself leaning towards the Miracle more here than in the LE3/Miracle comparison, the difference between the two can easily be negated by signature preferences.

FitEar To Go! 334 ($1345)

The TG334 is quite similar in performance to the LE3B but whereas the FitEar is unabashedly warm and dark, the Lime Ears at least make an attempt at a reference sound. Overall, the LE3B is more balanced and neutral while still offering good bass punch. The more prominent treble of the LE3B makes it sound a touch clearer and its soundstage is a little more out-of-the-head. Other than that, the two earphones are about even in performance, with both lacking a bit of treble extension and some of the refinement of more neutral sets. I preferred one or the other on most of the tracks used in the comparison, but never strongly.

Value (8.5/10) – Operational for only a few months so far, Lime Ears is off to a very good start with their first flagships, the LE3 and LE3B. Functionally and aesthetically, the earphones are identical, with the same customization options, construction, and accessories. In terms of sound, the LE3 is a reference monitor that sacrifices a bit of bass depth to maintain a clearer, more prominent midrange while the LE3B is warmer and bassier without throwing accuracy under the bus. Both units offer advantages over the entry-level customs I’ve previously come across and compete with pricier earphones. As for choosing between the two, there’s no right or wrong answer, but I have found the bass depth and dynamics of the LE3B very persuasive in day to day listening.

Note: as of August 2013, the LE3SW is available as a 50€ option, incorporating a switch that allows the user to switch between the sound signatures of the LE3 and LE3B models.

Pros: Both tunings offer competitive performance for their sound signatures
Cons: Cables prone to memory effect

(1A10) Sensaphonics 3MAX

Reviewed October 2013

Details: Silicone-shelled custom from Sensaphonics

Current Price: $1050 from sensaphonics.com

Specs: Driver: 3 BA / 2-way crossover | Imp: 14.2Ω | Sens: 114 dB @ 0.1V | Freq: 20-16k Hz | Cable: 4.2' L-plug

Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Shirt clip, cleaning tool, 1/4" adapter, lightweight zippered carrying pouch, and padded Pelican hard-shell storage case

Build Quality (5/5) – The 3MAX utilizes silicone shells. As is usually the case with silicone, shell clarity isn’t as good as with acrylic monitors but the overall construction is very good. The 3MAX is the only custom earphone in my collection to use coaxial connectors. This means most aftermarket custom earphone cables will not fit, but also allows cords for Shure and some Ultimate Ears universals to be used as reasonably-priced replacements. Finally, the Sensaphonics cable resists oxidation better than other clear cords – a good thing as my other clear cables usually start turning green after just a few months

Isolation (5/5) – The isolation of the silicone shells is excellent, falling just behind my other silicone-shelled custom, the Spiral Ear 3-way Reference

Microphonics (5/5) - Pretty much nonexistent

Comfort (5/5) – The silicone shells of the 3MAX take slightly longer to insert and remove compared to more rigid and slippery acrylic shells but are extremely comfortable once fitted and seem to maintain seal a bit better with changes to the ear canal shape, such as while chewing or talking. Being a custom monitor, the comfort is highly dependent on the quality of the initial impressions and final mold so if the earphones remain uncomfortable after an initial break-in period a re-fit is probably a good idea

Sound (9.4/10) – Tuned in collaboration with professional mastering engineers, the Sensaphonics 3MAX follows a different sound signature than other musicians’ monitors I’ve tried. Despite the dual woofer design, its sound is focused more on the midrange, especially the upper midrange. The bass has good punch but is not as emphasized as one may expect from an earphone with twin bass drivers. Depth is good – nearly on-par with enhanced-bass earphones such as the Westone ES5 and Heir Audio 8.A. Bass quality is about on par with the universal-fit AKG K3003 – the 3MAX is a little tighter and less mid-bassy, but also less impactful.

The sound of the 3MAX is a bit on the thick side, so while the earphone is fairly neutral in tone, it doesn’t sound analytical. Rather, it has a natural note presentation and tends to emphasize the midrange, placing vocals front and center. As a result, its sound appears more full-bodied next to sets with less prominent mids, such as the Alclair Reference. The emphasis on the upper midrange does cause the earphones to sound a bit “shouty” but the prominent vocals that result are in keeping with Sensaphonics’ goal of encouraging lower-volume listening.

The upper midrange emphasis of the 3MAX gives way to largely smooth treble. There is a bit more treble energy than with the darker-sounding Westone ES5 but less than with the JH13 Pro. The treble doesn’t “sparkle” and is very non-fatiguing – a definite plus for those who intend to wear their customs for hours at a time. In this respect the 3MAX is better than, for example, the AKG K3003 and Alclair Reference. The presentation of the 3MAX is a little on the intimate side, which is not unusual among stage monitors. It is more spacious and open-sounding than the AKG K3003, for example, but sounds a little flat and dull compared to the Heir 8.A.

Select Comparisons

Spiral Ear SE 3-way Reference (est. $790)

Like the 3MAX, the Spiral Ear 3-way uses a three balanced armatures in a full-shell silicone mold. However, despite its single bass driver and 3-way crossover, the Spiral Ear is significantly bassier than the Sensaphonics, offering a more full-bodied low end with quite a bit more impact. It boasts more subbass rumble and can summon up a lot more bass power when the track calls for it, appearing more dynamic as a result.

The more prominent midrange of the 3MAX gives it a forward vocal presentation and makes its mids appear clearer compared to the thicker and warmer-sounding 3-way Reference. The 3MAX is still a bit on the warm side of neutral, but not as much so as the 3-way. Due to the powerful bass of the 3-way, the 3MAX is more balanced overall, but outside of the bass region the response of the Spiral Ear is actually flatter and smoother. In the upper midrange region, the 3MAX boasts extra emphasis, which lends it a brighter tone, while the SE 3-way is very smooth. Lastly, there is a big difference in efficiency between the two earphones, with the Spiral Ear being much less sensitive and requiring more power.

Unique Melody Miracle ($950)

Unique Melody’s 6-driver flagship is tuned for a balanced, slightly laid-back sound, providing a healthy contrast to the 3MAX. Bass quantity is greater on the 3MAX - the Miracle boasts less mid-bass while extension and subbass presence are similar to the Sensaphonics. The Miracle sounds thinner, too, and its clarity is expectedly a bit better. The upper midrange emphasis of the 3MAX makes it sound somewhat “honky” next to the flatter and more laid-back Miracle. Tonally, both are close to neutral but the Miracle is a brighter with its more sparkly and crisp treble presentation. It sounds a little more spacious as well.

JH Audio JH13 Pro Freqphase ($1099)

The JH13 has recently become my benchmark for what a custom monitor should be – balanced, accurate, endlessly resolving, and yet dynamic and fun to listen to. The pro-oriented 3MAX doesn’t pursue the same sound signature, but it’s still interesting to compare the two. Like the UM Miracle, the JH13 is brighter in tone and clearer than the 3MAX. It’s more detailed, too, revealing fine musical nuances more readily and sounding more refined overall. The JH13 boasts similarly ample bass impact on tracks that call for it but also has greater ability to scale back, providing tighter, quicker, less intrusive bass when necessary. It also has more treble energy, sounds more crisp, and is more spacious as well, with a soundstage that boasts better width and depth in comparison to the 3MAX.

Value (7.5/10) – The Sensaphonics 3MAX may seem expensive for a triple-driver in-ear monitor, but it is a good earphone, though perhaps more so for musicians than casual listeners. One of the few custom manufacturers committed to using silicone shells, Sensaphonics maintains that the material offers advantages in fit, comfort, and noise isolation compared to acrylic. They certainly aren’t wrong - the 3MAX is extremely comfortable and its isolation is second only to the other silicone custom I have – the Spiral Ear 3-way Reference. Its sound signature also works with Sensaphonics’ stated goal of encouraging lower-volume listening – always a respectable focus. It may be limited in customization options compared to most of its acrylic counterparts, but if comfort and isolation are a priority alongside a near-neutral sound, the 3MAX is the custom earphone to get.

Pros: Great isolation & comfort

Cons: Inserting silicone shells takes some getting used to; limited customization options

(1A11) JH Audio JH13 Pro Freqphase

Added Oct 2013

Details: One of the flagship models from Florida-based CIEM experts JH Audio

Current Price: $1099 from jhaudio.com; smartphone cable with mic and 1-button remote available for $54.95

Specs: Driver: 6 BA / 3-way crossover | Imp: 28Ω | Sens: 116 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ L-plug / other lengths available

Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Cleaning tool, Comply Soft Wraps, Otterbox 1000 hard-shell carrying case, and drawstring carrying pouch

Build Quality (5/5) – The JH13 boasts fantastic fit and finish all around, with crystal-clear shells and faceplates. The cables use the common 2-pin connector. Numerous customization options are available for the earphones via the JH Audio website

Isolation (4.5/5) - The isolation provided by the custom shells is excellent - slightly below that of silicone-shelled customs but on-par with my UM and Hidition units

Microphonics (5/5) – No cable noise to speak of

Comfort (5/5) – The nozzles of my JH13 were cut a bit longer than average, similar to the UM Miracle. As with all acrylic customs, the shells are hard but very comfortable when fitted correctly. If the earphones are uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a refit is probably a good idea. JH Audio does refits at no cost within the first 30 days and for $50 thereafter

Sound (10/10) – A staple of the audiophile scene since its release in 2009, the JH Audio JH13 Pro underwent an update dubbed “Freqphase” last year. Both the JH13 and the bassier JH16 are currently shipping with the Freqphase tweak, which is meant to ensure phase coherency between the drivers by delivering all frequencies to the ear at once. Regardless of the technical details, the JH13 Pro sounds absolutely fantastic to me. It is tight, balanced, and impossibly clear. The bass is quick and extended, with a few decibels of boost and the ability to produce a good amount of punch when necessary. The JH13 can sound lean and quick one moment, and crank out beats with some serious authority the next. Its tone is, on the whole, a bit warmer than that of the Etymotic Research ER4S, but still close to neutral.

Great dynamics and transparency carry over to all aspects of its sound – in addition to good bass control, the JH13 boasts unbelievable clarity and resolution. The mids are in balance with the bass and expose every nuance of the recording with great definition. The sound is, on the whole, a little fuller and more natural compared to the Etymotic ER4S without sacrificing any clarity whatsoever. Comparing the JH13 to the quad-armature Ultimate Ears UE900, for example, makes the UE set sound muffled, thanks in part to its recessed upper midrange and slightly boomier bass.

The treble of the JH13 is nicely prominent but not at all harsh or sibilant. Treble energy is spot-on, appearing about even with the Etymotic ER4S while doing a similarly good job of minimizing harshness and sibilance. Westone’s flagship custom monitor, the ES5, sounds a little dark in comparison to the JH13 and appears a touch more congested. The JH13, on the other hand, sounds airy and has superb instrument separation and stereo imaging. Is presentation has much better depth than that of the Ety ER4S and an airier, more open feel than that of the UE900. The sum sound is crisp and accurate without missing out on the enjoyment factor, especially for those who don’t need tons of bass boost to tap their toes.

Select comparisons

VSonic GR07 ($179)

VSonic’s dynamic-driver flagship is an order of magnitude less expensive than the JH13 but, as one of the more capable earphones in its price range, makes for an interesting comparison. The most obvious difference between the two lies in the bass – the GR07 has a softer bass presentation that lacks the speed, tightness, and texture of the JH13’s low end. Overall bass quantity is similar between the two earphones but because it lacks the bass control, as well as the more forward midrange, of the JH13, the GR07 sounds boomier in comparison and its low end appears heavier and more intrusive.

The midrange of the GR07 is not as prominent as that of the JH13 and lacks some clarity in comparison. The treble of the VSonics tends to be hotter and vocals generally appear more sibilant. The JH13 sounds significantly smoother, but not for lack of energy. Rather, it follows a treble profile more like that of the Etymotic ER4S, avoiding the peaks that can make the GR07 offensive while maintaining similar overall treble presence. The JH13 also has a more three-dimensional presentation with better depth compared to the VSonic set.

HiFiMan RE-600 ($399)

One of the few accuracy-oriented dynamic-driver earphones in its price range, the RE-600, much like its lower-priced RE-400 sibling, is an impressive performer when it comes to delivering accurate, yet smooth sound. The biggest difference between the RE-600 and JH13 is the treble – the HiFiMan set sounds dull and lacks treble presence in comparison. Its tone is a little warmer overall and there is a touch more bass bleed and less clarity than with the armature-based JH13. The JH13, due in large part to its tighter bass and superior treble presence, appears a little more detailed and textured, and boasts a more spacious and airy presentation with better imaging.

Unique Melody Miracle ($950)

Unique Melody’s flagship is one of my favorite custom-fit earphones and the standard against which I’ve compared all other monitors for the past several years. Its 3-way, 6-driver configuration and balanced, spacious sound make it a natural competitor for the JH13, but on closer inspection the two earphones are as different as they are similar. The bass of the Miracle is rather level whereas the JH13 has its low end boosted by a few decibels. This is especially noticeable in the mid-bass region and gives the JH13 greater overall bass impact. It also makes the Miracle seem more focused on deep bass in comparison as there’s no mid-bass boost to get in the way. Nonetheless, the punchier JH13 still sounds a touch more resolving than the Miracle.

The JH13 boasts more midrange presence and clarity while the UM set has more recessed mids that end up sounding a bit veiled in comparison. At the top, the Miracle is a little smoother, but otherwise similar in both treble energy and top-end extension. The presentation of the JH13 is, on the whole, more forward but both earphones provide a great sense of space and have excellent imaging.

Sensaphonics 3MAX ($1050)

Sensaphonics’ flagship earphone is a pro-oriented monitor with good bass, a mild midrange focus and smooth, inoffensive treble. The JH13 boasts similarly ample bass impact on tracks that call for it but also has greater ability to scale back, providing tighter, quicker, less intrusive bass when necessary. It is brighter, clearer, and more detailed than the 3MAX, revealing fine musical nuances more readily and sounding more refined overall. The JH13 also has better treble energy and sounds more crisp. It is more spacious as well, with a soundstage that boasts better width and depth in comparison to the 3MAX.

Hidition NT 6 ($1200)

The 4-way, 6-driver NT 6 is less bassy than its pricier NT6-Pro sibling, just as the JH13 Pro is less bottom-heavy than the pricier JH16. The similarities between them run deeper, however. For me, both of these monitors are the cream of the crop – impossibly clear and resolving, with very good imaging and lifelike presentations. The differences between them lie largely in sound signature, with the JH13 being a pinch on the warm side of neutral and the NT 6 being slightly bright.

While the low end of the NT 6 is extended, punchy, and dynamic, it doesn’t crank out bass with quite the same authority and impact as the JH13. Personally, I don’t find the low end of the JH13 excessive, but the bass of the Hidition is flatter in profile and a little tighter as a result. The more mid-bassy JH13 carries a slightly warmer tone, though the mids on both earphones are completely free of veiling and fantastically clear. The NT 6 is brighter, with more emphasis on high frequencies, while the JH13 is a little flatter up top. On the soundstage front, the JH13 sounds a little more 3-dimensional and enveloping while the NT 6 has slightly less depth to it. Interestingly, the JH13 Pro is also significantly more sensitive than the NT 6.

FitEar To Go! 334 ($1345)

One of priciest and most exclusive universal-fit earphones in the world, the Japan-made TG334 utilizes a quad-armature configuration to deliver a warm and powerful sound with smooth, relaxed treble. It sounds quite different from the accuracy-oriented JH13 – significantly bassier and darker in tone. The JH13, with its tighter, less powerful low end, makes the TG334 sound quite muddy in comparison. The mids of the TG334 also appear somewhat muffled next to the JH13, with the JH Audio set offering up better treble presence and superior overall balance as well. On the presentation front the two are more similar, but the TG334 is slightly less coherent-sounding than the JH13.

Value (9.5/10) – The IEM market has changed a lot in the past several years, becoming saturated at an increasing rate. Still, of all of the earphones I’ve tried recently, the JH Audio JH13 Pro has been the biggest eye-opener, delivering clarity and resolution unlike anything else I’ve heard. It effortlessly produces extremely nuanced and refined sound across the entire frequency range, complete with fantastic instrument separation and imaging.

I do believe that the best Hi-Fi component is one that does its job so well, you don’t even know it’s there, and after a year spent with the JH13 Pro I still marvel most at its ability to simply fade away, leaving only the music. In fact, finding anything that mildly displeases me about this earphone is a struggle, but one I really don’t mind.

Pros: Class-leading sound quality; great fit & finish

Cons: N/A

(1A12) 1964EARS V6-Stage

Reviewed November 2013

Details: 6-driver flagship custom in-ear from Portland, OR-based 1964EARS
Starting Price: $699 from 1964ears.com
Specs: Driver: 6-BA / 3-way crossover | Imp: 22Ω | Sens: 115 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ L-plug / other lengths available
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (5/5) – Shirt clip, ¼” adapter, cleaning tool, and custom crushproof Pelican storage case
Build Quality (5/5) – Aside from its triple-bore configuration, the V6-Stage is similar in construction to my 1964-V3. Molding quality is excellent with no bubbles, very clear faceplates, and good finish around the cable sockets and nozzles. It uses a cable with a standard Westone socket and short memory wire section. Options include recessed cable sockets, ambient vents, custom colors, custom artwork, and various exotic faceplates
Isolation (4/5) – Very good isolation from the fitted acrylic shells
Microphonics (5/5) – Nonexistent as with most of my custom monitors
Comfort (5/5) – As with all acrylic customs, the shells are hard but very comfortable. If the earphones are uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a refit is probably a good idea. 1964EARS does refits at no cost within the first 30 days

Sound (9.7/10) – The 1964EARS V6-Stage is the company’s latest flagship, designed for “stage, studio and everyday music listening”. It utilizes a 3-way, 6-armature configuration – a setup similar to those of the Unique Melody Miracle and JH Audio JH13 Pro. The sound signature of the V6-Stage combines near-neutral bass, a rich and clear midrange, and crisp treble.

The bass of the V6-Stage is slightly above neutral in quantity – a touch less impactful than with the JH13 Pro but more so compared to other reference earphones such as the Custom Art Music One, HiFiMan RE-600, and Etymotic Research ER-4S. Bass depth is very good and the low end is tight and controlled. In a way, the V6-Stage is the best of both worlds – it makes bassier earphones such as the FitEar TG334 sound boomy in comparison without giving a bass quality advantage to flatter sets from HiFiMan, Etymotic Research, and the like.

The midrange of the V6-Stage has a neutral tone with a smooth and rich character that prevents it from sounding “analytical”. Note thickness is good and the mids appear very natural overall. The V6-Stage is not as lean as the Etymotic ER-4S and its upper midrange is a little less prominent. Clarity is excellent –aided by its prominent treble, the 1964EARS unit has an advantage here over sets such as the FitEar TG334 and Heir Audio 8.A, and makes the more treble-shy RE-600 sound downright dull in comparison.

However, the treble is prominent enough to where recording quality becomes important. The earphone is significantly brighter than sets such as the Custom Art Music One and Heir 8.A, and its treble character has a tendency accentuate sibilance. This is somewhat source-dependent and more prone to occurring at higher volumes, but the fact remains that the V6-Stage is less forgiving than even the Etymotic ER-4S. Other than that, the treble is excellent – crisp and well-extended, carrying enough energy to balance out the overall sound, bass emphasis and all.

The impressive end-to-end extension of the V6-Stage also reflects in its presentation, which is broad and spacious. The soundstage is larger compared to most universals as well as many customs, such as the Music One. It is a touch more constrained than that of the JH13 Pro but on the whole the presentation of the V6-Stage is as well-rounded as anything I’ve heard in its price bracket.

Select Comparisons

EarSonics SM64 ($399)

The SM64 is a triple-armature universal-fit earphone that impresses, among other things, with its bass response. Compared to the V6-Stage, its bass reaches deeper and hits harder but still maintains excellent control. In the midrange, the 1964EARS perform better – while the SM64 is biased towards the lower midrange, the V6-Stage is quite level throughout, offering flatter upper mids and a more balanced and neutral sound. It sounds clearer, less congested, and more refined than the SM64 except for a bit of peakiness in the treble, which makes the V6-Stage sound a little hotter and more “tizzy” next to the darker EarSonics.

Alclair Reference ($399)

Alclair’s Reference monitor pursues a sound signature very similar to that of the V6-Stage, falling a bit short of the V6 in overall performance. Bass quantity is similar between the earphones but the Reference is slightly mid-recessed and sounds more “dry” whereas the V6-Stage has a fuller, smoother sound with a more prominent midrange. Treble performance is also similar between the two – both units have a tendency to exaggerate sibilance and sound a little “hot” on certain tracks, with the V6-Stage performing a bit better in this regard. In terms of presentation, too, the V6-Stage comes across as more versatile and convincing, with a little more imaging prowess and better balance of width and depth.

1964EARS 1964-V3 ($425)

While the similarly-priced Alclair Reference bears a strong resemblance to the V6-Stage, 1964EARS’ own triple-driver sounds quite different. The 1964-V3 is bassier and more “boomy” than the V6-Stage, with the powerful mid-bass response providing much greater impact. This results in a warmer and at times more bloated sound. The V6-Stage, with its tighter, less powerful bass, also has better clarity, especially in the midrange, and sounds more refined and detailed. It is more balanced and neutral whereas the V3 is more colored. In terms of presentation, the boomier bass of the V3 makes it a touch more congested but both units provide a good sense of space.

Westone ES5 ($950)

Westone’s flagship custom is a warm and smooth affair that emphasizes it lows and mids. The ES5 has more bass than the 1964EARS V6-Stage, but the V6 is a little more textured and controlled. Its mids are leaner and clearer while the ES5 sounds fuller and more forward in the midrange. The treble of the Westones is smoother but the overall sound is darker and a bit more muffled. The 1964EARS, on the other hand, have treble that is brighter and peakier, and tend to be more sibilant. I find the V6-Stage to sound more natural overall, though the peaks in the treble region sometimes cause it to sound a little “tizzy” in comparison. In terms of presentation, the ES5 tends to be more intimate, especially in the midrange, whereas the V6-Stage is wider and more laid-back, a-la the UM Miracle.

Unique Melody Miracle ($950)

The UM Miracle has always impressed me most with its ability to sound neutral and balanced, yet remain smooth and not at all analytical. Compared to the Miracle, the V6-Stage produces a little more bass, especially mid-bass, lending it a slightly fuller and warmer sound. The 1964EARS sound a bit more colored as a result of the bass emphasis whereas the Miracle is more neutral and balanced. The Miracle also remains flatter through the upper midrange, boasting more presence there a-la the Etymotic ER-4S. At the top, the V6-Stage is more sibilant despite having similar overall treble energy, while the Miracle is smoother and has a bit more air. The Miracle is slightly more open-sounding with a marginally more spacious soundstage.

Value (9/10) – The mid-level 1964EARS customs I’ve tried have offered solid value for money, and the new 1964EARS V6-Stage is doing the same for the flagship segment of the still-developing custom in-ear market. The earphones are very well-made and the sound hits the sweet spot, falling just warm of neutral with a bit of added bass, mids that are clear but not thin, and crisp, if slightly hot, treble. It is an extremely competent earphone that competes with pricier models such as the Westone ES5 and Heir Audio 8.A. Like the less expensive 1964-V3, the V6-Stage is an easy recommendation in its price range and, in contrast to the V3, should work for professional applications as well as consumer audio.

Pros: Great molding quality; isolation and comfort of a custom in-ear; impressive overall performance
Cons: Can accentuate sibilance

(1A13) Noble 4S

Reviewed November 2013

Details: 4-driver silicone-shelled CIEM from Noble Audio, a CA-based CIEM company run by The Wizard and team, previously of Heir Audio fame
Starting Price: $999 from nobleaudio.com
Specs: Driver: 4 BA / 3-way crossover | Imp: >30Ω | Cable: 4′ 45-degree plug
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Cleaning tool, Noble Audio stickers and wristbands, and padded hard-shell storage case
Build Quality (5/5) – It’s safe to say that Heir Audio’s legendary aesthetic flair has carried over to Noble, because the 4S unit I have on hand here is simply stunning. To escape the artwork limitations of silicone shells, Noble has fitted their silicone customs with acrylic faceplates, which allow full customization. Attention to detail is excellent, down to the neat Noble logos printed on the sides of the housings. The internal setup of the quad-driver 4S is dual low, single mid, and single high with a dual bore configuration. The earphones use a conventional two-pin socket and come with a Westone ES-style cable, but orders placed with Noble’s US office will instead ship with an upgraded cable that has a longer memory wire section, a 45-degree plug, and is braided below the y-split akin to the Heir Magnus-1 cable. This new cable also works with smartphone cases a little better as a result of its plug being narrower
Isolation (5/5) – The isolation of the silicone shells is excellent, falling just behind my most-isolating custom, the Spiral Ear 3-way Reference
Microphonics (5/5) – Nonexistent
Comfort (5/5) – The silicone shells of the Noble earphones take slightly longer to insert and remove compared to more rigid and slippery acrylic shells but are extremely comfortable once fitted and maintain seal a bit better with changes to the ear canal shape, such as while chewing or talking. Being a custom monitor, the comfort is highly dependent on the quality of the initial impressions and final mold, and if the earphones remain uncomfortable after an initial break-in period a re-fit is probably a good idea. Noble performs refits at no charge within 30 days

Sound (9.9/10) – I freely admit to being a sucker for a pretty face(plate), one of my few character flaws. As expected, I was immediately enamored with the appearance of my Noble 4S, so it’s safe to say I would have been doubly disappointed had it turned out to sound–well–disappointing. Happily, the 4S sounds rather good, with a neutral and natural sound that is, on the whole, more balanced compared to my other high-end customs.

The bass of the Noble 4S works for me in both quality and quantity – it is not the most plentiful in the subbass region, giving up a bit of depth to sets such as the UM Miracle and Westone ES5, but it has a nice, healthy, balanced punch akin to the Miracle and HiFiMan RE-400. The Noble 4S is definitely not an enhanced-bass earphone but there’s a lot to like about the clean, natural low end. The 4S is less bassy than the VSonic GR07, for example, but its low end is tighter and cleaner.

The midrange of the Noble 4S is very flat and neutral in tone. It makes both the Miracle and GR07 sound a little mid-recessed and appears a touch clearer as a result. Next to the smooth and liquid-sounding Miracle, the midrange of the 4S is more transparent and has a “raw” quality to it. The midrange is also where the Noble differs most from entry-level and mid-tier customs – even neutral-sounding ones like the Alclair Reference and Lime Ears LE3 can’t match the clarity of the 4S. Note thickness and clarity always make for a precarious balancing act and the 4S performs as well as any other earphone I’ve heard on this front, making the Etymotic ER4S sound a touch thin without yielding to it in clarity.

Moving through the upper midrange, the 4S remains very smooth and pleasant. It has a little less upper midrange presence than, for example, the Ety ER4S but overall the sound is very close. In fact, out of all the universal monitors I used in my comparisons, the ER4S was closest to the Noble in tone and balance. The Noble 4S has very smooth treble, too – it definitely isn’t lacking in treble energy but also isn’t as revealing of harshness or as critical of recording quality as, for example, the UE Reference Monitor and JH Audio JH13. The GR07 sounds quite splashy in comparison while the Etymotic ER4S is more similar, but still a touch brighter than the Noble. The presentation of the 4S is open and airy. Soundstage size is good – about on-par with the Heir 8.A and Hidition NT 6 customs and more spacious and open compared to the less expensive Lime Ears LE3 – and overall imaging is just short of the JH Audio JH13.

Select Comparisons

HiFiMan RE-400 ($99)

The RE-400 is one of my favorite earphones in the sub-$200 range, pursuing a balanced, slightly mid-focused sound signature with very smooth treble. While the RE-400 is a touch on the warm side of neutral, the Noble 4S is balanced out by its brighter, more energetic treble. The bass of the two earphones is similar in impact but the Noble is tighter and resolves detail better in the bass region. The midrange, where the RE-400’s focus lies, sounds veiled with the HiFiMan set compared to the 4S.

The treble of the RE-400, too, is dull and lacks crispness in comparison, causing it to sound muffled next to the crystal-clear Noble. The brighter Noble is nonetheless very smooth-sounding when it comes to treble and has a wider presentation as well, making the RE-400 sound a bit small and in-the-head. There is, of course, a tenfold price difference between these two earphones and much less than a tenfold difference in performance, but, great as the RE-400 is, it can’t keep up here.

VSonic VC1000 ($125)

Another relatively inexpensive universal monitor, the VC1000 uses dual balanced armature drivers and actually makes for a better matchup against the Noble than the RE-400. For the most part, the VC1000 can compete with the Noble in clarity but has a leaner sound and its bass lacks the tactile impact of the Noble. The Noble sounds more natural when it comes to bass impact and body. The Noble also has a thicker note presentation and fuller sound. While the earphones are similarly balanced overall, the Noble is smoother and more natural. The VC1000 sounds splashy in comparison and has a narrower, more in-the-head presentation. Overall, the signatures of these two earphones are a pretty good match and the Noble can be considered a VC1000 upgrade quite easily.

1964EARS V6-Stage ($699)

The V6-Stage is one of 1964EARS’ flagship earphones and provides a nicely balanced sound. The Noble 4S pursues a different type of reference signature. For one, it has less bass – the bass extension is similar between the two earphones but the V6-Stage has more impact and its sound signature is on the whole warmer and more colored than that of the Noble. The Noble, on the other hand is flatter and more neutral, and is much more forgiving of sibilance than the V6-Stage. The 4S also has a broader soundstage and provides a slightly airier, more spacious presentation than the 1964EARS set.

Ultimate Ears Reference Monitor (UERM) Universal Demo ($999)

The quad-driver, silicone-shelled Noble is different from my other “reference” custom IEMs mostly in that its sound is more mid-centric. Sets like the JH13, UERM, V6-Stage, and even the Miracle tend to have more bass and stronger, more energetic treble than the Noble. The 4S, on the other hand, reminds me of HiFiMan earphones in the way it presents a neutral signature in a more mid-centric way without masking detail. It sounds very flat, with less bass compared to the UERM and a more neutral tone. The Noble is an amazingly smooth earphone that makes the UERM seem a little peaky in the treble region. Tonally, the 4S makes the UERM sound a little colored – no small feat by any means. In comparison to the more level Noble, the UE Reference Monitor has a bassier sound and added treble energy.

JH Audio JH13 Pro ($1099)

JH Audio’s 6-driver model is rather neutral and balanced save for a small bass bump. The 4S differs from it in sound signature more so than performance. On the whole, the 4S sounds more neutral to me. The JH13 is a little warmer and has more bass impact and depth. It is also a bit more full-sounding as a result, which makes its outstanding clarity all the more impressive. The 4S sounds more mid-centric – unlike the JH13 and most of my other custom IEMs, the 4S is not even a little v-shaped in signature. Moving on up, the JH13 has more treble sparkle while the 4S is smoother and more forgiving. Personally, I don’t find either the bass or treble of the JH13 excessive, but the neutrality of the 4S appeals to me a great deal. Lastly, due in part to its deeper and more powerful bass, the JH13 sounds a touch more dynamic overall and provides a more layered presentation but the Noble is quite close here as well.

Hidition NT 6 ($1200)

While the JH13 is a neutral-sounding monitor with a bit of added bass, the Hidition NT 6 leans the opposite way – towards a brighter sound with a cooler tonal character. The triple bass drivers of the NT 6 grant it better bass extension with more emphasis on subbass compared to the Noble 4S but mid-bass impact is similar – neither earphone suffers from elevated mid-bass. The 4S does have a bit more presence in the lower midrange, giving it a fuller, slightly warmer sound, very similar to the “neutral” tone of the HiFiMan RE-400. Overall, the 4S sounds a little mid-focused but also very natural and neutral. The NT 6, in comparison, has less prominent mids and can at times appear a touch clearer thanks to its brighter tone. Lastly, the treble of the 4S is more forgiving but remains just as clean and resolving as that of the NT 6.

Heir Audio 8.A ($1299)

Heir Audio’s 8-driver flagship is a warm and smooth affair, with endlessly extended bass and very non-fatiguing treble. Compared to the Noble 4S, the 8.A is significantly warmer and more bottom-heavy. It has quite a bit more bass, especially deep bass, providing a more visceral and tactile experience. However, even next to the bassy Heir, the 4S doesn’t sound anemic or thin and the bottom end. The 4S is more neutral in the midrange and brighter at the top. The treble of the darker-sounding 8.A is even smoother and more forgiving than that of the Noble, which is great news for those whose greatest audio-related fear is the potential for listening fatigue. Overall, aside from the huge difference in bass quantity, there are quite a lot of commonalities between these two earphones but the more neutral and accurate Noble appeals to me quite a bit more.

Value (9/10) – The Noble 4S is a neutral-sounding monitor that is, on the whole, more balanced than the other “reference” customs I have here. Its ultra-smooth, slightly mid-focused sound invokes impressions of a cross between Etymotic Research and HiFiMan universals and makes it a direct upgrade to certain other custom-fit sets, such as the Clear Tune Monitors CT-200 and Lime Ears LE3.

The aesthetics of the Noble 4S are reminiscent of Heir Audio – that is to say, fantastic – with the Wizard continuing to experiment with new looks and materials, and the comfort and isolation of the silicone shells are second to none. All in all, the 4S is one of the very few earphones I can’t find much to complain about with, and that alone makes it worth recommending.

Pros: Very clear, neutral, and natural sound; excellent fit, finish, and design; superb comfort and noise isolation of silicone
Cons: N/A

(1A14) Clear Tune Monitors WLS-5

Reviewed November 2013

Details: 5-driver flagship from Florida-based Clear Tune Monitors
Starting Price: $800 from cleartunemonitors.com
Specs: Driver: 5 BA / 3-way crossover | Imp: 20Ω | Sens: 124 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9' L-plug
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Cleaning tool and small hard shell pelican case
Build Quality (5/5) – The WLS-5 is part of Clear Tune Monitors’ Wood Legit Series, so called for the use of real wood faceplates. The faceplate on my unit is definitely substantial – a thick wooden slab with an engraved CTM logo. The unit looks great overall, with a metallic brown swirl in the acrylic housings to match the faceplates. The WLS-5 utilizes a triple-bore setup and boasts detachable cables in the standard 2-pin configuration. The cable is twisted and on the whole quite typical except for the longer memory wire section, which I rather like
Isolation (4.5/5) – My WLS-5 was made with long nozzles so the isolation is excellent – slightly below that of silicone-shelled customs but on-par with my UM and JH Audio units
Microphonics (5/5) – Nonexistent
Comfort (5/5) – As with all acrylic customs, the shells are hard but very comfortable when fitted correctly. If the earphones are uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a refit is probably a good idea.

Sound (9.5/10) – Clear Tune Monitors describes the sound tuning of the Wood Legit Series earphones as “extremely warm and punchy”. While the flagship WLS-5 is not overly warm to my ears, it certainly does have good punch. The bass is not the deepest, but emphasis picks up quickly and it can hit quite hard – certainly much harder than Clear Tune Monitors’ dual-driver CT-200 model. Bass impact is greater than with the average custom monitor and about on-par with my benchmark, the JH Audio JH13 Pro, in being a few dB north of neutral.

Emphasis drops off a bit for the midrange, which is less forward than with sets like the JH13 and Ultimate Ears In-Ear Reference Monitor (UERM). Note presentation is a little thinner here as well, which affords the WLS-5 great clarity but also makes the mids sound a touch dry and recessed, not unlike what happens with JVC’s carbon nanotube earphones, such as the FXD80.

The WLS-5 gains presence in the upper midrange, strongly reminding me of the similarly pro-oriented Sensaphonics 3MAX. The lower treble has good presence as well, though top-end extension ultimately doesn’t quite keep up with the JH Audio JH13, resulting in a slightly darker overall tone and a presentation with less “air”. The relative emphasis on the upper mids and treble gives the WLS-5 a slightly “shouty” character, which again reminds me of the 3MAX as well as the Japan-exclusive j-Phonic K2 SP monitors. Despite this, the top end of the WLS-5 is surprisingly forgiving compared, for example, to the Alclair Reference and 1964EARS V6-Stage customs, as well as universals such as the VSonic GR07. The presentation, likewise, is competent – a little narrower than average, but well-positioned and accurate.

Worth noting also is the high sensitivity of the WLS-5 – it is highly recommended to use the earphone with a noise-free source as background hiss can get quite noticeable with a subpar audio player.

Select Comparisons

Clear Tune Monitors CT-200 ($350)

One of Clear Tune Monitors’ lower-end models, the dual-driver CT-200 provides a sound radically different from that of the Wood Legit Series earphones – smooth, mid-centric, and light on subbass. The WLS-5 is significantly more extended at the bottom end, providing deeper bass with more punch, and makes the sub-bass roll-off of the CT-200 very obvious.

Moving up, the WLS-5 is clearer and more resolving than the CT-200, especially in the midrange. The lower-end model, in comparison, lacks crispness and sounds a little smeared and lacking in detail. The WLS-5 has more upper midrange emphasis and more treble energy as well. The CT-200 has a more laid-back, out-of-the-head presentation while the WLS-5 is more forward and aggressive, due in part to the upper midrange emphasis. Despite this, the WLS-5 has slightly better overall imaging thanks to its crisp and clean note presentation.

Alclair Reference ($399)

The triple-driver Alclair Reference follows a balanced, slightly v-shaped sound signature. Compared to the WLS-5, the Reference has slightly deeper bass but lacks a bit of bass control and tightness. In the midrange, the WLS-5 is a little clearer and more resolving. Despite its upper midrange boost, it still sounds smoother and more refined overall compared to the Reference, especially in the treble region. The Alclair unit, on the other hand, sounds peaky and is more prone to sibilance. The presentation of the Reference is a bit wider overall, however, and unlike the CT-200 it keeps up with the WLS-5 in imaging, too.

EarSonics SM64 ($399)

The SM64 is a universal-fit earphone with quite a lot of bass for a balanced armature setup. Next to the WLS-5, the bass of the SM64 goes deeper and provides more impact and rumble. Unfortunately this also makes it sound a little muddy in comparison, especially in the midrange. The WLS-5 is clearer and brighter overall, with a lot more emphasis in the upper midrange and lower treble. It does tend to be a little harsher than the SM64, but it’s not bad at all considering how much more the upper mid and treble energy it has.

1964EARS V6-Stage ($699)

1964EARS’ latest flagship is a neutral-sounding earphone in the same price class as the WLS-5. The V6-Stage is a little tighter and more refined in the bass region but has more presence in the lower mids, which gives it a slightly warmer and richer sound. The bass of the WLS-5 is a bit deeper and more impactful but the earphone has dryer, more recessed mids compared to the V6-Stage. However, it gains emphasis towards the upper midrange, which often makes it sound clearer. Realistically, though, neither earphone lacks clarity or has a real advantage over the other here.

The 1964EARS set is more sibilant, especially on tracks already prone to sibilance, but also has a bit more treble “sparkle” and extension. The WLS-5 is less extended, but more forgiving of sibilance and less critical of recording quality. Overall, the V6-Stage does sound a little more natural on some tracks, but each of these earphones has a tendency to make the other sound flawed.

Westone ES5 ($950)

Westone’s flagship custom is a 5-driver, just like the WLS-5, but boasts a warmer, more bass-biased signature. It has deeper, more powerful bass than the Clear Tune Monitors and a richer, fuller, more prominent midrange. The WLS-5, on the other hand, boasts a thinner note presentation and is a touch clearer. Its upper midrange and treble are more prominent, lending it a brighter sound. The ES5 offers up a darker tone but is very, very smooth and has a more spacious soundstage. Neither earphone has great treble reach. Overall, the ES5 is a little more convincing from a tonal standpoint, but the WLS-5 is not far behind and has an advantage in clarity.

Unique Melody Miracle ($950)

The 6-driver Miracle is a top-tier earphone built around a 3-way, 6-driver configuration. Tonally, it is more neutral than the WLS-5 and has a more coherent sound. It lacks the bass presence of the WLS-5, as well as the emphasized mid-treble region, exhibiting great smoothness through the upper midrange and treble. The upper midrange lift of the WLS-5 throws off its tonality in comparison to the Miracle and makes it sound a bit “shouty”. The top end of the Miracle is also more extended and it sounds more spacious overall.

Value (7.5/10) – The Clear Tune Monitors WLS-5 is a uniquely-voiced custom monitor oriented towards the pro audio market and doesn’t share many similarities with the lower-end CT-200 model. Instead, it is a less expensive, acrylic-shelled alternative to the Sensaphonics 3MAX. Like the 3MAX, its sound is characterized by a prominent upper midrange, though the WLS-5 also boasts excellent bass presence. It offers deep canals – what I normally see referred to as “musician’s fit” – and isolates rather well as a result. Add the excellent fit and finish with the engraved wood face plates and the WLS-5 is a musician’s truly monitor unlike anything else out there.

Pros: Great clarity and excellent bass; excellent fit & finish
Cons: Musician-oriented tuning with a distinct sound profile

(1A15) Gorilla Ears GX-4b

Details: Quad-driver custom in-ear from North Carolina-based Gorilla Ears
Starting price: $799 (manufacturer’s page)
Specs: Driver: 4 BA / 3-way crossover | Imp: 20Ω | Sens: 120 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4/5) – Cleaning cloth, cleaning tool, drawstring carrying pouch, and plastic padded storage case
Build Quality (5/5) – Gorilla Ears earphones differ from the other acrylic custom in-ear monitors (CIEMs) I’ve encountered in that the faceplates are pre-manufactured and feature molded sockets for the 2-pin cables on the front. Normally, faceplates are made together with the rest of the in-ear monitor and have the cable connectors on the side. This allows custom colors and artwork, but necessitates a thicker faceplate and creates potential for variation in the fit and finish of the connectors. The pre-made faceplates of the Gorilla Ears have a lower profile and more secure fit for the cables, but also reduce all faceplate customization down to just four basic color options and no graphics. The cable connectors on my unit do feel tighter than with most of my other CIEMs and the construction quality is excellent overall. The included cable is twisted above the y-split and braided below. It is gray in color, which seems to be preventing the oxidation typical of clear cables
Isolation (4.5/5) – Isolation is excellent on my GX-4b unit, which was made with longer than average nozzles. It is slightly below that of silicone-shelled customs but on-par with other acrylic units
Microphonics (5/5) – Nonexistent
Comfort (5/5) – As with all acrylic custom-fit in-ear monitors, the shells of the Gorilla Ears are hard but very comfortable. Good impressions/ear molds are very important for the final fit. If the earphones are uncomfortable after an initial break-in/adjustment period, I recommend getting them refitted. Gorilla Ears carry a 30-day refit warranty

Sound (9.4/10) – The GX-4b utilizes four BA drivers in a 3-way, triple-bore configuration with dual armatures handling the bass. The first thing I noticed is the extreme efficiency of this earphone – it may just be the most sensitive IEM I’ve ever come across. The efficiency has its benefits – for instance, the GX-4b has no trouble reaching ear-splitting volumes even with limited-output sources – and also some downsides – namely, audible hiss with outputs that have even a moderately high noise floor and difficulty dialing in low volumes with sources not designed for sensitive IEMs.

The sound of the Gorilla Ears is warm, smooth, and intimate, with moderately enhanced bass and slightly relaxed treble. It definitely sounds like a stage IEM, with tuning in the vein of high-end universal stage monitors such as the Westone UM3X and EarSonics SM3. Among higher-end CIEMs, the GX-4b is closest perhaps to the Heir Audio 8.A (albeit with a slightly warmer, less balanced sound signature and more forward/intimate presentation) and Westone ES50 (with the GX-4b having more bass and a smoother, thicker, more forgiving sound that lags the Westones a bit in resolution).

The low end is the star of the show here, with good extension, rumble, and punch. Bass presence is excellent – the popular HiFiMan RE-400, for instance, sounds decidedly mid-centric and bass-light in comparison to the Gorilla Ears. The GX-4b has better bass depth and impact, providing a more solid footing for its sound, but still maintains similarly good bass quality. On the other hand it is not as bassy and warm as the similarly-priced Sony MDR-Z5 while sounding tighter, less muddy, and less intrusive and overbearing at the low end.

The midrange of the GX-4b is warm and forward. The combination of bass enhancement and lack of midrange recession provides a rich, full-bodied sound – thicker, for instance, than that of the RE-400. Also, in contrast to many (perhaps most) of the other custom in-ears I’ve tried, treble is not accented at all, maintaining a very smooth and forgiving sound – just a hair less so than the slightly laid-back highs of the RE-400 and Shure SE535. There is a tiny bit of grain, but less than with the InEar StageDiver SD-2, which is impressive. At the same time, the treble is not lacking severely in presence – the Gorilla Ears are not dark the way that the basshead Sony MDR-Z5 is. All in all, it’s a well-balanced top end that can range from “slightly dull” to “slightly grainy” from track to track.

The presentation of the GX-4b is forward, but not compressed or congested. It is similar to the RE-400, but less narrow and in-the-head, with more depth to the soundstage and a more open overall sound. This again reminds me of high-end universal-fit stage monitors such as the Westone UM3X (or UM PRO 30) and EarSonics SM3.

Select Comparisons

InEar StageDiver 2 ($449)

The StageDiver SD-2 and GX-4b both have their origins in pro audio and share many similarities in their tuning and overall performance. For comfort and noise isolation I definitely preferred the custom fit of the GX-4b, which justifies a large chunk of the price difference between the two. The differences in performance are less clear-cut. however. Both earphones are on the warm side of neutral, with punchy bass and smooth treble. The GX-4b is much more sensitive, more forward, and a little warmer. The common trade-off between bass and clarity is present to a small extent – the Gorilla Ears are slightly bassier while the SD-2 is a bit clearer and tighter at the low end. However, the GX-4b is smoother up top than the SD-2, which tends to be a hair more grainy.

1964EARS 1964-V3 ($499)

The GX-4b and 1964-V3 make for a good match-up in that both are extremely efficient, enhanced-bass acrylic CIEMs. The biggest difference between them is in the extra clarity and brightness of the 1964EARS unit and the buttery smoothness of the Gorilla Ears. In general, the GX-4b is warmer, smoother, and significantly more forgiving than the 1964-V3. Its presentation is more forward and intimate, however, giving it more of a “stage monitor” sound a-la Westone UM PRO 30 or EarSonics SM3.

Bass quantity is very similar between the 1964s and Gorilla Ears but the V3 has noticeably more treble presence and energy for a more v-shaped overall sound. It is brighter, but also harsher and more sibilance-prone than the GX-4b. I like the extra clarity and spaciousness of the 1964EARS unit, but when it came to treble I ended up wishing the V3 (and the higher-end V6-Stage, for that matter) were as smooth as the GX-4b.

EarSonics Velvet ($699)

EarSonics’ luxury universal-fit monitor costs about the same as a GX-4b and performs on a similar level while missing out on the custom-fit form factor of the Gorilla Ears. Surprisingly, even in the “low bass” setting, the Velvet is bassier and even smoother than the GX-4b.

The midrange of the GX-4b is slightly drier and the top end is a bit more revealing. The Velvet, on the other hand, is even smoother and does an unbelievably good job of killing sibilance and harshness. The Velvet at times sounds clearer but on some tracks its heavier bass gets in the way a bit more. The presentation of the Velvet is less forward while the GX-4b is significantly more intimate, and much more sensitive as well.

Lime Ears LE3B ($700)

Lime Ears’ triple-driver enhanced-bass model was the closest match I could find for the Gorilla Ears from a sound signature standpoint among all of my customs. The two are pretty similar except for the GX-4b being warmer and more intimate and the Lime Ears tending to be more neutral and laid-back. The presentation of the Lime Ears, combined with its fluid note presentation, makes it even smoother while the strong, forward midrange of the GX-4b sounds a touch more shouty, but also gives it a slight clarity advantage over the Lime Ears.

Value (7.5/10) – The Gorilla Ears GX-4b is a full-shell acrylic CIEM with a warm and smooth sound signature that makes it a great do-no-wrong in-ear monitor for stage use. There’s plenty of bass, pretty good clarity and resolution, and extremely high efficiency, which is often expected of stage IEMs. Of course you also get all the usual upsides of a custom-fit monitor – comfort, noise isolation, low cable noise, and very good construction. On that note, though the unique pre-made faceplates of Gorilla Ears IEMs limit customization, I quite like the low-profile fit and tight cable sockets that result.

It’s tough to talk about value with a $700 in-ear monitor, but the GX-4b is competitive in sound and more than competitive as an overall package, and with the additional advantage (for US customers, at least) of being based out of North Carolina, it has no trouble earning a recommendation.

Pros: Smooth, warm, bass-heavy sound; all the typical perks of a full-shell custom monitor plus a lower profile in the ear; cable resists oxidation well
Cons: Not for those seeking a flat freq. response, extreme clarity, or a huge soundstage; faceplate customization very limited compared to other acrylic CIEMs

(1A16) EarSonics Velvet

Added September 2015

Brief: Variable-tuning universal-fit earphone from French IEM experts EarSonics
MSRP: €699 (approx. $800)
Current Price: $699 from Amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Triple Balanced Armature w/ 3-way Crossover | Imp: 31.5 Ω – 41.5 Ω (depending on sound setting) | Sens: 116 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock double-flanges; Westone STAR tips, MEElec M6 double-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear

Accessories (4.5/5) – Small (1 pair) and regular (4 pairs) double-flange silicone tips, large single-flange silicone tips, cleaning tool, antibacterial wipes (2), 6.3mm adapter, flathead screwdriver for adjusting the sound tuning, and zippered protective carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The lightweight shells of the Velvet are made of plastic and come in either black or clear. The twisted cables are detachable and feature a memory wire section and standard 2-pin connectors. The construction is solid and the overall design is very understated – all that really stands out are the tuning screws, which are accessible from the faceplates (more on these in the sound section). Two minor complaints – first, the plastic of the tuning screws is rather soft, and can be scratched easily with the included screwdriver. Second, there are no external filters on the nozzles of the earphones, so the included cleaning tool should be used periodically to remove any earwax buildup
Isolation (4/5) – Isolation is quite good with the included double-flange tips – about on-par with the SM64 model
Microphonics (5/5) – Basically nonexistent, as with all similar designs
Comfort (4/5) – The Velvet has a relatively small footprint in the ear, reminding me of the Noble universals. The angular design of the housings harkens back to the EarSonics SM2/SM3 more so than the smoother shape of the SM64 and can introduce some pressure points in small ears but on the whole the earphones are lightweight and very comfortable

Sound (9.4/10) – The EarSonics Velvet is a 3-way, triple balanced armature earphone featuring variable sound tunings selectable via a built-in tuning screw on each earpiece. In my experience the tunings mainly affect the bass of the earphones, with the full clockwise position yielding maximum bass and full counterclockwise – the most balanced sound. The three marked settings are “tight” (minimum bass), “balanced” (medium bass), and “warm” (maximum bass).

An explanation on the Velvet webpage indicates that EarSonics considers listening volume a factor when selecting the best sounding tuning to use, with “tight” being best-suited for low-volume listeners and “warm” for high-volume listeners. The nomenclature is relative, of course – per headphone community conventions, all three of the Velvet’s the sound profiles are on the warm and bassy side and just differ in degree.

With that said, the Velvet is an excellent earphone. It actually shares quite a few similarities with the far more expensive FitEar TG334 – both are BA-based earphones with enhanced bass and fairly level mids and highs yielding good overall clarity. Admittedly, the Velvet is a little less neutral – its upper mids are slightly brighter and the bass hump is a little more audible. It is also much less sensitive, but at their core the two are much more similar than they are different.

All three of the Velvet’s sound settings have significantly higher than average bass impact (especially for a BA earphone) and a nice balance of mid-bass and sub-bass. Compared, for instance, to flatter IEMs such as the InEar StageDiver SD-2 and Shure SE535, the Velvet sounds warmer and offers more bass depth and impact. Compared to hybrid earphones such as the DUNU DN-2000 and FLC Technologies FLC8, which tend to have very good bass extension with little mid-bass boost, the Velvet sounds more full-bodied and impactful, and can be considered “bassier” in the conventional sense.

One of the things I like best about the bass of the Velvet – especially in the “tight” and “balanced” configurations – is that, while noticeably enhanced, it never becomes overwhelming to the point of being fatiguing. Unlike, for instance, the Sony XBA Z5 and InEar StageDiver SD-3, which have comparable bass quantity, the low end of the Velvet never feels overwhelmingly bassy. This may stop me from recommending the Velvet to a basshead, but for pretty much all other listeners it is definitely an asset.

The mids of the Velvet are surprisingly clear for a warmer-sounding earphone – much like those of the FitEar TG334. For instance, the Velvet has no less clarity than the flatter, more mid-centric StageDiver SD-2. The treble is also very well-balanced and accomplishes the rare feat of being smooth and non-fatiguing without sounding dull or rolled-off. There is more sparkle and presence than with the SD-2, but not too much so – the treble is not very bright compared to the DN-2000 or FLC8, which means the Velvet loses out on some of the perceived clarity those earphones gain from their extra treble energy but also sounds a little richer and more full-bodied. The other upside, of course, is that the Velvet is less prone to harshness and sibilance.

The deep, impactful bass and good end-to-end presence of the Velvet benefit its presentation. The soundstage doesn’t have the sheer width of earphones with more laid-back mids (like the DN-2000 and FLC8), but it ends up sounding well-layered and versatile. Compared, for instance, to the rather flat StageDiver SD-2, the Velvet does sound more lively and dynamic by a margin. There are earphones that have all that plus a wider soundstage, but they are few and far between – the only one that currently comes to mind is the FitEar TG334.

One last thing to note – while better in this regard than the SM64 model, the Velvet is not very sensitive for a BA earphone, with much lower efficiency than your typical Shure/Westone/Ultimate Ears IEM.

Select Comparisons

EarSonics SM64 ($449)

While both the Velvet and the older SM64 can be classified as having a warm and smooth sound, they actually sound fairly different from each other. I kept the Velvet in its minimum-bass (“tight sound”) setting for this comparison, and even then it offered more mid-bass impact than the SM64. I happen to think that the SM64 has fantastic bass – punchy and well-extended, yet linear in response and free of bloat. As a result of its extra mid-bass boost, however, the Velvet is a little more rich and lush-sounding.

The Velvet also lacks the upper midrange dip of the SM64. If not for this dip, the SM64 would sound significantly more neutral than the Velvet; as is, the Velvet is just a little more colored. The greater upper midrange presence helps it sound clearer than the SM64 despite its mid-bass hump. Vocals are fuller and more intelligible on the Velvet, and the overall sound is more cohesive. A side effect is that it is less tolerant of sibilance – while the SM64 does a great job of killing sibilance on tracks prone to it, the Velvet is more revealing, though still smoother than most IEMs in its class. It also has a more forward presentation, versus the more laid-back SM64.

RHA MA750 ($120)

The dynamic-driver, enhanced-bass MA750 has been one of my most consistent recommendations for warmer-sounding mid-level earphones. Its sound falls between the minimum-bass (“tight sound”) and medium-bass (“balanced sound”) settings of the Velvet. While closer to the latter setting in bass presence, the MA750 is actually a little less impactful than the Velvet, which has much more headroom for those who crave even greater impact.

The bass is less controlled and more intrusive on the RHA unit. The mids are more recessed for the most part, before gaining emphasis in the upper midrange. There, the RHA sounds less refined and a bit “tizzy” compared to the Velvet. The Velvet has more midrange presence and is smoother and clearer, but also warmer and more rich-sounding.

DUNU DN-2000 ($270)

The Velvet was kept in its minimum bass (“tight sound”) configuration for this comparison, but these earphones still have very different sound signatures. The V/U-shaped sound tuning of the DN-2000 boasts a bit more sub-bass presence with similar overall bass quantity and a much colder, brighter tonal character. Interestingly, the warmer EarSonics keep up in clarity despite being much smoother. The DN-2000, on the other hand, sounds more metallic through the upper mids and treble. At lower volumes this is not a big deal, but at higher volumes the Velvet sounds quite a bit more natural.

InEar StageDiver 3 (SD-3) ($599)

The SD-3 is a triple-driver, enhanced-bass universal IEM from Germany-based InEar. Being closer to the Velvet in both price and sound tuning than the more balanced-sounding SD-2 on which it is based, the SD-3 seemed like a better point of comparison. To match the SD-3’s sound most closely, the medium bass (“balanced sound”) tuning of the Velvet was used. Clearly, EarSonics’ definition of “balanced” differs not only from mine, but also from that of the folks at InEar.

In its medium-bass configuration, the Velvet has similar impact and depth to the SD-3 but its bass seems a little tighter overall, likely because the bass boost doesn’t reach too high into the upper bass. The Velvet never feels overwhelmingly bassy, yet the solid deep bass presence gives it a dynamic and engaging sound. The midrange of the Velvet is more forward and a little clearer. The upper midrange and lower treble have more sparkle and excitement, while the SD-3 sounds smoother and a bit more dull. The Velvet’s presentation is a little more layered and well-imaged. As usual, the SD-3 is way more sensitive.

Westone W40 ($500)

Westone’s former flagship is a quad-BA monitor with warm and smooth sound signature. For this comparison I put the Velvet in its minimum bass (“tight sound”) configuration. Even then, it generally provided a bit more bass impact while also having its bass emphasis focused more on the subbass region. The W40 has more mid/upper bass, and a result suffers from a bit more bass bleed. This, in turn, results in lower clarity, though on tracks with less sub-bass presence the Westone can appear punchier than the Velvet (of course, the Velvet can be retuned to one of its bassier settings to compensate if needed).

Above its sizable bass hump – from the upper bass region and up through the treble – the Velvet is on the whole more accurate-sounding than the W40. The W40 has less upper midrange presence, which doesn’t help its clarity. Vocals are more intelligible on the Velvet, and the treble is a bit more sparkly on the whole. Otherwise, the two are not far apart in performance though, as is the case with most other BA-based monitors, the W40 is significantly more efficient than the Velvet.

Sony XBA-Z5 ($700)

Sony’s flagship IEM is similar to the Velvet on paper – a warm-sounding high-resolution earphone with plenty of bass and good treble quality. I started out with the Velvet in its minimum bass (“tight sound”) and medium bass (“balanced sound”) configurations. Compared to the XBA-Z5, these had more prominent mids and sounded brighter and clearer. The XBA-Z5 is bassier, warmer, and darker. The bass is a little boomier and the overall sound is a little dull in comparison, with less forward and slightly more muffled mids. The Z5 is also even smoother and more forgiving than the Velvet, which is hardly harsh itself. The presentation of the XBA-Z5 is more spacious, due in part to the more laid-back midrange and excellent treble extension.

Switching the Velvet to its maximum bass (“warm sound”) setting evens the playing field quite a bit. With the Velvet in this configuration, the XBA-Z5 becomes the more balanced of the two earphones, though its bass still has a bit more rumble and the midrange is still not as forward or clear as that of the Velvet. However, in this setting the Velvet has a sizable bass hump and lots of bass impact, which removes its tighter, less powerful bass as an advantage over the Z5 and allows the Sony to keep up in other ways. Not only is the presentation more spacious in the Sony set, but the treble seems to be better quality as well – more level and also more extended.

On the whole, while the two are similar in general tuning philosophy, the Z5 is a very good basshead earphone while the Velvet sounds best when kept it in its warm-but-not-quite-basshead configurations.

Gorilla Ears GX-4b ($799)

The GX-4b is a quad-driver, enhanced-bass custom in-ear monitor that performs on a similar level to the Velvet. The Velvet is no less impactful than the GX-4b even in its minimum bass (tight sound) setting. The midrange of the GX-4b is slightly drier and the top end is a bit more revealing. The Velvet, on the other hand, is even smoother and does a better job of killing sibilance and harshness. The Velvet at times sounds clearer but on some tracks its bass gets in the way a bit more. The presentation of the Velvet is less forward while the GX-4b is significantly more intimate, and much more sensitive as well.

Value (8.5/10) – It is always hard to put a value rating on a ultra-high-cost earphone like this, but the Velvet may just be an end-game IEM for those who like the “warm and smooth” type of sound signature – and that in itself can be worth a lot. With the ability to fine-tune its sound (mostly the bass boost) and a compact form factor with all the usual trappings of a top-tier BA earphone, what’s not to like?

Pros: potential end-game IEM for warm and smooth sound, detachable cables
Cons: N/A

post #8 of 16444

3/19/10 at 6:24pm

Thread Starter

ljokerl
Trader Feedback: +103
Portables Reviewerus Prolificus
offline

10,212 Posts. Joined 3/2009
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Select All Posts By This User

(000) Short Take: Comparison by numbers

To summarize, I've taken all of the data and calculated numerical averages of all of the scores for each earphone.

The accessory score has half the weight of the others. The 'i' column denotes earphones with an available (optional or otherwise) in-line microphone for use with smartphones and other devices. Single-button remotes for Apple, Android, Windows, and other smart devices are denoted with a "1". Three-button remotes with Apple volume controls are denoted with a "3". Three-button remotes with Android volume controls are denoted with an "A".

See here for the new sortable/searchable version of this table with up-to-date pricing & availability.

* Denotes custom-fit monitors

** Price in USD at time of review

This table is meant to only be used as a quick reference guide in the context of the review. The numbers are meaningless unless you know the reasoning behind them. I am sure most other reviewers will agree - no matter how high of a rating, in sound or value, we give to a particular product, always place your own personal preferences first. I cannot stress this enough - sound is a subjective thing and we all have our preferences. I try to be as objective as possible, but complete objectivity is completely impossible, so take the numbers with a grain of salt and read the reviews!

See here for the new sortable/searchable version of this table with updated pricing & availability

(001) Upcoming Reviews

A list of planned reviews, in no particular order

1MORE Design Crystal Piston

ADV.SOUND M4

Astrotec AX7

Audio-Technica CKX5iS

Brainwavz S5

Custom Art Harmony 8 Pro (brief review)

Custom Art Pro 330v2 (brief review)

Dunu DN-900

Havi B3 Pro I (brief review can be found here)

Heir Audio 8.A (InnerFidelity review can be found here)

HiFiMan RE-600 (InnerFidelity review can be found here)
JVC XX Elation HA-FR100X

LIFE Headphones

Minerva Mi-Performer Pro & Mi-Artist Pro (brief impressions)

Onkyo IE-HF300 and IE-FC300 (InnerFidelity review can be found here)

Ostry KC06 (brief review can be found here)

Perfect Seal SportBud Silver (brief impressions)

Philips Fidelio S1 and S2 (InnerFidelity review can be found here)
Philips SHE3580

Popclik String

Pump Audio Earphones

RHA T20

Sennheiser IE6

Sennheiser IE 800 (InnerFidelity review can be found here)

Sony MDR-7550

Sony XBA-H3 (comparison with Fidue A83, Dunu DN-2000, and T-Peos Altone200)

T-Peos Altone200 (comparison with Fidue A83, Dunu DN-2000, and Sony XBA-H3)

Thermaltake Isurus

UE700

UE Triple.Fi 10

VSonic GR07 Classic (brief impressions can be found here)

VSonic VSD1 (Innerfidelity review can be found here)

VSonic VSD1S (Innerfidelity review can be found here)

VSonic VSD3S (brief review can be found here)

Westone ES5 (InnerFidelity review can be found here)

What follows are sets in my possession that probably won't get a full review

Accidentally Extraordinary Bamboo Earbuds (brief impressions)

AirBuds (brief thoughts)

AKG K330
AKG K370

AKG K376 (brief thoughts)

Boqari Q1

Brainwavz R3 (brief impressions can be found here)

Cardas EM5813 Ear Speakers (brief thoughts)

Fidue A81 (brief impressions can be found here)

Final Audio Design Adagio III (brief thoughts)

Harman Kardon AE (brief thoughts)

Harman Kardon NI (brief thoughts)

HiSoundAudio Golden Crystal

HiSoundAudio HiPhone HP4 (brief thoughts)

HiSoundAudio Popo

JBL J22i (brief thoughts)

Meze 11 Deco (brief impressions)

Miu-Audio MR2 PRO

Noble 6 (brief impressions)

Noble FR and PR (brief impressions)

Noontec Rio (brief thoughts)

Panasonic RP-HJE120

Phiaton MS 200 (brief thoughts)

PNY Midtown 200 (brief thoughts)

PNY Uptown 200 (brief thoughts)

RBH EP1 (brief thoughts)

RHA MA-150 (brief thoughts)

RHA MA-450i (brief thoughts)

Sunrise Xcited

Sunrise Xcape IE

T-Peos Spider (brief impressions)

Tekfusion Ecoofers

Torque t103z (brief thoughts)

Ultimate Ears Reference Monitor Demo - brief thoughts with comparisons to several CIEMs

Westone Adventure Series (ADV) Alpha (brief thoughts)

XTZ EarPhone-12 (brief thoughts)

(002) Interactive table

For anyone curious to play around with the numbers, a fully sortable version of this table can be found here .

(003) Buyer's Guides

An abridged buyer's guide containing my some of my favorite earphones, grouped by price and sound signature, can be found here.

A guide to my favorite sub-$50 earphones can be found here.

A few of my favorite custom monitors can be found in the CIEM Buyer's Guide here.

(004) Acknowledgements

As the number of people who have assisted me in creating this thread grows, I've decided to add this section in an attempt to thank at least some of them. Without the support of these fellow head-fiers I would never have gotten as far as I have with this thread.

jant71

rawrster

mvw2

Poetik

jwhitakr

daveyostrow

ethan961

kjk1281

HeadphoneAddict

violinvirtuoso

Inks

slntdth93

takoyaki7

Marcus_C

Carlsan

esanthosh

12345142

monoglycer

mcnoiserdc

average_joe

kidcharlemagne

nmxdaven

randomZash

idvsego

carfentanil

mascareiro

mark2410

-y0-

Selenium

Anaxilus

james444

shotgunshane

Gilly87

5370H55V

dweaver

scootsit

Fernito

inline79

ericr

abhijollyguy

listen4joy

1clearhead

BassInMyFace

Big thanks to them and anyone else who has chimed in with questions, comments, and suggestions!

(005) FAQs

Q: Why is there no review of [X]?

A: There are hundreds of IEMs on the market under dozens of brands. It is unrealistic to try and cover all of them so I am limiting myself to those that are new, interesting, or popular.

Q: Can you review [X]?

A: Theoretically, yes. However, my queue is generally planned out months in advance and my spending is limited. If you want to loan me [X] for review, please contact me via PM. If you are a manufacturer interested in releasing a product sample, please contact me via PM or here.

Q: [X] is on the planned review list. When will it be finished? Can I loan you one for review?

A: If an earphone is on the list, that means I have it in my possession. These reviews are written in my spare time and 1-2 per week is the most I can swing for both this thread and the portable headphone shootout. Priority is given to sets loaned to me by other head-fi members and manufacturer samples. Reviews of my own gear will be postponed as long as I have samples and/or loaners to get through.

Q: Your review of [X] is wrong. It is clearly better than [Y].

A: There are few constants in the world of audio and a whole lot of variables. My reviews reflect my experiences using my ears, my gear, and my descriptive powers. None of these are perfect but rest assured that a lot of thought is put into the scoring. Nevertheless, the scores are far more important for a ballpark performance estimate than an absolute evaluation. Please read the reviews and form your own conclusions.

As always, please feel free to make improvement suggestions, either by commenting or via PM.

Edited by ljokerl - 12/30/15 at 1:53am

post #9 of 16444

3/19/10 at 7:11pm

210 Posts. Joined 1/2007
Select All Posts By This User

It's efforts like this that make Head-Fi the place it is...

Top, top, foruming.....

post #10 of 16444

3/19/10 at 7:15pm

9,570 Posts. Joined 10/2008
Location: Edinburgh
Select All Posts By This User

god, joker i have to say a hate you. you make me feel so spectacularly lazy in comparison, lol.

looks excellent so far and im sure can only get better

post #11 of 16444

3/19/10 at 7:30pm

10,215 Posts. Joined 10/2008
Location: NYC
Select All Posts By This User

i guess u wont have the problem of running out of space this time..8 posts all to yourself :P looks great so far

edit: just wanted to point out that newegg no longer sells the ck10 but since there was shortage of stock when i got them (dont know about now) dont know who actually sells them or who doesnt.

post #12 of 16444

3/19/10 at 7:40pm

1,445 Posts. Joined 7/2008
Location: US/JP
Select All Posts By This User

Great job ljokerl! I like the way you separated the different tiers into posts of their own. However, I can't help but think about what that seventh post is reserved for (Tier 1?). Though I find your reviews invaluable, please don't go bankrupt just to fill that post!

post #13 of 16444

3/19/10 at 7:49pm

Thread Starter

ljokerl
Trader Feedback: +103
Portables Reviewerus Prolificus
offline

10,212 Posts. Joined 3/2009
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Select All Posts By This User

Added Kanen KM-948. A bit under-dramatic for the first addition but I'm afraid that's the earphone I couldn't add to the old thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by superpiper

It's efforts like this that make Head-Fi the place it is...

Top, top, foruming.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark2410

god, joker i have to say a hate you. you make me feel so spectacularly lazy in comparison, lol.

looks excellent so far and im sure can only get better

Thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by rawrster

i guess u wont have the problem of running out of space this time..8 posts all to yourself :P looks great so far

edit: just wanted to point out that newegg no longer sells the ck10 but since there was shortage of stock when i got them (dont know about now) dont know who actually sells them or who doesnt.

Thanks, fixed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjk1281

Yes, post #7 terrifies my wallet and will do the same to my girlfriend when she sees it and connects the dots. For now I will call it the unmentionable post and keep it empty.

post #14 of 16444

3/19/10 at 8:06pm

40 Posts. Joined 2/2010
Location: MD
Select All Posts By This User

Totally cool!

I'll let ya know when I get the Head-Direct RE0.

post #15 of 16444

3/19/10 at 8:06pm

10,215 Posts. Joined 10/2008
Location: NYC
Select All Posts By This User

it should terrify much more than just your wallet! if there turns out to be a super incredible ridiculously good iem at $400 then what choice do we have really..

but if not..then your loss (your wallet that is) is our gain (being more reviews )

« Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
…
1097
Next »

Start a New Thread

Subscribe Search This Thread

New Posts All Forums:Forum Nav:

Return Home

Back to Forum: Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors

Forums
Equipment Forums
Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors
Multi-IEM Review - 349 IEMs compared (LIFE Headphones added 12/30/15 p. 1096)

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Having participated in the Oppo PM3 lending program, I was afforded a good amount of time to demo this headphone more extensively and under better conditions than in a store or headphone...

INTRODUCTION:On any given day, I am asked what headphones someone should buy. The answer always starts the same; “Depends”. Because the answer is never the same for any one person. Some people are...

Introduction EarSonics (ES), a French company with their roots in custom monitors for the musician market, has been around for a while. They might not be as known as popular brands as Ultimate...

I don't know why, but there is not much information about Audinst's new DAC/amp combo on Head-Fi. So, I've decided to correct this, and write my impressions about this really worthy device. For...

-- *Introduction* Black Onyx is the flagship product from Earbud Thailand. Designed produce a neutral and clear sound signature, without any added...

Recent Images In This Thread

Featured Stories

Topics Discussed

Related Forum Threads

Related Articles

Recent Reviews

Multi-IEM Review - 349 IEMs compared (LIFE Headphones added 12/30/15 p. 1096)

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Recent Discussions

Recent Reviews

New Articles

Recent Images In This Thread

Featured Stories

Topics Discussed

Related Forum Threads

Related Articles

Recent Reviews

Multi-IEM Review - 349 IEMs compared (LIFE Headphones added 12/30/15 p. 1096)

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Head-Fi.org is proudly sponsored by

Recent Discussions

Recent Reviews

New Articles