Heir Audio World Tour

The USA part of the Tour has come to an end (I added the resulting reviews to the post below).

The international part of the Tour is still ongoing:

I'll be updating this post with links to their impressions and reviews. So be sure to bookmark this page or subscribe to this thread!

8.A (CIEM)

Review by average_joe

Review by DougofTheAbaci

Review by Kunlun

Review by project86

Review by qing

Review by Sorensiim

Review by underhysteria

Review on HWZ by kenz

Review in Japanese

Comparison with the 4.A by thegrobe

6.A (CIEM)

Review by Kunlun

Review by project86

4.A (CIEM)

Review by project86

Review in Chinese

Comparison with the 8.A by thegrobe

3.A (CIEM)

Review by Saintkeat

4.Ai (IEM)

Review by bowei006

Review by elnero

Review by FortisFlyer75

Review by HideousPride

Review by project86

Review by Sorensiim

Review + comparison with the UE900 by Swimsonny

Review by thegrobe

Review by tinyman392

Review by underhysteria

Review on AudioHead by AudioHead (also on YouTube)

Review on CNET by Steve Guttenberg (The Audiophilac)

Review on PC Mag by Tim Gideon

Review on TouchMyApps by Shigzeo

Video review by YouTube's Swampax

3.Ai (IEM)

Review by bowei006

Review by project86

Review + comparisons by tinyman392

Review by Cotnijoe

Review by Sorensiim

Review on CNET by Steve Guttenberg (The Audiophilac)

Tzar 350 (IEM)

Review by bowei006

Review by elnero

Review by project86

Review by Sorensiim

Review by Tomscy2000

Tzar 90 (IEM)

Review by bowei006

Review by mosshorn

Review by project86

Magnus 1 cable

Review by Kunlun

Review by project86

Review by Tomscy2000

Disclaimer #1: I count the Wizard as a friend. When I shared on Head-Fi my problems with Kozee, he sent me a PM with the offer of a CIEM. I was a no-name here; he had nothing to gain out of it.

Disclaimer #2: I’m still a no-name here, and for good reason: In this audio geekdom, I barely register as a peon. My professional experience is limited to voice acting for audiobooks. Truth be told, I still know more about microphones than I do about headphones of any kind.

Disclaimer #3: I’ve got huge ear canals. To build my CIEM, the Wizard needed 2.5x the average amount of acrylic. Look at the pictures below, comparing my 4.A with the 4.Ai. See what I mean? It probably explains why, to my ears, the 4.A sounds a lot more different from the 4.Ai than the 4.Ai from the 3.Ai.

Critical listening was done on a DACport. During my commutes, I used a Sansa Clip Zip. Rather than a proper review (sorry), I’m going to write my impressions in the form of comparisons.

Standard cable vs. Magnus 1 cable:

Let’s get that one out of the way, shall we? I’ve complained about the standard cable, but the one I had (the clear-turned-lime one, in the picture below) was from an old batch the Wizard had brought back from Thailand.

The current standard cable is much better: a good deal more flexible (a loop of my lime cable can stand upright on a table) and a lot less microphonic. My lime cable was the weak point of my 4.A, as the slightest rubbing was clearly audible. By contrast, the current standard cable is perfectly functional.

The Magnus 1 cable is an upgrade, mind you—even more flexible, even less microphonic; but it isn’t an absolute necessity. What? Does it change the sound? Maaaybe. It seems to brighten it a bit. But I wouldn’t be surprised to learn it was all in my head.

4.A vs. 3.A:

The 3.A was the first CIEM the Wizard sent me. However, there was a volume imbalance between left and right. By reducing the volume on one side, I centered a mono signal, and it stayed centered at all frequencies—which means that, afterward, I probably heard the real 3.A.

And it was good. Compared to my hf5, the earphones I used then, it was an improvement: the lows had more meat to them and the voices weren’t as thin. But the Wizard told me to send it back. He confirmed the imbalance, couldn’t find the cause, and sent me … the 4.A, this time.

For once, I can be happy a problem occurred, because I quite prefer the 4.A over the 3.A. Is it more neutral? Yes. Less fun? Heck no! The 4.A is more coherent over the whole frequency range—which, to my ears, makes it more involving. Voices are more realistic, too, so their emotional power is greater, while the bass has better texture, if less impact. Finally, the 3.A can be sibilant on some tracks; the 4.A, in spite of all the details it offers, is smooth as butter.

4.A vs. 4.Ai:

The exact same drivers? In the exact same configuration? Really?? Well, it sure doesn’t sound like it. In the midrange, the 4.A has more in common with the TG!334 than with the 4.Ai. To my ears, the 4.A is a window open on the musical landscape, while the 4.Ai is a photo reproduction—something printed on paper. Compared to the 4.A, the 4.Ai lacks weight, sounds thin, even brittle, and just isn’t as real. It’s especially obvious on piano tracks, though voices suffer too (think ER4-like thinness here). Finally, on spoken tracks, the 4.Ai can be unpleasantly sibilant—quite unlike the 4.A. 

As noted above, however, this huge difference I perceive may be due to the peculiar nature of my ear canals.

4.A vs. 3.Ai:

The 3.Ai’s loss to the 4.A is even more obvious. To reproduce low frequencies, it has one big driver, instead of the two small ones in the 4.A (and 4.Ai, of course). So the 4.A’s bass has better speed, decay, and texture, as expected—but it also has more weight, thus beating the 3.Ai at its own game. Finally, the 3.Ai's sibilance is at least equal to the 4.Ai’s, and I often find its highs too piercing to my taste (but I am very sensitive to highs: I don’t even like the HD800).

CIEM vs. IEMs:

So, in conclusion, does the 4.A do everything better?... I may concede one exception: soundstage. While imaging (instrument placement) is a strength of the 4.A, its soundstage is on the intimate side, better suited to jazz, rock bands, and audiobooks than to vast ensembles. The 3.Ai is more open and, to a lesser degree, so is the 4.Ai. Nevertheless, the 4.A outperforms its non-custom cousins even on orchestral music: having both more weight and greater clarity, it renders better the layered energy of numerous musical instruments.

Oh, I forgot something: Could the 3.Ai and 4.Ai be more sensitive than my 4.A? With both IEMs, if I push the volume all the way up, I can hear a very soft hiss even when nothing is playing—and the DACport is known for its quietness. Of course, at normal listening levels (about 25% of the output, for me), the DACport stays perfectly silent. But, for good or bad, any recorded hum or hiss will be more obvious through the 3.Ai and 4.Ai than through the 4.A.

4.Ai vs. 3.Ai:

The 4.Ai is more neutral and accurate; the 3.Ai has a V-shaped sound signature, with more bass and highs. The 4.Ai has faster, clearer bass, with better texture; the 3.Ai has more bass quantity and weight, with slightly more impact. I personally prefer the 4.Ai, most of the time. I’ll make an exception for Phil Coulter’s “The Great O'Neill”: the drums hit low, the flutes sing high; the composition seems to expand more freely around you.

4.A vs. The World:

Last year, I got to pit my 4.A against some pricy headphones (HD800, K1000…), some pricy earphones (Piano Forte, FI-BA-SS…), and cheaper competitors (GR07, MG7…). Overall, I always preferred the 4.A. It didn’t win at everything every time but, to my ears, it kept landing the overall prize.

• The HD800 is wonderfully airy, but I find its highs fatiguing. True, when switching from the HD800, the 4.A sounds nearly congested, but I was surprised to discover that there was no detail in the music I could hear with the HD800 and not with the 4.A. Moreover, while the 4.A places the instruments on a much smaller stage, it keeps very good imaging (it doesn’t mash the instruments together, even those of a big orchestra). Finally, the HD800 is often too airy, too delicate; most instruments, notably woodwinds and strings, simply sound more real through the 4.A.
• The K1000 is … interesting. It sounds very good on this, then not as much on that; I still wonder if I placed it properly.
• The Piano Forte (VIII, I believe) has good bass, sonorous and clear. But I admit I was expecting more of a “wow” out of such expensive earphones.
• The FI-BA-SS can seal, at least, unlike the Piano Forte. To my ears, it sounded good, but I didn’t fall in love like Thomas did.
• The GR07 has solid, well-textured bass. The mids and highs, on the other hand, sound recessed and artificial. I only tried it at a store, though; it might improve a lot with burn-in, like my MG7 did.
• The MG7 has deep, impactful bass, which doesn’t intrude on the mids. While I cannot hear up to 16 kHz with it (unlike with the 4.A), its post-burn-in mids and highs are a lot clearer than what I’d expected from “bass-head earphones.” In fact, I’ve discovered the MG7 to be surprisingly flat through most of the audible range. Still, its strength does lie in the lows; until recently, I even thought its bass was simply better than the 4.A’s. But while it does hit deep and hard, without the bloat so common among lesser dynamic earphones, I’ve come to realize that, on faster tracks, its bass can smear, while that of the 4.A stays clear. So, it’s a toss-up; which bass is best depends on what you listen to.
• The ER4 (B, S, or P) is fast, accurate, with very good texturing, but the mids are too thin and the bass lacks weight—except on binaural tracks. On binaural tracks, its presence rivals the 4.A’s, and it offers a greater sense of space (which came as a surprise, since its soundstage is rather small on “normal” tracks). As for the 4.Ai and 3.Ai, they extend further away than the 4.A (on binaural and “normal” tracks), though not as far as the ER4 on binaural tracks. Finally, the MG7 doesn’t shine on binaural tracks: The larger the original stage, the more the MG7 will blur everything in a very small space.
• I’ve tried many other headphones and earphones, most of which didn’t leave much of an impression. And out of all those, only the TG!334 (which I discovered recently) impressed me more than the 4.A—except maybe on spoken voice, where it seemed to have a weird edge; I’m still not sure if the 4.A is more realistic there, or simply smoother.

My conclusion? I’ve been spoiled by the 4.A; by comparison, I couldn’t help being disappointed by both the 4.Ai and 3.Ai.

It's fun for me too. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowei006 

-reserve-
And thank you

Well, yeah, by the way: Panda eat only bamboo, right? No other kind of wood ... right?

[Edit:] Before someone jumps at me: Yes, I know that bamboo is a kind of grass, not a kind of wood.