New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Heir Audio World Tour - Page 13

post #181 of 216
11/30/12 at 8:51pm
My wife tells me the package arrived today, but I haven't had a chance to check it out at this point. I'm actually excited to hear the 3.Ai and see how I feel about it, since it's the only design I haven't heard in one form or another.
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #182 of 216
11/30/12 at 10:11pm
3.i and 4.i Heir Audio Review

The California part of the world tour is nearly over with the samples moving on to project86 and then out of state. I had the iems for three weeks. Here are my impressions.

Disclaimer: I'm not at all disciplined about my reviewing process. I don't have a set list of tracks that I always listen to. I don't do a lot of switching back between gear to compare different sections with different phones. I listen to whatever I'm interested in at the time. I do try to get a pretty wide range of music, to see how the phones work with different genres, but that's about it.

Setup: iPod Classic Gen 6 LOD to Leckterton UHA – 6S MkI. All tracks are mp3, varying in quality from VBR ~ 228 to CBR 320.

The iems. Both the 3.i and the 4.i are surprisingly small iems. I've been listening to my Aurisonics a lot lately and the Heir universals make them seem gargantuan. Both have double bores and are very well made, easily as good as or better than UM, which was my standard for solidly made, well finished iems. The wood plates are a very nice touch for audio jewelry. The small size and low profile make them very comfortable for long listening sessions.The only problem I had with them is finding the right tips. Sony hybrids are a hair too small and repeatedly popped off or sat in my ear when I removed the iems between listens. I ended up using Comply tips, which had a good fit, but aren't my first choice. Well-fitting silicone tips would probably be optimal, but a poor fit weakens the bass for both iems. Fit is key.

The sound. Both have good detail. The 3.i are the more v-shaped of the two. This made them a lot of fun, especially for electronic music or other bassy genres. The V is not as acute as some and so there's not the midrange recession that I've experienced with the TF-10, for example. The 4.i don't have the bass and upper range emphasis, so could be called the more neutral phone. Neutral suggests a certain lack of engagement, though, and the 4.i are extremely engaging iems. They had, I think, a bit better imaging and a wider soundstage than the 3.i.

Although I found both of them really enjoyable to listen to, I found myself going back time after time to the 4.i. Their strengths are a high level of clarity, immediacy, and especially fine vocal presentation. Other reviewers have written how these iems really present what's there in a recording. This comes through really clearly when listening to highly detailed, multi-layered, or dense productions. All the details are there and come through precisely. On tracks that have a grittier or thicker engineering, that character comes through as well. The 4.i are good with all sorts of music pulling out just what's in a recording, nothing more, nothing less.

What I was listening to:
Amy Winehouse – Back to Black
Black Uhuru – Anthem
Cat Power – Sun
Elvis Costello – Secret, Profane, and Sugarcane
Eurhythmics – Ultimate Collection
Flying Lotus – Until the Quiet Comes
Frankie Ocean – Channel Orange
Jean-Efflam Bavouzet – Debussy Piano Music
Jimi Hendrix – Electric Ladyland
Joy Division – Unknown Pleasures
Max Roach and Cecil Taylor – Historic Concerts
Patti Griffin – Downtown Church
Rodrigo y Gabriella – 11:11
Silkie – City Limits, Vol. 1
The Four Tops – The Definitive Collection
Traffic – Traffic

I'm glad to have had the chance to hear them both and now I think I need a new pair of universals.
Reply
post #183 of 216
12/2/12 at 3:35pm
No big deal waiting. Just didn't know what was going on with the silence. I'm much more looking forward to the tzar 350, now that an er-4s lover has weighed in favorably.
Reply
post #184 of 216
12/2/12 at 7:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgunshane View Post

No big deal waiting. Just didn't know what was going on with the silence.

But I kept you informed!... in my head. frown.gif
Reply
post #185 of 216
12/11/12 at 6:40am

So I've had a little time to spend with the 3.Ai and have pretty much come to the same conclusions as everyone else (particularly rroseperry who pasted above). It's a really fun IEM - great bass, nice exciting V-shaped sig, energetic highs that don't typically offend as some others do. I'd say it competes well with something like a Westone 3 (I haven't heard the 4). It never really sounds bad on its own, but does get outclassed when compared directly to the 4.Ai. I especially liked it with electronic music - it sounded very nice with stuff like Crystal Castles, Emancipator, Electronic Noise Controller, Infected Mushroom, etc. Its greatest weakness in my opinion is classical music, where it just doesn't have the delicacy and subtlety to excel. But that's the trade-off for the big fun V-shape sound - at this price you win some and you lose some. 

 

As far as custom IEMs, I'd rank it somewhere in the middle of the sub-$500 "entry level" models I've heard. It's better than the $399 Westone AC2, and very similar to the ~$400 Lear LCM-2b (but way easier to drive). I also like it better than the $399 UE4pro. It is very different than, but roughly equal to, the triple driver 1964-T from 1964 Ears ($425 but now discontinued). I do like the new 1964 V3 better, though it costs $125 more than the 3.Ai and again has a very different signature. I suspect the real custom molded 3.A would be more competitive. 

 

I'm moving on to the 4.Ai at this point. My biggest focus is to compare it to the real molded 4.A and see what the differences are. So far I'm hearing a lot of similarity but also some significant differences - all in favor of the real custom version. Specifically, it sounds less dry, with more "snap" to the presentation (but not in a harsh way). It also sounds more refined, especially up top, which could be due to the fit. I get a decent seal and am more or less happy with the fit but it isn't even close to the perfect fit of the real thing. I'll keep listening and have more to say shortly. 

Reply
post #186 of 216
12/12/12 at 9:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by project86 View Post

So I've had a little time to spend with the 3.Ai and have pretty much come to the same conclusions as everyone else (particularly rroseperry who pasted above). It's a really fun IEM - great bass, nice exciting V-shaped sig, energetic highs that don't typically offend as some others do. I'd say it competes well with something like a Westone 3 (I haven't heard the 4). It never really sounds bad on its own, but does get outclassed when compared directly to the 4.Ai. I especially liked it with electronic music - it sounded very nice with stuff like Crystal Castles, Emancipator, Electronic Noise Controller, Infected Mushroom, etc. Its greatest weakness in my opinion is classical music, where it just doesn't have the delicacy and subtlety to excel. But that's the trade-off for the big fun V-shape sound - at this price you win some and you lose some. 

 

As far as custom IEMs, I'd rank it somewhere in the middle of the sub-$500 "entry level" models I've heard. It's better than the $399 Westone AC2, and very similar to the ~$400 Lear LCM-2b (but way easier to drive). I also like it better than the $399 UE4pro. It is very different than, but roughly equal to, the triple driver 1964-T from 1964 Ears ($425 but now discontinued). I do like the new 1964 V3 better, though it costs $125 more than the 3.Ai and again has a very different signature. I suspect the real custom molded 3.A would be more competitive. 

 

I'm moving on to the 4.Ai at this point. My biggest focus is to compare it to the real molded 4.A and see what the differences are. So far I'm hearing a lot of similarity but also some significant differences - all in favor of the real custom version. Specifically, it sounds less dry, with more "snap" to the presentation (but not in a harsh way). It also sounds more refined, especially up top, which could be due to the fit. I get a decent seal and am more or less happy with the fit but it isn't even close to the perfect fit of the real thing. I'll keep listening and have more to say shortly. 

 

Thanks for the nice impressions.

Reply
post #187 of 216
1/15/13 at 3:03pm

Digging up this thread to update everyone on the status. I was waiting to receive the Tzar models in order to add them to the Tour. They arrived, and I'm about done with the 350, moving on to the 90 today. I hope to finish and get everything sent out in a week or so. The package now includes 3.Ai, 4.Ai, Tzar90, and Tzar350, with all but the 3.Ai using a Magnus 1 cable. 

 

Apologies for the delay - obviously during the last weeks of December there is too much going on with family stuff to get much listening done. Then when I thought I had a handle on the 350, someone gave me a helpful hint to try the biflange tips even if biflanges don't normally work for me. I did, and they do. So I had to start over. Also, along with my usual IEM sources, I was able to use 3 different tube amps with the 350 (spoiler - it sounds exceptional on tubes!) so that took some extra time as well. 

 

But don't worry - the Tour is very much alive and kicking. 

Reply
post #188 of 216
1/27/13 at 2:12pm

I got the package today. 

 

Thanks for Project. His packaging made everything look like new. No joke.

 

I am currently doing the order of 3ai, 4ai, Tzar 90, Tzar 350 to compare the lower tiers to the higher tier brother.

 

Edit:

 

 

Got the Heirs in now. Thanks to project again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These include:

Heir Audio 4ai

Heir Audio 3ai

Heir Audio Tzar 90

Heir Audio Tzar 350

 

3 of them have the Magnus 1 cable(all except the 3ai) and there is also an extra reg cable for some reason.

 

I prefer in order:

4ai

Tzar90

Heir 3ai

Tzar 350

 

 

Very early impressions and thoughts.

 

 

I found that Heir has a problem(maybe) with bassy IEM's? The sound of the 90's is extremely weird. The vocals are pulled forward and it acts like an IEM (the others have a large soundstage and seperation) but its way too forward and while there is nothing wrong with the indivudual qualities (good bass, forward clear vocals, nice smooth highs). The 90's just don't sound good to my ears. I've tried 4-5 tips. 

 

3ai was good. The V shaped sound isn't exactly what I was looking for either. I feel like their mark was just missed. The vocals are pulled back with a bright upper mid and highs. This is a pro and con for some. Cymbals and "hits" are sharp but can be very bright and fatiguing for many. I felt like the sub bass and mid bass, although pronounced, wasn't enough or present enough to actually be a good EDM IEM. The bright upper mids and highs also make some EDM unsuitable. The vocals aren't as smooth as the others.

 

 

The Tzar 350 and Heir 4ai are both very similar. The biggest difference would be that the Tzar 350 has less of that soundstage. It is very generally stated. A similar IEM to the 4ai, except without the larger soundstage. The vocals of the 4ai are also smoother. The bass is not accented on these. These are the more neutral IEM's while the 90 and 3ai are the bassier ones. 

 

Physical ear fatigue however is quite present on every IEM I have tested. This is personal though. The only IEM I would say may actually be fatiguing is the Tzar 90 and the 3ai if you are sensitive to sharp cymbal or upper mid "snaps".

 

Fulll review to follow in a few weeks.

 

Edit: The Tzars and what I thought were the 90 and 350 may have been mixed up. I highly prefer the what I believe to be 90 to the what i believe to be 350. The 350's are said to be nuetral masters with not too big an emphasis on bass. Which would fit what I believe the 90's to be. 

 

Let me see if Heir audio remembers what serial number they sent out for each.


Edited by bowei006 - 1/28/13 at 6:02pm
Reply
post #189 of 216
2/10/13 at 8:57am

 

 

BACKGROUND
Heir Audio was nice enough to send out a package of their universal models, for evaluation by various HeadFiers. It started out as being the 3.Ai and 4.Ai. Later, they released two new designs - the Tzar 90 and Tzar 350. So those were sent out to add to the tour. I spent a good amount of time with each and have finally written up my conclusions.

For reference, I also own the Heir Audio 4.A, 6.A LE, and 8.A IEMs. Obviously these three are all custom molded to my ears and therefore not direct competition to the universal models. But I was particularly interested in hearing how the 4.Ai stacked up against the "real" 4.A model. 

By way of disclaimer - I got a pretty good fit on the universal models, but it was never what I'd call perfect. It could just be a matter of me being so used to custom IEMs that no universal will ever seem completely perfect to me. But I did have to go back and start my listening over when I discovered that the biflange tips fit (and sounded) better than the single flange medium tips I had originally used. So I'd say the tip selection is crucial with these models - more so than the typical IEM. I should also mention that my ears are significantly on the large side - so my experience may be very different from the average user. 

GEAR
I used a large variety of gear to evaluate these IEMs. From a simple Sansa Clip+ and Fuze, to the iHiFi960, to the HiFi ET MA9, portable listening covered the range of cheap to fairly expensive. Sometimes I used a portable amp - Leckerton UHA-6S II or Shonyun 306, but much of the time I used the nicer DAP units which don't really need an amp. 

At home, I used the integrated headphone section of the Anedio D2 or the Resonessence Labs Invicta. I also paired those units as DAC to feed several different tube amps - the Consonance M-10S, the Icon Audio HP-8 mkII, and the Analog Design Labs Svetlana 2. Only the Tzar models with their higher impedance were paired with the tube amps. As a counterpoint to all that high end gear, I also used a few of my less expensive sources - Izmo M1, Grant Fidelity TubeDAC-11, Audinst HUD-mini. So the setup could range from many thousands of dollars on the high end to $130 on the low end, and everywhere in between. I told you it was a wide variety of gear. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


IMPRESSIONS

3.Ai
The 3.Ai is a fun listen. It's a big, bold, V-shaped signature that's more suited for rocking out than for delicacy, though in a pinch it can handle classical or folk or anything you throw at it. But for me, listening to classic on the 3.Ai is something of a mismatch. My favorite genre for the 3.Ai was electronic (which I realize is not really a genre on its own - but you know what I mean). I listened to plenty of Infected Mushroom, Crystal Castles, Electronic Noise Controller, Marc Houle, Emancipator, and that sort of thing. The 3.Ai may not have perfect timbre for a large orchestra but it sure sounds great with electronic stuff, even when the track gets rather complex as some of these do. I also enjoyed the 3.Ai with metal in its various forms: 1991-and-prior Metallica, Living Sacrifice, Meshuggah, Becoming the Archetype, Suicidal Tendencies, King's X, etc. There's a sort of Grado-like coloration where guitars sound "crunchy" and fun even if they aren't the most completely accurate. I enjoyed this but I can totally see how someone else might intensely dislike it - just like Grados.

The downside is a bit more high-frequency energy than I consider ideal, which leads to sibilance in some areas. I've certainly heard worse, but if you are sensitive to that sort of thing, the 3.Ai might not be an ideal IEM for you. I also note a vague lack of clarity in the mids, which are somewhat distant but not quite what I'd call recessed. So if you intend to mostly play acoustic singer/songwriter type stuff then I suggest going 4.Ai instead of this model. 

I'd say the 3.Ai competes well with something like a Westone 3. It also goes for roughly the same target listener. As far as custom IEMs, I'd rank it somewhere in the middle of the sub-$500 "entry level" models I've heard. It's better than the $399 Westone AC2 in several ways, and similar to the ~$400 Lear LCM-2b (but far easier to drive). I think I like it better overall than the $399 UE4pro. It is very different than, but roughly equal to, the triple driver 1964-T from 1964 Ears ($425 but now discontinued). I do like the new 1964 V3 better, though it costs $125 more than the 3.Ai and again has a very different signature. I suspect the real custom molded 3.A would be more competitive.

 

 

 
4.Ai
The 4.Ai is an improvement on the 3.Ai in terms of clarity, detail, and tonal balance. It's more neutral and thus doesn't have quite the fun bass impact of the 3, despite having twice as many drivers handling the lows. The up side is better definition and accuracy, almost making the 3 sound a litte loose in comparison. It also has less boost on the upper mids and highs which leads to a somewhat less exciting sound but also helps with sibilance. This is a good all around performer and definitely suitable for classical, jazz, and those genres that confounded the 3.Ai to some degree. That said, for certain music the 3.Ai could be considered preferable. 
 
My main concern with this IEM was to compare it with my 4.A to see what differences the custom molded version has to the universal. They both use the same drivers and the same crossover - but as you can see in the pics, the 4.A has significantly more room to work with, meaning Heir has the ability to do longer sound tubes if needed, or to angle them as required to get the ideal sound. In this case the 4.A has a fairly similar arrangement of drivers where everything is somewhat close to the canal portion rather than being set further back as some of my other CIEMs are. However, due to the size difference between the custom and the universal, the 4.A has significantly more space between the driver and the end of the bore where sound exits into my ear. Combine that with the extra depth (the 4.A goes in a lot deeper into my ear canal) and the end result is a rather different sounding IEM. It's still got a similar flavor but the custom version is far more smooth, refined, agile, and spacious sounding. Where the 4.Ai has a bit of roughness in the highs on some tracks, the 4.A has none. Where the 4.Ai has a lack of texture to the mids, the 4.A is nuanced and full. And where the 4.Ai sometimes comes across as dull on certain tracks, the 4.A is engaging. In short, the 4.Ai is a good attempt at the "real thing" but doesn't make it all the way there. 
 
Does that mean the 4.Ai is bad? Certainly not. I spent a lot of time pointing out things it doesn't do as well as the 4.A but keep in mind the 4.A is a $700 custom IEM. It should be better. When discussing relative differences, it's easy to make something sound bad. Comparing LCD-2 to LCD-3, HE-500 to HE-6, Stax Lambda series to Stax Omega series... one is likely to point out flaws in a headphone that wouldn't really stand out as flaws when taken on their own. Comparison draws these things out. What I'm saying is - 4.Ai sounds great by itself, but inferior when compared directly to the 4.A. On the up side, this gives 4.Ai owners a very straightforward upgrade path. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Tzar 350
The Tzar 350 is the type of thing where I didn't know what to expect. A super neutral flat sound usually isn't my cup of tea. I respect the Etymotic models for what they are but I have long since ditched my ER-4S. So I was skeptical about the Tzar 350. Upon hearing it, I was pleasantly surprised. 
 
The first thing that struck me was the speed. Man, are these things fast! If this doesn't come through on your system, be sure to check your upstream equipment because the 350 can really separate the men from the boys. Resolution is outstanding when paired with a top level DAC and amp, which therefore demands good recordings to take full advantage of the situation. Pair the 350 with an iPod and a lossy file and prepare to be underwhelmed.... or perhaps "offended" is the better word. 
 
The overall sound signature is in fact quite neutral. But neutral doesn't have to mean boring. Compared to an ER-4S, the 350 seems to have significantly better bass definition which makes it more engaging. It's no Heir 8.A (what is?) but will do low frequencies with convincing heft - something no Etymotic has quite been able to accomplish for me. The interesting thing for me is how the 350 balances its bass - drums for example have enough impact to sound realistic, but are very nonchalant about it. They don't thunder, or even thump, really, but somehow they create the illusion of the real event. This works for most genres including classic rock which is at times bass shy, but stops short of being effective for hip-hop and most electronic music. 
 
The 350 does deviate from completely neutral in the 6kHz range which sounds somewhat boosted to my ears. IEM makers need to boost this area to some degree in order to make a neutral response - this is due to the sound "skipping" the rest of the ear and being delivered directly into the canal. But different companies each have their own take on how this boost should be applied. I find the 350 to be somewhat more energetic in this range as compared to complete neutral, which is similar to how the ER-4S sounds. However (and this is the good part): the mid to upper-mid transition around 2kHz, as well as the upper-mids proper, are not as forward as the ER-4S. That was actually one of my biggest gripes with the Etymotics - that area was just too prominent to be realistic. Vocals had a presence that sound to me as if the singer left their band on stage, went down into the audience, and maybe even sat on my lap. Which was generally not a welcome experience (depending on the singer of course). It just sounded "off" to my ears. Yes, I know the fundamentals of even female voices top out around 1kHz, but the presence region extends far higher and to my ears the Tzar 350 does a better job with it. Somehow the 350 manages to be less abrasive, yet sound more detailed at the same time, and more extended on both ends. It's quite an accomplishment. 
 
What else can I say... the 350 is either a love it or hate it experience. I don't know that I'd recommend it as ones only headphone. It's not versatile enough for that. But as a complimentary piece it is absolutely stunning - it doesn't feel out of place in a $10K system when playing reference level jazz and classical recordings, or demo tracks recorded in the DSD format. 
 
I liked the 350 most when paired with a tube amp. The high impedance allows it to flourish where other IEMs would fail miserably. Not that every single tube amp will work - the Consonance M-10S is geared more towards power hungry headphones and has too high of a noise floor even for the 350. But the Icon Audio HP8 MKII and the Analog Design Labs Svetlana 2 amps both did a fantastic job. Both models are single ended triode designs and both help the 350 achieve a sense of ease and musicality unmatched by my otherwise enjoyable solid state amps. That said, the Violectric V200 did a great job as well. The 350 was a bit too clinical for my taste when driven from an ultra-neutral source like the amp section of my Anedio D2 DAC. Some people would go wild for this type of sound and I can see the appeal but for me it is just a little too sterile. 
 
I don't own a portable amp with tubes in it (honestly I'm not convinced that's a good idea) but I do have a Hifi ET MA9. It's an obscure and rather expensive DAP from China which uses dual PCM1704 DACs and has a natural smoothness to it that pairs very well with the 350. In fact this was one of the better pairings with the 350 regardless of the home/portable distinction. I thought it had just the right amount of warmth and took a little bit of the edge off the 350 without stripping away all its charm. I didn't care for the 350 when paired with a more neutral or even brighter source like a Sansa Fuze or Meizu MX 4-core. 
 
If it sounds like I'm always trying to deliberately change the 350 with a colored source.... well, that's partially right. The fundamental sound signature can be amazing when done right on a good system, and I love that in small doses. There was a time in my life where I was really into that sort of thing - I was using the Sony SA-5000 a lot if that helps paint the picture. These days with work and kids and being busy all the time, I listen to music more to relax than to go diving in a sea of detail. Smoothness is higher on my priority list than sparkle, and I like to sit back, close my eyes, and let the music flow over me. I find the 350 to work just fine for that but only when given an extra dose of smoothness from upstream gear. YMMV and I suspect some people will go the opposite direction, pairing the 350 with as neutral and revealing a source as possible. 
 

 

 
Tzar 90
If I didn't know what to expect from the Tzar 350, the 90 was even more of a mystery. And now that I've spent time with it I still can't quite explain it. The sound at first reminded me of a tweaked 3.Ai with much smoother highs and less of a V shape signature. But the more time I spent with them, the more I felt they were something else entirely. Despite not being able to completely grasp and explain their nuances, I think the 90 ended up being my favorite of all the Heir universals.
 
Bass on the 90s is just about perfect for my tastes. It's somewhat accented but not completely overblown, and it works well with a wide variety of music. It isn't too heavy for acoustic folk and remains solid enough for all but the most single-minded bass music. It extends deeply, remains well controlled, and is about as good as I've ever heard south of $500. I'd say it rivals my 1964 Ears V3 CIEM which is saying a lot as I was very impressed with the bass on that model. Or to put it another way, it's somewhere in between the quality of the 4.Ai and the quantity of the 3.Ai - the good parts of each model rolled into one.
 
Mids initially seem a touch recessed, and compared to something like a Westone ES5 they are in fact more distant. But overall there's a lot to like about them - though not exactly forward, mids remain engaging and are satisfying most of the time. I appreciate the smoothness of the upper mids which have just enough bite to them without being too aggressive. These things have some of the same technical ability as the 350 in terms of speed, but are dialed back some for a more relaxed experience. 
 
Highs are more of the same - somehow both clear and smooth, detailed and inoffensive, they remind me of a blend between the 4.Ai and the 350. They are very non-fatiguing when playing punk, thrash metal, or just poor recordings in general. Yet they are detailed enough to dig deep into a Diana Krall, Eden Atwood, Norah Jones type of recording. Compared to something like a JH13 or Tzar 350, these are somewhat relaxed and even rolled off to a certain extent, but they never feel overly dull and in fact are one of the more detailed presentations out there. Again - if it sounds like I'm having difficulty describing them.... I am.
 
Soundstage is above average in size and has very good image specificity. The speed of the drivers probably helps in that area. The presentation is somewhat different than the Tzar 350 - the 90 is more spread out and flowing while the 350 is more tightly focused. 
 

 

 
CONCLUSION
All in all I'd say the Tzar 90 is my favorite of the whole bunch. It just works with a wide array of music and sound very exciting in the process. That's followed closely by the Tzar 350 driven by a tube amp which - with the right music - is simply a magical experience. From there, the 4.Ai is a great all around performer, suitable for most any source and music. Lastly, the 3.Ai is very good with the right music and could be a great match for the right listener. 
 
I realize this is not my best write-up. It's taken longer than I would have liked and frankly it's not up to my typical standards. Having a few weeks with each IEM is far less than my usual time frame of several months, which is typically what I need to completely get to know a sound signature. So given more time it's possible I could have come to some different conclusions. Add in the good but not quite perfect fit, and my impressions here are just another data point among many - certainly not definitive in any way. 
 
With that disclaimer in place, the Heir universal models are a huge success in my view. The Ai models embody the spirit of their custom counterparts and while not exactly matching on a technical level, they give the user a good preview of what to expect from the "real thing". And the Tzar series is simply brilliant - something only The Wizard would dare to design. The 350 is absolutely spectacular in the right context, offering a degree of resolution normally reserved for flagship CIEMs. The Tzar 90 is more open to a variety of music and gear but still offers a taste of that polarizing Tzar flavor - it's just a different experience than anything else I've heard, and definitely worth a try.
 
I'd like to once again thank Wizard and the staff at Heir Audio for all their dedication, as well as Sinocelt and anyone else who helped make this tour a reality. Well done!
 

Edited by project86 - 2/10/13 at 9:57pm
Reply
post #190 of 216
2/10/13 at 9:49am

Project 86

 

Honestly, your take on everything is pert near mine as well.

 

I use the Tzar 350 for what I call "Tuxedo Sessions." I have been listening to SungHa Jung with the Tzar 350 to get that studio level sound.

 

 

The Tzar 90 sound quality represents are great value considering it can run along side the 4.Ai and go toe to toe in SQ. But in the long run they really are not the same product as the Tzar 90 has a nominal impedance of 90 Ohms and the 4.Ai is around 20.

 

Over all the Heir Audio universal line has:

 

 

2 low impedance products

 

A) 3.Ai "Fun Style" not too sophisticated listening

B) 4.Ai a great all rounder, but in my opinion weak in the area of nice hard hitting bass when compared to the 3.Ai or the 8.A CIEM. I would not recomend "Dub Step" with the 4.Ai.  It is hard to fault the 4.Ai, as they have made many audio entusiasts very happy.

 

 

2 high Impedance Products

 

A) Tzar 90 a great all rounder

B) Tzar 350 "Tuxedo Sessions" for those times when you crave to hear every detail. But understand the Tzar 350, is not for every one, and deserves or demands a high quality source and recorded music....  the intire chain is really crucial with this product. Feed it well, and you will be rewarded beyond levels unimagined from an IEM.

 

 

The goal of the Tzar series was to offer IEMs for consumers that do not mind carrying portable amps, or their DAP has a high impedance out put such as the IRiver AK100

 

 

Thanks for the write up,

 

WIzard


Edited by FullCircle - 2/10/13 at 10:02am
Reply
post #191 of 216
2/10/13 at 9:50am
Great write-up. Thanks. I have especially been waiting to hear some more impressions of the "mysterious" tzar 90. Sounds like a winner.
Reply
post #192 of 216
2/10/13 at 10:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegrobe View Post

Great write-up. Thanks. I have especially been waiting to hear some more impressions of the "mysterious" tzar 90. Sounds like a winner.

 

Mysterious is right - this thing is great, yet hard to nail down. As Wizard said, it's very impressive that it keeps up with (and arguably surpasses depending on listener preference) the quad driver 4.Ai, even though the 90 is only packing 2 drivers.

 

I found the 90 "acceptable" with an iPad or Sansa Clip+. Not great but better than the 350 when run that way (the 350 hates those situations). Adding a portable amp or using a more premium DAP with robust amplification is definitely a good thing though. 

Reply
post #193 of 216
2/10/13 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by project86 View Post

I found the 90 "acceptable" with an iPad or Sansa Clip+. Not great but better than the 350 when run that way (the 350 hates those situations). Adding a portable amp or using a more premium DAP with robust amplification is definitely a good thing though. 

The 350 is nothing short of spectacular with the Ibasso DX100!

Reply
post #194 of 216
2/10/13 at 11:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by project86 View Post

 

 

BACKGROUND
Heir Audio was nice enough to send out a package of their universal models, for evaluation by various HeadFiers. It started out as being the 3.Ai and 4.Ai. Later, they released two new designs - the Tzar 90 and Tzar 350. So those were sent out to add to the tour. I spent a good amount of time with each and have finally written up my conclusions.

For reference, I also own the Heir Audio 4.A, 6.A LE, and 8.A IEMs. Obviously these three are all custom molded to my ears and therefore not direct competition to the universal models. But I was particularly interested in hearing how the 4.Ai stacked up against the "real" 4.A model. 

By way of disclaimer - I got a pretty good fit on the universal models, but it was never what I'd call perfect. It could just be a matter of me being so used to custom IEMs that no universal will ever seem completely perfect to me. But I did have to go back and start my listening over when I discovered that the biflange tips fit (and sounded) better than the single flange medium tips I had originally used. So I'd say the tip selection is crucial with these models - more so than the typical IEM. I should also mention that my ears are significantly on the large side - so my experience may be very different from the average user. 

GEAR
I used a large variety of gear to evaluate these IEMs. From a simple Sansa Clip+ and Fuze, to the iHiFi960, to the HiFi ET MA9, portable listening covered the range of cheap to fairly expensive. Sometimes I used a portable amp - Leckerton UHA-6S II or Shonyun 306, but much of the time I used the nicer DAP units which don't really need an amp. 

At home, I used the integrated headphone section of the Anedio D2 or the Resonessence Labs Invicta. I also paired those units as DAC to feed several different tube amps - the Consonance M-10S, the Icon Audio HP-8 mkII, and the Analog Design Labs Svetlana 2. Only the Tzar models with their higher impedance were paired with the tube amps. As a counterpoint to all that high end gear, I also used a few of my less expensive sources - Izmo M1, Grant Fidelity TubeDAC-11, Audinst HUD-mini. So the setup could range from many thousands of dollars on the high end to $130 on the low end, and everywhere in between. I told you it was a wide variety of gear. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


IMPRESSIONS

3.Ai
The 3.Ai is a fun listen. It's a big, bold, V-shaped signature that's more suited for rocking out than for delicacy, though in a pinch it can handle classical or folk or anything you throw at it. But for me, listening to classic on the 3.Ai is something of a mismatch. My favorite genre for the 3.Ai was electronic (which I realize is not really a genre on its own - but you know what I mean). I listened to plenty of Infected Mushroom, Crystal Castles, Electronic Noise Controller, Marc Houle, Emancipator, and that sort of thing. The 3.Ai may not have perfect timbre for a large orchestra but it sure sounds great with electronic stuff, even when the track gets rather complex as some of these do. I also enjoyed the 3.Ai with metal in its various forms: 1991-and-prior Metallica, Living Sacrifice, Meshuggah, Becoming the Archetype, Suicidal Tendencies, King's X, etc. There's a sort of Grado-like coloration where guitars sound "crunchy" and fun even if they aren't the most completely accurate. I enjoyed this but I can totally see how someone else might intensely dislike it - just like Grados.

The downside is a bit more high-frequency energy than I consider ideal, which leads to sibilance in some areas. I've certainly heard worse, but if you are sensitive to that sort of thing, the 3.Ai might not be an ideal IEM for you. I also note a vague lack of clarity in the mids, which are somewhat distant but not quite what I'd call recessed. So if you intend to mostly play acoustic singer/songwriter type stuff then I suggest going 4.Ai instead of this model. 

I'd say the 3.Ai competes well with something like a Westone 3. It also goes for roughly the same target listener. As far as custom IEMs, I'd rank it somewhere in the middle of the sub-$500 "entry level" models I've heard. It's better than the $399 Westone AC2 in several ways, and similar to the ~$400 Lear LCM-2b (but far easier to drive). I think I like it better overall than the $399 UE4pro. It is very different than, but roughly equal to, the triple driver 1964-T from 1964 Ears ($425 but now discontinued). I do like the new 1964 V3 better, though it costs $125 more than the 3.Ai and again has a very different signature. I suspect the real custom molded 3.A would be more competitive.

 

 

 
4.Ai
The 4.Ai is an improvement on the 3.Ai in terms of clarity, detail, and tonal balance. It's more neutral and thus doesn't have quite the fun bass impact of the 3, despite having twice as many drivers handling the lows. The trade off is better definition and accuracy, almost making the 3 sound a litte loose in comparison. It also has less boost on the upper mids and highs which leads to a somewhat less exciting sound but also helps with sibilance. This is a good all around performer and definitely suitable for classical, jazz, and those genres that confounded the 3.Ai to some degree. That said, for certain music the 3.Ai could be considered preferable. 
 
My main concern with this IEM was to compare it with my 4.A to see what differences the custom molded version has to the universal. They both use the same drivers and the same crossover - but as you can see in the pics, the 4.A has significantly more room to work with, meaning Heir has the ability to do longer sound tubes if needed, or to angle them as required to get the ideal sound. In this case the 4.A has a fairly similar arrangement of drivers where everything is somewhat close to the canal portion rather than being set further back as some of my other CIEMs are. However, due to the size difference between the custom and the universal, the 4.A has significantly more space between the driver and the end of the bore where sound exits into my ear. Combine that with the extra depth (the 4.A goes in a lot deeper into my ear canal) and the end result is a rather different sounding IEM. It's still got a similar flavor but the custom version is far more smooth, refined, agile, and spacious sounding. Where the 4.Ai has a bit of roughness in the highs on some tracks, the 4.A has none. Where the 4.Ai has a lack of texture to the mids, the 4.A is nuanced and full. And where the 4.Ai sometimes comes across as dull on certain tracks, the 4.A is engaging. In short, the 4.Ai is a good attempt at the "real thing" but doesn't make it all the way there. 
 
Does that mean the 4.Ai is bad? Certainly not. I spent a lot of time pointing out things it doesn't do as well as the 4.A but keep in mind the 4.A is a $700 custom IEM. It should be better. When discussing relative differences, it's easy to make something sound bad. Comparing LCD-2 to LCD-3, HE-500 to HE-6, Stax Lambda series to Stax Omega series... one is likely to point out flaws in a headphone that wouldn't really stand out as flaws when taken on their own. Comparison draws these things out. What I'm saying is - 4.Ai sounds great by itself, but inferior when compared directly to the 4.A. On the up side, this gives 4.Ai owners a very straightforward upgrade path. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Tzar 350
The Tzar 350 is the type of thing where I didn't know what to expect. A super neutral flat sound usually isn't my cup of tea. I respect the Etymotic models for what they are but I have long since ditched my ER-4S. So I was skeptical about the Tzar 350. Upon hearing it, I was pleasantly surprised. 
 
The first thing that struck me was the speed. Man, are these things fast! If this doesn't come through on your system, be sure to check your upstream equipment because the 350 can really separate the men from the boys. Resolution is outstanding when paired with a top level DAC and amp, which therefore demands good recordings to take full advantage of the situation. Pair the 350 with an iPod and a lossy file and prepare to be underwhelmed.... or perhaps "offended" is the better word. 
 
The overall sound signature is in fact quite neutral. But neutral doesn't have to mean boring. Compared to an ER-4S, the 350 seems to have significantly better bass definition which makes it more engaging. It's no Heir 8.A (what is?) but will do low frequencies with convincing heft - something no Etymotic has quite been able to accomplish for me. The interesting thing for me is how the 350 balances its bass - drums for example have enough impact to sound realistic, but are very nonchalant about it. They don't thunder, or even thump, really, but somehow they create the illusion of the real event. This works for most genres including classic rock which is at times bass shy, but stops short of being effective for hip-hop and most electronic music. 
 
The 350 does deviate from completely neutral in the 6kHz range which sounds somewhat boosted to my ears. IEM makers need to boost this area to some degree in order to make a neutral response - this is due to the sound "skipping" the rest of the ear and being delivered directly into the canal. But different companies each have their own take on how this boost should be applied. I find the 350 to be somewhat more energetic in this range as compared to complete neutral, which is similar to how the ER-4S sounds. However (and this is the good part): the mid to upper-mid transition around 2kHz, as well as the upper-mids proper, are not as forward as the ER-4S. That was actually one of my biggest gripes with the Etymotics - that area was just too prominent to be realistic. Vocals had a presence that sound to me as if the singer left their band on stage, went down into the audience, and maybe even sat on my lap. Which was generally not a welcome experience (depending on the singer of course). It just sounded "off" to my ears. Yes, I know the fundamentals of even female voices top out around 1kHz, but the presence region extends far higher and to my ears the Tzar 350 does a better job with it. Somehow the 350 manages to be less abrasive, yet sound more detailed at the same time, and more extended on both ends. It's quite an accomplishment. 
 
What else can I say... the 350 is either a love it or hate it experience. I don't know that I'd recommend it as ones only headphone. It's not versatile enough for that. But as a complimentary piece it is absolutely stunning - it doesn't feel out of place in a $10K system when playing reference level jazz and classical recordings, or demo tracks recorded in the DSD format. 
 
I liked the 350 most when paired with a tube amp. The high impedance allows it to flourish where other IEMs would fail miserably. Not that every single tube amp will work - the Consonance M-10S is geared more towards power hungry headphones and has too high of a noise floor even for the 350. But the Icon Audio HP8 MKII and the Analog Design Labs Svetlana 2 amps both did a fantastic job. Both models are single ended triode designs and both help the 350 achieve a sense of ease and musicality unmatched by my otherwise enjoyable solid state amps. That said, the Violectric V200 did a great job as well. The 350 was a bit too clinical for my taste when driven from an ultra-neutral source like the amp section of my Anedio D2 DAC. Some people would go wild for this type of sound and I can see the appeal but for me it is just a little too sterile. 
 
I don't own a portable amp with tubes in it (honestly I'm not convinced that's a good idea) but I do have a Hifi ET MA9. It's an obscure and rather expensive DAP from China which uses dual PCM1704 DACs and has a natural smoothness to it that pairs very well with the 350. In fact this was one of the better pairings with the 350 regardless of the home/portable distinction. I thought it had just the right amount of warmth and took a little bit of the edge off the 350 without stripping away all its charm. I didn't care for the 350 when paired with a more neutral or even brighter source like a Sansa Fuze or Meizu MX 4-core. 
 
If it sounds like I'm always trying to deliberately change the 350 with a colored source.... well, that's partially right. The fundamental sound signature can be amazing when done right on a good system, and I love that in small doses. There was a time in my life where I was really into that sort of thing - I was using the Sony SA-5000 a lot if that helps paint the picture. These days with work and kids and being busy all the time, I listen to music more to relax than to go diving in a sea of detail. Smoothness is higher on my priority list than sparkle, and I like to sit back, close my eyes, and let the music flow over me. I find the 350 to work just fine for that but only when given an extra dose of smoothness from upstream gear. YMMV and I suspect some people will go the opposite direction, pairing the 350 with as neutral and revealing a source as possible. 
 

 

 
Tzar 90
If I didn't know what to expect from the Tzar 350, the 90 was even more of a mystery. And now that I've spent time with it I still can't quite explain it. The sound at first reminded me of a tweaked 3.Ai with much smoother highs and less of a V shape signature. But the more time I spent with them, the more I felt they were something else entirely. Despite not being able to completely grasp and explain their nuances, I think the 90 ended up being my favorite of all the Heir universals.
 
Bass on the 90s is just about perfect for my tastes. It's somewhat accented but not completely overblown, and it works well with a wide variety of music. It isn't too heavy for acoustic folk and remains solid enough for all but the most single-minded bass music. It extends deeply, remains well controlled, and is about as good as I've ever heard south of $500. I'd say it rivals my 1964 Ears V3 CIEM which is saying a lot as I was very impressed with the bass on that model. Or to put it another way, it's somewhere in between the quality of the 4.Ai and the quantity of the 3.Ai - the good parts of each model rolled into one.
 
Mids initially seem a touch recessed, and compared to something like a Westone ES5 they are in fact more distant. But overall there's a lot to like about them - though not exactly forward, mids remain engaging and are satisfying most of the time. I appreciate the smoothness of the upper mids which have just enough bite to them without being too aggressive. These things have some of the same technical ability as the 350 in terms of speed, but are dialed back some for a more relaxed experience. 
 
Highs are more of the same - somehow both clear and smooth, detailed and inoffensive, they remind me of a blend between the 4.Ai and the 350. They are very non-fatiguing when playing punk, thrash metal, or just poor recordings in general. Yet they are detailed enough to dig deep into a Diana Krall, Eden Atwood, Norah Jones type of recording. Compared to something like a JH13 or Tzar 350, these are somewhat relaxed and even rolled off to a certain extent, but they never feel overly dull and in fact are one of the more detailed presentations out there. Again - if it sounds like I'm having difficulty describing them.... I am.
 
Soundstage is above average in size and has very good image specificity. The speed of the drivers probably helps in that area. The presentation is somewhat different than the Tzar 350 - the 90 is more spread out and flowing while the 350 is more tightly focused. 
 

 

 
CONCLUSION
All in all I'd say the Tzar 90 is my favorite of the whole bunch. It just works with a wide array of music and sound very exciting in the process. That's followed closely by the Tzar 350 driven by a tube amp which - with the right music - is simply a magical experience. From there, the 4.Ai is a great all around performer, suitable for most any source and music. Lastly, the 3.Ai is very good with the right music and could be a great match for the right listener. 
 
I realize this is not my best write-up. It's taken longer than I would have liked and frankly it's not up to my typical standards. Having a few weeks with each IEM is far less than my usual time frame of several months, which is typically what I need to completely get to know a sound signature. So given more time it's possible I could have come to some different conclusions. Add in the good but not quite perfect fit, and my impressions here are just another data point among many - certainly not definitive in any way. 
 
With that disclaimer in place, the Heir universal models are a huge success in my view. The Ai models embody the spirit of their custom counterparts and while not exactly matching on a technical level, they give the user a good preview of what to expect from the "real thing". And the Tzar series is simply brilliant - something only The Wizard would dare to design. The 350 is absolutely spectacular in the right context, offering a degree of resolution normally reserved for flagship CIEMs. The Tzar 90 is more open to a variety of music and gear but still offers a taste of that polarizing Tzar flavor - it's just a different experience than anything else I've heard, and definitely worth a try.
 
I'd like to once again thank Wizard and the staff at Heir Audio for all their dedication, as well as Sinocent and anyone else who helped make this tour a reality. Well done!
 

Great stuff as always. The 90 really had me curious. There were the right sort of hints floated by Heir.bigsmile_face.gif The combo of impedance, enough effeciency and forgiving sig while being informative should make it an option for most anyone in that budget range.

Reply
post #195 of 216
2/10/13 at 7:12pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by project86 View Post

I realize this is not my best write-up. 

 

Oh? Well, it's a great write-up by anyone else's standards! cool.gif

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Head-Fi's Best Sellers