I've now had some time to assess the Tzar 350. I apologize if I can't answer more questions; I will be busy from now until the second week of January next year, and that's why I'm writing this now. I'd appreciate it if people do not PM me with questions about the Tzar 350, as I will not have time to answer them. Hopefully, these thoughts will be enough to help you come to a decision about whether or not the Tzar 350 is suitable for you.
Frequency Response
First off, this is one of the few earphones I've heard that really does do 20-16000 Hz, without major bumps or dips. However, I do not feel that it is completely flat (relative to my own hearing). I believe that it has a definite large peak around 6-7.5 kHz (peaking at ~6.8k), which brings out its extreme clarity, but may also bring out harshness/sibilance (that Sorensiim and Sasaki also alluded to). The Wizard also mentioned that the Tzar 350 has an elevated treble level, and it is definitely audibly elevated in my impressions. In general, I find that knocking down that peak 2.5-3.0 dB with an EQ tames it down to be acceptable for a wider range of music and a wider range of volumes, though if you sweep through with a frequency sweep, 6-8k will still sound elevated.
The midrange of the Tzar 350 is also a bit too flat for my tastes. I personally enjoy a little bit of a bump to bring vocals a little closer to the ear; in this sense, I like hearing concentrated vocals. The 350 may at times sound thinner and more diffuse. I don't know how much of this type of diffuse presentation may be attributed to phase linearity, but I suspect it may play a factor.
I don't think earphones get any faster than the Tzar 350. It makes the DBA-02 feel slow in comparison. Everything is tight and textured to the upteenth degree. Soundstage is nice and wide, as per good high frequency extension, though it doesn't sound ridiculously wide, as the forward treble also makes certain musical elements like hi-hats and maracas sound a bit to forward in the sound field, sometimes to the point of distracting. In that sense, the Tzar 350 is analytical at its best and worst.
This is my lazy interpretation of the frequency response (not EQ compensation; I inverted the EQ compensation curve and normalized to zero at 1 kHz) of the Tzar 350; there's a small bump in the lows (probably less in the mid-bass region; it's hard to draw things with EQ points), very, very small recession in the 1.5k and 3k locus, and the bump at 6k. After 8k, I didn't bother listening to tone tests and frequency sweeps over and over again, so that's just an approximation.
Please keep in mind that this response is a translation of my own subjective listening experience. Your own hearing threshold levels, canal structure, etc. are different from mine (unless I have a long-lost twin out there somewhere, and even then, environmental factors, transient physiological/pathophysiological states, etc. may cause palpable differences) and your experience may very well differ. The Danes that heard the Tzar 350 mostly did not hear the same type of harshness that I attributed to a high-frequency bump.
Hearing Safety and Impedance Rating
As someone in the healthcare profession, I am a big proponent of not playing music too loudly. I'm hyperacute about the increasing prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) amongst users of personal listening devices, so I'm glad that Heir Audio came out with an earphone that's harder to drive. To me, the Tzar 350 represents a happy medium of something that doesn't output SPLs that are too high when driven from a portable device such as an iPod. At 50% volume, the Tzar 350 sounds good out of my iPod Touch, without any hint of trouble. The SPL should be more than adequate for anything and my guess is that it probably exceeds 85 dB. As per OSHA/NIOSH (click here for an explanation written by an Etymotic-sponsored audiologist), people can safely be exposed to sound pressure levels (A-weighted) of 85 dBA for no more than 8 hours without potentially causing damage to the ears. If you desire use of the Tzar 350 with an amplifier, it should be driven easily by any device around. The nice part about the high impedance rating is that damping factor will remain pretty high, even with amplifiers with high output Z, such as OTL tube amps.
Comparisons
Etymotic Research ER4B
Let me get this out of the way: when it comes to accuracy by way of flat frequency response and transparency under the assumption of a diffuse-field, I do believe that the ER4B still wins. It is still Etymotic's most accurate earphone when it comes to a diffuse-field referenced target, and by far the only ER4 earphone that I find to be completely convincing under a binaural setting. In fact, the ER4 will beat most headphones, even the Sennheiser HD800, LCD-2, etc. when it comes to hitting the diffuse-field accuracy target, given M. Killion's own studies on human HRTF. Perhaps only STAX are more accurate.
However, few people actually care deeply about this issue, and there are certain things that the Tzar 350 does do better: (1) bass extension --- the Tzar 350 goes down to 20 Hz, whereas I find it difficult to coax out anything below 40 Hz from the ER4B, (2) detail level --- the Tzar 350's do sound more detailed, even when equalized to take away excess treble, (3) efficiency --- with an iPod, the ER4B sounds difficult to drive and grainy, while the Tzar 350 sounds good, albeit at a lower SPL than most earphones, (4) bass tightness and "solidity" --- the Tzar sounds substantially more coalesced while the ER4B feels ephemerally flighty, (5) fit --- in my opinion, the Tzar 350 wipes the floor with the ER4 in terms of comfort, as I believe fitting the ER4 is tantamount to undue violation of my ear canal (don't accuse me of not being used to the "second-bend fit" because I am used to it), with HiFiMAN bi-flange tips, I get a great, deep seal with the "Ai" form factor and everything feels comfortable.
Fatigue factor is an issue with both earphones; when un-equalized, the Tzar 350 will induce fatigue to my ears after about 20 minutes, while the ER4B fatigues me after about 30 minutes. Soundstage size is similar between both earphones; the Tzar 350 feels slightly wider. Vocals sound slightly less diffuse on the ER4B.
Audio-Technica ATH-CK100PRO
I've always regarded the CK100PRO as the spiritual successor to the famed CK10, and they certainly share some common characteristics, along with the Tzar 350. All three are clarity-oriented IEMs, though the CK100PRO colors the response with a bit of added bass depth and warmth. The CK100PRO is certain worthy of dicussion as a top-tier universal IEM with one exception: sibilance. It can be at times unduly hot on the treble end, and while the Tzar 350 can also be sibilant, the CK100PRO is a marginally worse offender. I also find the Tzar 350 more revealing, though the added lower midrange depth, extra warmth, and good high frequency extension makes the overall soundstage and presentation of the CK100PRO more inviting to more people as an IEM compared to an un-equalized Tzar 350.
Fischer Audio DBA-02 MK2
Now, this is an interesting comparison. With regard to the treble presentation, the two are remarkably similar in terms of relative distances between instruments in the sound space. The DBA-02 MK2 sounds warmer from 1.5k down, with a distinct mid-bass thump. The Tzar is tighter with the bass presentation, with more texture, and is substantially more revealing across the entire bandwidth.
Conclusion
The Tzar 350, in so many ways, really is --- to borrow the Wizard's words --- like an older Italian supercar: it can be absolutely amazing, but under the right conditions. Behind the wheel of a Lamborghini Countach, if you're not careful, you'll easily oversteer and spin out. It doesn't have traction control. You must be in full control over it. The Tzar 350 is the same way, but with music.
To be honest, the first day I received the Tzar 350, my gut instinct was that it was too bright, and for a day or two, I was wondering whether I made the right choice in buying the Tzar 350. It surprised me about myself; I've been aware of my changing tastes in sound signature over the past year, and I know I've been favoring items with more toned-down treble, but I would've never guessed that I'd be wishing for something that had less treble presence than the Tzar 350 --- I'm not sure. For the time being, I've developed an EQ curve that makes all the attributes of the Tzar 350 that I deem as shortcomings manageable. At the same time, I've been warming up to it, and my opinions may change over time.
Please do not allow my lack of hyperbolic enthusiasm for the Tzar 350 dissuade you from considering it as a product. I have deep-rooted preferences for sound, as does everyone else. The sound of the Tzar 350 may very well be what you're looking for; I only hope that my descriptions are able to paint a more complete picture of the soundscape that the Tzar 350 depicts.
PROS
- Perfect Driving Load for Both Portable DAPs and Amplifiers (on Low-Gain)
- Wide Bandwidth, Easily Extends from 20-16000 Hz in Subjective Listening Tests
- Extreme Detailing
- Utmost Clarity, Airiness
CONS
- Can Exhibit Definite Harshness with Less than Absolutely Stellar Recordings or Higher Volumes
- Treble Peak May Potentially Be Fatiguing (YMMV)
- Midrange Can Potentially Sound Thin, At Times De-focused and More Diffuse
- Without EQ, Forward Treble (can also be a PRO to people who desire this type of sound) Can Make Certain High Frequency Elements e.g. Hi-Hats Overly Present in the Mix
Edited by tomscy2000 - 12/23/12 at 11:07am
