The review for the now discontinued A3H Pro V1 can be seen below in the spoiler.
TL;DR
Get this CIEM if you:
DO NOT get this CIEM if you:
Gear references
Favourite: D2000
Neutrality: SRH940 (audition experience with the ER4XR and the HD600)
IEM reference: Aurisonics ASG-2.0
AAW really steps it up with their luxurious box. It opens up sideways on a hinge, sealed shut with a magnetic mechanism. Inside, you’ll receive your CIEMs (of course), a cleaning cloth, a cleaning tool, two-pin airplane adapter, a ¼” adaptor, with a warranty-and-policy booklet sealed with fancy stamped wax. It also comes with a little card with your name written on it. I don’t much care for it, but you’re the kind who’d like that kind of personalisation, it’ll be a nice treat for you.
To put it short: superb. No air bubbles as far as I can see them and consistent translucency throughout the acrylic shell. My selected faceplates, the red and blue Mother-of-Pearl, are very well made, though upon closer inspection you can see the seams where AAW joins individual shells. Which is something I’d willing close an eye for, considering the nature of working with MOP and how they hid the seams very expertly.
The tiny bass port
As shown above, there is a bass port on the shell due to the dynamic driver. However, given the size of the port, it barely makes a dent in the shell’s isolation. There is hardly any difference in isolation between my custom made silicon plugs and my A3H-Pros.
What AAW did, as far as I can tell, is that they added additional layers to my ear impressions, making it a snug fit rather than a perfect one. This creates additional pressure against my ears, which makes it a very full sealing seal. This is in stark contrast to a previous custom I've had, a reshelled TF10 by a defunct company called Stage93. This reshell was slightly more comfortable as they've used my impressions as they received it, resulting in a more "perfect" fit. However, the seal in those customs broke with the slightly movement in my jaw (turning my head, opening my mouth etc.) which made it very annoying to wear.
Personally I think this fit is a good balance between comfort and seal. Obviously not perfect, but I have not had the seal break on me at all.
Null Audio Brevity cable w/ microphone
The cable is a Null Audio Brevity cable, a soft, smooth silicone-coated braided cable that is feels very comfortable against bare skin. Microphonics are higher than average, though the custom design along with the over-the-ear position makes it a non-issue.
Sound Quality
Frequency response
Slightly bass linear (bass > mids = treble). Bass emphasis all the way into the lower midrange where it valleys, followed by roll-off in the upper treble.
General sound signature
Warm and smooth with slightly laid-back treble, very non-fatiguing sound.
Genre strengths
Jazz and vocals, instruments like trumpets, saxophones and cello
Bass
I would consider it the star of the show seeing as how it’s the first thing that pops up when you first put it on. The bass is slightly emphasised at about 5dB+/- above neutral, valleying at 400Hz and running linearly into the sub-50 frequencies, creating good rumble and pushing air like nothing else. It extends deep into the double-digits and has extremely satisfying volume and texture.
However, it wouldn’t be considered a basshead’s bass. Flatheads would assume that it’s for bassheads, while bassheads would find themselves wanting more. It's a neither-here-nor-there bass that's slightly higher in quantity than the new Ety ER4XR but not as bassy as, say, the SE215. If you’re one who prefers this kind of "on-the-fence" signature, the A3H would be perfect for you.
On another note, the A3H’s bass is not “punchy”. There is a resonant quality to its bass due to its slower driver speed and relative balance between sub-bass and mid-bass. This creates three very obvious qualities:
If anything, the A3H is reminiscent of a tiny subwoofer, not necessarily bringing speed and imapct but rather providing a dynamic and hefty bass experience.
Mids
After the initial awe of the A3H’s bass, there was something else that crept behind its shadow. Vocals, instruments, synths… if the bass was the star of the show, the midrange was its manager. The strict, workaholic manager that occasionally played along with the star’s aloof and showboaty nature. The midrange itself is clear and detailed, but when in tandem with the weight and volume of the bass frequencies creates a much more weighted sound that borrows some low-end heft from the lower-midrange frequencies. The mids and treble are handled by the time-proven and very capable TWFK-30017, a rather premium dual-driver single-bore model by Knowles that does well in retrieving the detail out of the midrange. However, previous experience with TWFK IEMs gives me the impression that TWFK drivers tend to image a rather cold, analytical and, some would say metallic, sound.
The A3H's tiny TWFK-30017
The low-end influence of the A3H's dynamic driver over the midrange creates a sound that is very distinct from the signature TWFK mids, giving vocals that added richness and various instruments that much needed volume in their sound. The coherency between the dynamic driver’s bass and the BAs’ midrange is nothing short of amazing, reminiscent of the Aurisonic’s own famous mids.
Onto its shortcomings, the emphasis in the lower midrange (200-600Hz) does result in a "veil" that is similar to the HD650 as well a more congested-sounding space, which weirdly matches with the rather excellent width of its soundstage. Dampening that range with an EQ improves clarity and apparent detail greatly. though at the cost of smoothness and some body.
Treble
Once out of the influence of the dynamic driver, the treble isn’t much to write home about. I can tell that the TWFK has been lightly damped, removing any stray peaks in the 3k-6k regions and resulting in a very smooth and non-fatiguing high-end. As stated above, AAW has left a little sparkle in the treble in its tuning, so I wouldn’t exactly call this IEM dark by any means, but I wouldn’t call it bright either. There is definitely more treble quantity in the A3H as compared to darker IEMs like the SE215 and even AAW's own A2H.
There is a rather heavy roll-off after 9K, making the sound miss some of the “air” that’s ever-so-present in my full-sized headphones. I guess if there is a silver lining to this lack of treble extension, is that combination of the linearity of the upper frequencies along with the early roll-off greatly contributes to its signature non-fatiguing sound.
Soundstage
I’m not too familiar with IEM soundstaging, so I’ll be rather quick and brief on this aspect. Of course, it wouldn’t trade blows with my D2000s, but definitely presents a bigger stage than my ASG-2.0s. It can present a very wide stage, but when coupled with the rather congested midrange creates the illusion not unlike a small band in an orchestral hall. EQing the 250Hz and 500Hz down slightly (special thanks to tz0531 for the tip) really helps to separate the midrange apart, opening up the soundstage very nicely.
If I remember correctly, in width it seems to be on par with the soundstage of the UE900, which according to a quick Google search seems to be pretty well-regarded.
Conclusion
A very solid contender in the realm of entry-level CIEMs, the A3H performs above and beyond its price point, trading blows with well-established veterans of the field. The A3H’s strong points lie in its non-fatiguing sound and well-textured bass, as well as amazing coherency between bass and mids.
The rabbit hole just got a little bigger.
Further readings:
Lachlan's review of an older revision of the A3H
tz0531's review of the A3H-Pro
It's not really a fair fight on this end, isn't it? The flagship of AAW's budget line up against its Top-Of-The-Line. The A3H isn't exactly a baby W500 in default, and obviously doesn't touch the flagship in technicalities.
Straight into the bass where their pride lies, other than the fact that they're slightly north of neutral they are completely different in terms of flavour and performance. The A3H is muted and smoothed over, with a comparably fuzzy and subdued edge to it. The W500 on the other hand separates the rumble and impact beautifully, even surpassing the A3H in sub-bass articulation whilst presenting a clean, detailed mid-bass than the A3H falls short on.
There's also a very distinct difference in coherence. Where the A3H transitions its decay at the lower mids resulting in a smoother, seemingly more coherent sound, the W500 restricts the rumble at the very lowest registers, which sounds like a more abrupt transition but brings forth a cleaner, less veiled sound signature.
Into the midrange, that's where the canyon between the two deepens. The tonality of the A3H is slower, smoother and thicker, which has its obvious advantages in vocals and heavy strings. The W500 on the other hand is what I truly consider to be a "neutral" tonality; it's not as thick as the FitEar MH334 (the A3H being even moreso) but doesn't have the same analytical and cold edge as the stuff from JH Audio and Hidition. Sure, the W500 wouldn't give the same richness and depth to vocals like the A3H does, but it definitely the more versatile out of the two.
There's something else that you'll notice when you take out the A3H and put on the W500. Treble extension. There is no contest; the W500 is much airier, generates more sparkle and has oodles more detail than the A3H. If there is something I'll concede the A3H to, it's the linearity and stability of the upper frequencies. Make no mistake, the W500 has some of the best controlled trebles that I've heard out of a TOTL, but the A3H just excels in that area. However, given the sheer difference in technical performance of the two trebles, it's a consolation prize than anything.
Of course, that's not to say anything about imaging and detail. The W500 smokes the A3H in this regard, providing insane levels of microdetail and resolution that the A3H's TWFKs can only dream of having. In imaging and soundstage, it's not even close. The A3H's midrange can sound rather smoothed over, resulting in a deep but rather congested soundstage. On the other hand, the W500 decay control especially at the bottom end is nothing short of miraculous, allowing for ridiculous diffusal range and presenting a sound stage that is both deep and extremely 3-dimensional.
With the W500's AHMorph tuning knob at the blue point (full dynamic mode), the decay transition extends into the mid-bass which brings the W500's sound signature closer to the A3H. In the this I would consider it to truly be a refined A3H, providing the same richness and a thicker (but not as thick) tonality with better extension in the top end.
13/11 note: I have to send my W500 back to AAW due to driver flex issues one one side and am back to the A3H for the time being, but even after spending so long with the W500 I was still enjoying the A3H a lot. The W500 can get a little intense with its neutral tonality and more "reference" tuning, so the smooth, easy-sounding A3H was still a very much welcome change to my ears. Suffice to say, even with the addition of this TOTL to my collection, I'm not selling this budget monitor anytime soon.
Aurisonics ASG-2.0
Reviewers note: I would like to put it on the table that yes, I am aware of Aurisonics and their rather fickle history with the ASG series. Yes, I know that they have rectified the mid-bass issue with their 2.5 revision at the cost of some midrange richness. This was the only IEMs I had on me at the time of review so as to make for a more accurate A/B comparison for an IEM I feel would be a good match for the A3H due to their hybrid technologies and numerous similarities in sound signature.
The ASG-2.0 is a triple-driver hybrid just like the A3H at the then retail price of $700, almost double that of the A3H, though with some minor differences. Barring the ASG’s BA system which still remains a mystery to me till today, they use a larger 15mm dynamic driver with a tunable bass port. This allows much flexibility in the user’s bass experience, and goes from slightly emphasised to, well, just a mess at full blast.
It’s hard to quantify where the A3H sits by the ASG’s bass ports, considering as to how both of them presents bass differently. Where the A3H excels in dynamics and sub-bass, the ASG is a mid-bass and impact monster, even with the bass ports fully closed. You would hit A3H’s sub-bass level at about 2.5 notches above closed on the ASG, but the mid-bass impact and emphasis exceeds that of the A3H even with the bass ports completely shut. The first time I borrowed the ASG, I was blown away by the speed and punchiness and impact of the bass, followed by me taking it out just half an hour due to the headache it gave me. I’m rather bass sensitive in that regard; I’m all up for rumble but mid-bass impact just reminds me too much of a throbbing headache that won’t go away.
Sure, I did get used to it after a month or two, having some of that magical brain burn-in setting itself in, but it was the moment that I put on my A3H did the memories of my initial impressions come flooding back. Switching back and forth between the ASG and the A3H made it very apparent that the ASG’s sub and mid-bass balance was way off, and the A3H was by far the more enjoyable one to listen to. If you were one of the many who complained of the ASG’s bass balance, wanting more sub-bass in favour of mid-bass, the A3H would appeal to you perfectly.
Into the midrange, that’s where the ASG flexes its muscles. Both of them exudes the same kind of richness and dynamics from their hybrid system, with some slight differences. Due to the nature of the lower midrange, the mids of the A3H are thicker and much more narrow. On the flipside, the mids on the ASG are more forward, more expansive and a smidgen clearer and more detailed. However, detail and clarity are slightly pushed back as the bass ports are opened, equalling the A3H at the second notch and getting worse at the third notch, though not to the point of being muddy. Full blast is a completely different story, though.
One thing that does annoy me about the ASG is a weird peak in the upper midrange that I can’t seem to pinpoint. It could be a coherency issue, perhaps a tuning side-effect, but at any case creates a sibilance effect that I have not experienced with other headphones. It steers clear of the vocals, thank god, but the main instruments that trigger it are saxophones and trumpets. Which is quite the disappointment, considering my love for Sinatra and jazz. The A3H remains linear throughout the midrange all the way into the treble, keeping the mids nice and smooth.
Make no mistake, the Aurisonics are the more technically capable IEMs overall, having greater clarity, detail and treble extension. On the other side, the A3H betters in sub-bass quality, bass balance and coherency in the upper midrange. However, where the ASG fell short for me was in enjoyment; it took me months to like it. The A3H hooked me straight off the demo set.
Reviewer's note: Comparisons are made with the Grey-Black-Gold (A3H-lite) and Grey-Clear-Gold (Bass-mid neutral) configurations. Filter changes do not affect performance as far as I can tell.
Another great IEM that is (distributed) by Singapore, the FLC8S is also a triple-driver hybrid that makes use of Knowles' TWFK dual-BA, though with the option to basically "hardware-EQ" its sound. The closest the FLC8 can get to sounding like the A3H is in the Grey-Black-Gold configuration, though there are still some things that the FLC8 can't emulate. Well, a lot of things actually.
For one, despite its amazing bass response per se, it cannot touch the A3H’s sub-bass resolution and power. The Red-Black ULF-LF configuration does well in emulating the A3H’s sub-bass rumble though at the cost of bass balance that the A3H naturally excels at.
The dynamic driver in the FLC8 is noticeably faster on the FLC8 while A3H commands a more authoritative presence even when setting the FLC8 to match the A3H’s bass emphasis (5dB above neutral), probably due to the extra reverb that the A3H’s dynamic driver produces.This has its obvious advantages in rock and electronic that are the A3H's natural weaknesses.
Going into the midrange, it's no contest in terms of musicality. The A3H’s midrange is basically the FLC8’s gold filter on steroids. It’s so much smoother and richer, providing a more intimate and enjoyable vocal experience in stark contrast to the FLC8’s cleaner but relatively more sterile mids. Just as an example, Frank Sinatra’s “Strangers In The Night” showcases the A3H’s strengths with the abundance of strings, trumpets and Sinatra’s deep voice, a timbre that the FLC8 can't dream of having despite its chameleon characteristics. On the other hand, rock sounds much more natural and energetic on the FLC8, producing a clean, quick sound that matches well with the genre.
Into the treble, both companies have gone into different tuning directions on their TWFKs. The FLC8 has a noticeable rolloff from 2K and then peaking again at 8K, but provides a much brighter and energetic edge to its sound due to the contrast, similar to that of the Fidue A83 and Shure SE846. The A3H on the other hand is dead smooth all the way to its peak at 7K, which can give the illusion of darkness to some. When swapping from the A3H to the FLC8, the FLC8 sounds somewhat harsh and almost sibilant, while when swapping in the opposite way the A3H sounds dulled and overly smooth. However, the FLC8 isn’t sibilant, neither is the A3H dull when in a vacuum. Different strokes for different folks.
Detail retrieval is more or less on par with one another in the midrange and treble, with sub-bass resolution going to the A3H and mid-bass resolution going to the FLC8S.
All in all, they are more-or-less on equal footing with one another. The A3H does some things better, the FLC8 does others better. With both of them at the same cost and at the same performance level, the questions end at whether or not you'd rather have your money go toward the custom building process or toward a universal modular system. Both the A3H and the FLC8 are extremely bang-for-buck in their respective markets and both are top choices if bass and mids are your priority.
Reviewer's note: Comparison was done in "Zeppelin & Co.", a so-called "audiophile cafe" deep in the heart of Sim Lim Square that offers a large range of demo units to try with your drink. An interesting and refreshing experience for sure!
Another one in the recent wave of cheap hybrids, the iBasso IT03 is a triple driver hybrid that utilizes the Knowles TWFK driver, just like the A3H and the FLC8. With the same configuration yet at a lower price point compared to the two, it's an interesting comparison for sure. The IT03 has a rather prominent U-shaped response, while the A3H has a bassier, warmer tilt to its sound.
Down in the bass... god, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't impressed. Sub-bass notes boom and resonate with some of the best decay I've heard, providing great darkness in the low-end. Sub-bass and mid-bass are well separated with impact and rumble clearly defined between each other, edging out the A3H's bass which can sound too smoothed over and congested at times. The A3H's bass is a hair darker and maybe a smidgen more articulate in the sub-bass, though the advantages the IT03 has in detail and separation makes it a better presentation in my book. Good job, iBasso.
Now, into the mids. Compared to the A3H, the IT03 sounds a little hollowed out and sometimes outright ring-y, especially near the upper midrange where it's almost metallic. The IT03 is noticeably drier than the A3H, with vocals taking a more backgrounded position making instruments pop out even more. The A3H on the other hand has not a single hint of metallic-ness in its sound, opting for a more intimate approach to instrumentation. It sounds warm, lush and smooth, making the IT03 sound hollowed out and thin in comparison.
The treble presentation of the IT03 is similar to the FLC8 in that they rely on contrast to boost clarity, though the IT03 is the smoother out of the two. Just like my comparison with the FLC8 it's more up to personal preference, whether you prefer a sparklier, cleaner treble or a smoother, less fatiguing one.
Into the soundstage, they could not be any more different. Where the IT03 had a very out-of-your-head, almost disjointed presentation due to its U-shaped tuning, the A3H went up close and personal, sometimes a little too close. The IT03 is very wide but is very two-dimensional and flat in its stage. The A3H is so much deeper and holographic in its stage, though is noticeably more congested and narrow.
It's a recurring rhetoric, isn't it? They perform the same but have different signatures. Well they do, and unlike the versatile FLC8S the differences between the IT03 and A3H are constant and unchanging. Prefer better bass separation and a U/V-shaped signature? The IT03 is your pick. Want a richer and more coherent overall sound? Can't go wrong with the A3H.
Jomo Audio JM4v2 (Demo set)
Reviewer's note: Comparison was made in Music Sanctuary with the provided demo set. Sonic differences may exist between the demo and the full-custom.
AAW's local competitor, Jomo Audio, is also not one to be overlooked. The revised JM4 model is ever so slightly V-shaped and very clean sounding, making it another solid option in the niche entry-level CIEM market. It's priced at US$650, so while it's still defined as an entry-level CIEM, it's still nothing compared to the budget-oriented A3H.
In the bass (ignoring quantity, the A3H clearly has a good 3-4dB above the Jomo's), the JM4's dual Knowles DTEC still pales in comparison to the A3H's dynamic woofer in sub-bass resolution. The air and rumble of the A3H creates a much fuller and weighter bass response in the low end and pushes forth details that the speedy BA drivers rush past. Into the mid-bass, the speed and resolution of the JM4 turns the tables, surpassing the A3H in rhythm and pacing. However, by itself it isn't the fastest BA around, which may be a good thing as the JM4's bass has one of the more natural decays I've heard.
The midrange is slightly recessed though not overly so, with vocals firmly positioning itself closer to the foreground. The A3H just manages to edge out the JM4 in vocal performance, though more prominently in male compared to female. The JM4 is also much cleaner and marginally clearer than the A3H, being able to pick out details that the A3H's dynamic driver sometimes smooths over.
Into the treble, both exhibit similar smoothness with the A3H edging slightly in linearity. The JM4 extends further and images an airy presentation that the A3H can't replicate.
Resolution on the JM4 is slightly better, with the A3H sounding a little fuzzy around the edges when doing a direct A/B comparison. The JM4 also wins in microdetail retrieval, being the clearer and cleaner IEM by a small but noticeable margin.
In conclusion, the JM4 is definitely the more technically capable IEM, pushing its 4 Knowles drivers to their very limits of performance. It's not a clear-cut victory though; the A3H still manages to land some good blows where its shines: in sub-bass resolution, vocal performance and treble smoothness. In overall resolution, detail and treble extension, the Jomo Audio JM4 shows why it costs more.
Reviewer's note: Comparison was made in Music Sanctuary with the provided demo set. Sonic differences may exist between the demo and the full-custom.
The S250 sits near the A3H in pricing at $350 (depending on location), sporting a dual-driver, single-bore solution. It follows the typical house sound of its Sonion 1723; a typical V-shaped IEM with a very clean and slightly thin sound. Sparkly treble with solid bass that produces adequate extension; mediocre when compared to its dynamic-equipped competition.
As usual, the A3H wastes no time in showing off its deep, resolving bass, absolutely smoking the S250 in texturing and extension. On the flipside, the S250 delivers punchy, fast bass that paces better than the A3H's comparatively slow, booming mid-bass. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison, though technically the A3H produces a better low-end.
I would give the midrange to the A3H, no contest. The S250 is rather recessed and backgrounded in the vocals compared to the A3H's intimacy, and sounds rather cold and lifeless when comparing side-by-side. The S250 can be considered analytical in this regard, though the microdetailing of the A3H's TWFK is noticeably superior, along with the better timbre and dynamics that just melts into any instrument. The S250 has its moments in rock and metal with its blazing fast driver speed, though suffice to say it doesn't produce the same emotion and buttery smoothness that the A3H effortlessly does.
The treble is another problematic area. While the A3H has its weaknesses in dullness and extension, the S250 is a polar opposite, being rather bright and edgy at times. There is a tendency for the S250 to produce sibilance in rather energetic tracks, a problem that is nonexistent in the A3H. In linearity and smoothness, it's also a landslide victory for the A3H. However, a redeeming factor for the S250 is that with all the extension and brightness comes an airy presentation that the A3H can never hope to reach.
The resolution of both CIEMs are pretty neck-to-neck at first listening, but as time goes on the difference is enough for me to call the A3H the more resolving one by a hair. The S250 does have a cleaner and clearer sound, though its edginess and rather thin midrange misses a few details that the A3H could pick up despite its warmth.
All in all, while I may have touted the A3H as the winner by a long shot, the technical differences between the two are more minute than you might think. I personally have a bias against the thin and fast sound of the S250, so against the A3H it would be like me comparing my favourite food to another I simply tolerate. However, preference aside, the S250 is still a very capable CIEM for speed junkies, so if you find yourself disliking the A3H the S250 is another solid option to consider.
The review for the newest revision can be seen on the next post.
Get this CIEM if you:
- Are sensitive to sibilance
- Are sensitive to mid-bass impact
- Have a preference for vocals, bassy strings, and wind instruments and trumpets and saxophones
- Have a more instrumental/vocal-orientated music library
- Aren't willing to shell out more than $500 for a CIEM
DO NOT get this CIEM if you:
- Prefer punch over rumble in your bass
- Are sensitive to "the veil"
- Have a preference for guitar (specifically electric)
- Have a more rock/electronic-orientated music library
[size=1em]Audio is an extremely subjective field that, in the context of higher end gear, is highly affected by the user's own sonic preferences. Especially within the purviews of what is described as "warmth", "veil", "texture" and overall emphasis and recessions of various points on the frequency response curve, it is essential that the reader understands the reviewer's own preferences and underlying biases so as to make an informed decision in their own. A headphone that may be "peaky" for one might just be "mildly bright" for another, while another that seems "muddy" to one may be "lush and smooth" for someone else. This point in particular seems to a point of contention for many; as an example, at what point does a headphone transition from "smoothness" to what is perceived as just plain muddiness? Where is the line that divides the good and the bad?[/size]
In the audio world, there seems to be polarities to every headphone's individual traits and signatures. They are, and certainly not limited to:
"Lighting" (darkness/brightness): just as how darkness is defined by an absence of light, darkness in the audiophile context refers to varying degrees of treble recession. Treble emphasis gives energy to the sound, relating it to a "bright" feeling, while lack thereof gives the sound a dim, dulled signature. One may prefer the darkness due to treble sensitivity, while the other may prefer brightness for its energy. (Darkness is also sometimes referred to as a "veil", as if a veil dulled the overall energy of the sound)
"Temperature" (warmth/coldness): affected by the overall resonance of the sound, a trait defined by decay speed and lower-frequency response. A slower decaying sound tends to exhibit "warm" traits, especially when paired with the heavier undertones of upper-bass/lower midrange (see "Body") whereas a faster decaying sound would sound "cold" and some would say "analytical" in comparison, usually with neutral bass or lower. Which leads to my next point...
"Texture" (muddy/smooth/grainy): probably one of the more subjective aspects, texture seems to derive from the coherence between the frequencies at a micro level, affected by decay speed as well (it is for this reason that you'd hardly ever hear headphones being characterised as warm-grainy or even cold-muddy). On one end of the extremes we have muddiness, a trait common in cheap, slow drivers that cause excess resonance in its sound. On the other end we get graininess, commonly associated by fast drivers with thin, almost crackly plastic film diaphragms (like in cheap Superluxes or even Grados). Most companies minimise this distortion by reinforcing or strengthening their drivers (mostly dynamic) which can be achieved in a myriad of ways. For instance, Fostex utilises biofilm membranes to give its drivers further pliability in its movement (characterised in the DX000/TH-X00 smooth house sound) while other companies choose to reinforce their drivers with metal coatings (such as titanium or more recently, beryllium).
"Body" (full-bodied/thin): while treble defines a sound's brightness, body is characterised in a headphone's bass response, more specifically in the upper bass regions bordering on the lower midranges. The lower frequencies give extra heft to the midrange, while the lack thereof makes it sound "thin" in comparison. Resonance and decay speed does play an important role in a sound's body and is the reason why certain neutral headphones can sound more or less full-bodied than others.
Common combos: warm, full-bodied yet muddy; cold, grainy and thin
Frequency response: not to be confused with "sound signature" that is the overall description of the sound with all the above traits combined, FR is the measure of recession and emphasis of arbitrary frequency ranges. Without delving into more scientific mumbo-jumbo like Harman curves and inner-ear acoustics, FR is split in six popular broad categories:
And thus brings me to my main point: the reviewer and you, the reader. It is essential than both of you are on the same page in terms of perception and if not, have a good estimate on how far your perceptions are. His perception of "thin-sounding" may be your "full-bodied"; his definition of "neutral" may even be your "recessed". Have a gauge of your differences in opinion and judge his review accordingly. For instance:
Reviewer A has made known that the SE215 is slightly balanced that could use more body in its sound. You think that the same IEM is overly bassy, warm and bordering on muddy. Reviewer A probably has a higher bass tolerance than you with a preference for volume and body, hence take his opinions and tack on some extra low frequency as a good estimate for what your own personal perception would be.
Obviously that's an exaggerated example, but you get the point. People are different, and you're going to find differing opinions on the same thing all the time. If you, the reader, can meet the reviewer on the same page as his own preconceived (and completely personal) biases, you get a much more accurate picture of the product that you're reading about.
In the audio world, there seems to be polarities to every headphone's individual traits and signatures. They are, and certainly not limited to:
"Lighting" (darkness/brightness): just as how darkness is defined by an absence of light, darkness in the audiophile context refers to varying degrees of treble recession. Treble emphasis gives energy to the sound, relating it to a "bright" feeling, while lack thereof gives the sound a dim, dulled signature. One may prefer the darkness due to treble sensitivity, while the other may prefer brightness for its energy. (Darkness is also sometimes referred to as a "veil", as if a veil dulled the overall energy of the sound)
"Temperature" (warmth/coldness): affected by the overall resonance of the sound, a trait defined by decay speed and lower-frequency response. A slower decaying sound tends to exhibit "warm" traits, especially when paired with the heavier undertones of upper-bass/lower midrange (see "Body") whereas a faster decaying sound would sound "cold" and some would say "analytical" in comparison, usually with neutral bass or lower. Which leads to my next point...
"Texture" (muddy/smooth/grainy): probably one of the more subjective aspects, texture seems to derive from the coherence between the frequencies at a micro level, affected by decay speed as well (it is for this reason that you'd hardly ever hear headphones being characterised as warm-grainy or even cold-muddy). On one end of the extremes we have muddiness, a trait common in cheap, slow drivers that cause excess resonance in its sound. On the other end we get graininess, commonly associated by fast drivers with thin, almost crackly plastic film diaphragms (like in cheap Superluxes or even Grados). Most companies minimise this distortion by reinforcing or strengthening their drivers (mostly dynamic) which can be achieved in a myriad of ways. For instance, Fostex utilises biofilm membranes to give its drivers further pliability in its movement (characterised in the DX000/TH-X00 smooth house sound) while other companies choose to reinforce their drivers with metal coatings (such as titanium or more recently, beryllium).
"Body" (full-bodied/thin): while treble defines a sound's brightness, body is characterised in a headphone's bass response, more specifically in the upper bass regions bordering on the lower midranges. The lower frequencies give extra heft to the midrange, while the lack thereof makes it sound "thin" in comparison. Resonance and decay speed does play an important role in a sound's body and is the reason why certain neutral headphones can sound more or less full-bodied than others.
Common combos: warm, full-bodied yet muddy; cold, grainy and thin
Frequency response: not to be confused with "sound signature" that is the overall description of the sound with all the above traits combined, FR is the measure of recession and emphasis of arbitrary frequency ranges. Without delving into more scientific mumbo-jumbo like Harman curves and inner-ear acoustics, FR is split in six popular broad categories:
- Neutral: where nothing is emphasised and everything is of equal priority to one another. Also known as "reference", "flat" or "monitoring".
- V-shaped: an emphasis on treble and bass with a recession in the midrange. A naturally fun sound common in many DJ-oriented headphones.
- Linear: not to be confused with neutral/flat, a linear curve refers to an emphasis on either the bass or treble followed by a downslope into the opposite frequency direction. A treble-linear curve would be bass-recessed and subsequently bright and thin-sounding, while a bass-linear curve would be treble-recessed with a dark, heavy sound.
- U-shaped: a mostly flat frequency response with an emphasis on sub-bass and very high frequencies. Enjoyed by those who find neutrality too boring but V too much.
- (n)-shaped: an emphasis on the midrange with a recession to both the bass and treble regions. Enjoyed by those for a love for mids-orientated genres or a treble and bass sensitivity.
- W-shaped: n-shaped with an emphasis on sub-bass and high treble.
And thus brings me to my main point: the reviewer and you, the reader. It is essential than both of you are on the same page in terms of perception and if not, have a good estimate on how far your perceptions are. His perception of "thin-sounding" may be your "full-bodied"; his definition of "neutral" may even be your "recessed". Have a gauge of your differences in opinion and judge his review accordingly. For instance:
Reviewer A has made known that the SE215 is slightly balanced that could use more body in its sound. You think that the same IEM is overly bassy, warm and bordering on muddy. Reviewer A probably has a higher bass tolerance than you with a preference for volume and body, hence take his opinions and tack on some extra low frequency as a good estimate for what your own personal perception would be.
Obviously that's an exaggerated example, but you get the point. People are different, and you're going to find differing opinions on the same thing all the time. If you, the reader, can meet the reviewer on the same page as his own preconceived (and completely personal) biases, you get a much more accurate picture of the product that you're reading about.
Gear references
Favourite: D2000
Neutrality: SRH940 (audition experience with the ER4XR and the HD600)
IEM reference: Aurisonics ASG-2.0
- 10mm proprietary dynamic driver
- Knowles TFWK-30017 balanced armature driver
- Dual-bore design
- "TrueXross" electrical crossover system
AAW really steps it up with their luxurious box. It opens up sideways on a hinge, sealed shut with a magnetic mechanism. Inside, you’ll receive your CIEMs (of course), a cleaning cloth, a cleaning tool, two-pin airplane adapter, a ¼” adaptor, with a warranty-and-policy booklet sealed with fancy stamped wax. It also comes with a little card with your name written on it. I don’t much care for it, but you’re the kind who’d like that kind of personalisation, it’ll be a nice treat for you.
To put it short: superb. No air bubbles as far as I can see them and consistent translucency throughout the acrylic shell. My selected faceplates, the red and blue Mother-of-Pearl, are very well made, though upon closer inspection you can see the seams where AAW joins individual shells. Which is something I’d willing close an eye for, considering the nature of working with MOP and how they hid the seams very expertly.
The tiny bass port
As shown above, there is a bass port on the shell due to the dynamic driver. However, given the size of the port, it barely makes a dent in the shell’s isolation. There is hardly any difference in isolation between my custom made silicon plugs and my A3H-Pros.
What AAW did, as far as I can tell, is that they added additional layers to my ear impressions, making it a snug fit rather than a perfect one. This creates additional pressure against my ears, which makes it a very full sealing seal. This is in stark contrast to a previous custom I've had, a reshelled TF10 by a defunct company called Stage93. This reshell was slightly more comfortable as they've used my impressions as they received it, resulting in a more "perfect" fit. However, the seal in those customs broke with the slightly movement in my jaw (turning my head, opening my mouth etc.) which made it very annoying to wear.
Personally I think this fit is a good balance between comfort and seal. Obviously not perfect, but I have not had the seal break on me at all.
Null Audio Brevity cable w/ microphone
The cable is a Null Audio Brevity cable, a soft, smooth silicone-coated braided cable that is feels very comfortable against bare skin. Microphonics are higher than average, though the custom design along with the over-the-ear position makes it a non-issue.
Sound Quality
Frequency response
Slightly bass linear (bass > mids = treble). Bass emphasis all the way into the lower midrange where it valleys, followed by roll-off in the upper treble.
General sound signature
Warm and smooth with slightly laid-back treble, very non-fatiguing sound.
Genre strengths
Jazz and vocals, instruments like trumpets, saxophones and cello
Bass
I would consider it the star of the show seeing as how it’s the first thing that pops up when you first put it on. The bass is slightly emphasised at about 5dB+/- above neutral, valleying at 400Hz and running linearly into the sub-50 frequencies, creating good rumble and pushing air like nothing else. It extends deep into the double-digits and has extremely satisfying volume and texture.
However, it wouldn’t be considered a basshead’s bass. Flatheads would assume that it’s for bassheads, while bassheads would find themselves wanting more. It's a neither-here-nor-there bass that's slightly higher in quantity than the new Ety ER4XR but not as bassy as, say, the SE215. If you’re one who prefers this kind of "on-the-fence" signature, the A3H would be perfect for you.
On another note, the A3H’s bass is not “punchy”. There is a resonant quality to its bass due to its slower driver speed and relative balance between sub-bass and mid-bass. This creates three very obvious qualities:
- It’s not very impactful but rather very volumetric and rumbly, making its bass very smooth and easy to listen to.
- This overlap between of the sub-bass over the mid-bass creates a lot of resonance at the cost of speed, making the A3H struggle with very fast tracks.
- Bass extension is superb, very easily picking out details from the lowest reaches of the bass frequencies.
If anything, the A3H is reminiscent of a tiny subwoofer, not necessarily bringing speed and imapct but rather providing a dynamic and hefty bass experience.
Mids
After the initial awe of the A3H’s bass, there was something else that crept behind its shadow. Vocals, instruments, synths… if the bass was the star of the show, the midrange was its manager. The strict, workaholic manager that occasionally played along with the star’s aloof and showboaty nature. The midrange itself is clear and detailed, but when in tandem with the weight and volume of the bass frequencies creates a much more weighted sound that borrows some low-end heft from the lower-midrange frequencies. The mids and treble are handled by the time-proven and very capable TWFK-30017, a rather premium dual-driver single-bore model by Knowles that does well in retrieving the detail out of the midrange. However, previous experience with TWFK IEMs gives me the impression that TWFK drivers tend to image a rather cold, analytical and, some would say metallic, sound.
The A3H's tiny TWFK-30017
The low-end influence of the A3H's dynamic driver over the midrange creates a sound that is very distinct from the signature TWFK mids, giving vocals that added richness and various instruments that much needed volume in their sound. The coherency between the dynamic driver’s bass and the BAs’ midrange is nothing short of amazing, reminiscent of the Aurisonic’s own famous mids.
Onto its shortcomings, the emphasis in the lower midrange (200-600Hz) does result in a "veil" that is similar to the HD650 as well a more congested-sounding space, which weirdly matches with the rather excellent width of its soundstage. Dampening that range with an EQ improves clarity and apparent detail greatly. though at the cost of smoothness and some body.
Treble
Once out of the influence of the dynamic driver, the treble isn’t much to write home about. I can tell that the TWFK has been lightly damped, removing any stray peaks in the 3k-6k regions and resulting in a very smooth and non-fatiguing high-end. As stated above, AAW has left a little sparkle in the treble in its tuning, so I wouldn’t exactly call this IEM dark by any means, but I wouldn’t call it bright either. There is definitely more treble quantity in the A3H as compared to darker IEMs like the SE215 and even AAW's own A2H.
There is a rather heavy roll-off after 9K, making the sound miss some of the “air” that’s ever-so-present in my full-sized headphones. I guess if there is a silver lining to this lack of treble extension, is that combination of the linearity of the upper frequencies along with the early roll-off greatly contributes to its signature non-fatiguing sound.
Soundstage
I’m not too familiar with IEM soundstaging, so I’ll be rather quick and brief on this aspect. Of course, it wouldn’t trade blows with my D2000s, but definitely presents a bigger stage than my ASG-2.0s. It can present a very wide stage, but when coupled with the rather congested midrange creates the illusion not unlike a small band in an orchestral hall. EQing the 250Hz and 500Hz down slightly (special thanks to tz0531 for the tip) really helps to separate the midrange apart, opening up the soundstage very nicely.
If I remember correctly, in width it seems to be on par with the soundstage of the UE900, which according to a quick Google search seems to be pretty well-regarded.
Conclusion
A very solid contender in the realm of entry-level CIEMs, the A3H performs above and beyond its price point, trading blows with well-established veterans of the field. The A3H’s strong points lie in its non-fatiguing sound and well-textured bass, as well as amazing coherency between bass and mids.
The rabbit hole just got a little bigger.
Further readings:
Lachlan's review of an older revision of the A3H
tz0531's review of the A3H-Pro
Comparisons
AAW W500 AHMorph
It's not really a fair fight on this end, isn't it? The flagship of AAW's budget line up against its Top-Of-The-Line. The A3H isn't exactly a baby W500 in default, and obviously doesn't touch the flagship in technicalities.
Straight into the bass where their pride lies, other than the fact that they're slightly north of neutral they are completely different in terms of flavour and performance. The A3H is muted and smoothed over, with a comparably fuzzy and subdued edge to it. The W500 on the other hand separates the rumble and impact beautifully, even surpassing the A3H in sub-bass articulation whilst presenting a clean, detailed mid-bass than the A3H falls short on.
There's also a very distinct difference in coherence. Where the A3H transitions its decay at the lower mids resulting in a smoother, seemingly more coherent sound, the W500 restricts the rumble at the very lowest registers, which sounds like a more abrupt transition but brings forth a cleaner, less veiled sound signature.
Into the midrange, that's where the canyon between the two deepens. The tonality of the A3H is slower, smoother and thicker, which has its obvious advantages in vocals and heavy strings. The W500 on the other hand is what I truly consider to be a "neutral" tonality; it's not as thick as the FitEar MH334 (the A3H being even moreso) but doesn't have the same analytical and cold edge as the stuff from JH Audio and Hidition. Sure, the W500 wouldn't give the same richness and depth to vocals like the A3H does, but it definitely the more versatile out of the two.
There's something else that you'll notice when you take out the A3H and put on the W500. Treble extension. There is no contest; the W500 is much airier, generates more sparkle and has oodles more detail than the A3H. If there is something I'll concede the A3H to, it's the linearity and stability of the upper frequencies. Make no mistake, the W500 has some of the best controlled trebles that I've heard out of a TOTL, but the A3H just excels in that area. However, given the sheer difference in technical performance of the two trebles, it's a consolation prize than anything.
Of course, that's not to say anything about imaging and detail. The W500 smokes the A3H in this regard, providing insane levels of microdetail and resolution that the A3H's TWFKs can only dream of having. In imaging and soundstage, it's not even close. The A3H's midrange can sound rather smoothed over, resulting in a deep but rather congested soundstage. On the other hand, the W500 decay control especially at the bottom end is nothing short of miraculous, allowing for ridiculous diffusal range and presenting a sound stage that is both deep and extremely 3-dimensional.
With the W500's AHMorph tuning knob at the blue point (full dynamic mode), the decay transition extends into the mid-bass which brings the W500's sound signature closer to the A3H. In the this I would consider it to truly be a refined A3H, providing the same richness and a thicker (but not as thick) tonality with better extension in the top end.
13/11 note: I have to send my W500 back to AAW due to driver flex issues one one side and am back to the A3H for the time being, but even after spending so long with the W500 I was still enjoying the A3H a lot. The W500 can get a little intense with its neutral tonality and more "reference" tuning, so the smooth, easy-sounding A3H was still a very much welcome change to my ears. Suffice to say, even with the addition of this TOTL to my collection, I'm not selling this budget monitor anytime soon.
Aurisonics ASG-2.0
Reviewers note: I would like to put it on the table that yes, I am aware of Aurisonics and their rather fickle history with the ASG series. Yes, I know that they have rectified the mid-bass issue with their 2.5 revision at the cost of some midrange richness. This was the only IEMs I had on me at the time of review so as to make for a more accurate A/B comparison for an IEM I feel would be a good match for the A3H due to their hybrid technologies and numerous similarities in sound signature.
The ASG-2.0 is a triple-driver hybrid just like the A3H at the then retail price of $700, almost double that of the A3H, though with some minor differences. Barring the ASG’s BA system which still remains a mystery to me till today, they use a larger 15mm dynamic driver with a tunable bass port. This allows much flexibility in the user’s bass experience, and goes from slightly emphasised to, well, just a mess at full blast.
It’s hard to quantify where the A3H sits by the ASG’s bass ports, considering as to how both of them presents bass differently. Where the A3H excels in dynamics and sub-bass, the ASG is a mid-bass and impact monster, even with the bass ports fully closed. You would hit A3H’s sub-bass level at about 2.5 notches above closed on the ASG, but the mid-bass impact and emphasis exceeds that of the A3H even with the bass ports completely shut. The first time I borrowed the ASG, I was blown away by the speed and punchiness and impact of the bass, followed by me taking it out just half an hour due to the headache it gave me. I’m rather bass sensitive in that regard; I’m all up for rumble but mid-bass impact just reminds me too much of a throbbing headache that won’t go away.
Sure, I did get used to it after a month or two, having some of that magical brain burn-in setting itself in, but it was the moment that I put on my A3H did the memories of my initial impressions come flooding back. Switching back and forth between the ASG and the A3H made it very apparent that the ASG’s sub and mid-bass balance was way off, and the A3H was by far the more enjoyable one to listen to. If you were one of the many who complained of the ASG’s bass balance, wanting more sub-bass in favour of mid-bass, the A3H would appeal to you perfectly.
Into the midrange, that’s where the ASG flexes its muscles. Both of them exudes the same kind of richness and dynamics from their hybrid system, with some slight differences. Due to the nature of the lower midrange, the mids of the A3H are thicker and much more narrow. On the flipside, the mids on the ASG are more forward, more expansive and a smidgen clearer and more detailed. However, detail and clarity are slightly pushed back as the bass ports are opened, equalling the A3H at the second notch and getting worse at the third notch, though not to the point of being muddy. Full blast is a completely different story, though.
One thing that does annoy me about the ASG is a weird peak in the upper midrange that I can’t seem to pinpoint. It could be a coherency issue, perhaps a tuning side-effect, but at any case creates a sibilance effect that I have not experienced with other headphones. It steers clear of the vocals, thank god, but the main instruments that trigger it are saxophones and trumpets. Which is quite the disappointment, considering my love for Sinatra and jazz. The A3H remains linear throughout the midrange all the way into the treble, keeping the mids nice and smooth.
Make no mistake, the Aurisonics are the more technically capable IEMs overall, having greater clarity, detail and treble extension. On the other side, the A3H betters in sub-bass quality, bass balance and coherency in the upper midrange. However, where the ASG fell short for me was in enjoyment; it took me months to like it. The A3H hooked me straight off the demo set.
FLC Technologies FLC8S
Another great IEM that is (distributed) by Singapore, the FLC8S is also a triple-driver hybrid that makes use of Knowles' TWFK dual-BA, though with the option to basically "hardware-EQ" its sound. The closest the FLC8 can get to sounding like the A3H is in the Grey-Black-Gold configuration, though there are still some things that the FLC8 can't emulate. Well, a lot of things actually.
For one, despite its amazing bass response per se, it cannot touch the A3H’s sub-bass resolution and power. The Red-Black ULF-LF configuration does well in emulating the A3H’s sub-bass rumble though at the cost of bass balance that the A3H naturally excels at.
The dynamic driver in the FLC8 is noticeably faster on the FLC8 while A3H commands a more authoritative presence even when setting the FLC8 to match the A3H’s bass emphasis (5dB above neutral), probably due to the extra reverb that the A3H’s dynamic driver produces.This has its obvious advantages in rock and electronic that are the A3H's natural weaknesses.
Going into the midrange, it's no contest in terms of musicality. The A3H’s midrange is basically the FLC8’s gold filter on steroids. It’s so much smoother and richer, providing a more intimate and enjoyable vocal experience in stark contrast to the FLC8’s cleaner but relatively more sterile mids. Just as an example, Frank Sinatra’s “Strangers In The Night” showcases the A3H’s strengths with the abundance of strings, trumpets and Sinatra’s deep voice, a timbre that the FLC8 can't dream of having despite its chameleon characteristics. On the other hand, rock sounds much more natural and energetic on the FLC8, producing a clean, quick sound that matches well with the genre.
Into the treble, both companies have gone into different tuning directions on their TWFKs. The FLC8 has a noticeable rolloff from 2K and then peaking again at 8K, but provides a much brighter and energetic edge to its sound due to the contrast, similar to that of the Fidue A83 and Shure SE846. The A3H on the other hand is dead smooth all the way to its peak at 7K, which can give the illusion of darkness to some. When swapping from the A3H to the FLC8, the FLC8 sounds somewhat harsh and almost sibilant, while when swapping in the opposite way the A3H sounds dulled and overly smooth. However, the FLC8 isn’t sibilant, neither is the A3H dull when in a vacuum. Different strokes for different folks.
Detail retrieval is more or less on par with one another in the midrange and treble, with sub-bass resolution going to the A3H and mid-bass resolution going to the FLC8S.
All in all, they are more-or-less on equal footing with one another. The A3H does some things better, the FLC8 does others better. With both of them at the same cost and at the same performance level, the questions end at whether or not you'd rather have your money go toward the custom building process or toward a universal modular system. Both the A3H and the FLC8 are extremely bang-for-buck in their respective markets and both are top choices if bass and mids are your priority.
iBasso IT03
Reviewer's note: Comparison was done in "Zeppelin & Co.", a so-called "audiophile cafe" deep in the heart of Sim Lim Square that offers a large range of demo units to try with your drink. An interesting and refreshing experience for sure!
Another one in the recent wave of cheap hybrids, the iBasso IT03 is a triple driver hybrid that utilizes the Knowles TWFK driver, just like the A3H and the FLC8. With the same configuration yet at a lower price point compared to the two, it's an interesting comparison for sure. The IT03 has a rather prominent U-shaped response, while the A3H has a bassier, warmer tilt to its sound.
Down in the bass... god, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't impressed. Sub-bass notes boom and resonate with some of the best decay I've heard, providing great darkness in the low-end. Sub-bass and mid-bass are well separated with impact and rumble clearly defined between each other, edging out the A3H's bass which can sound too smoothed over and congested at times. The A3H's bass is a hair darker and maybe a smidgen more articulate in the sub-bass, though the advantages the IT03 has in detail and separation makes it a better presentation in my book. Good job, iBasso.
Now, into the mids. Compared to the A3H, the IT03 sounds a little hollowed out and sometimes outright ring-y, especially near the upper midrange where it's almost metallic. The IT03 is noticeably drier than the A3H, with vocals taking a more backgrounded position making instruments pop out even more. The A3H on the other hand has not a single hint of metallic-ness in its sound, opting for a more intimate approach to instrumentation. It sounds warm, lush and smooth, making the IT03 sound hollowed out and thin in comparison.
The treble presentation of the IT03 is similar to the FLC8 in that they rely on contrast to boost clarity, though the IT03 is the smoother out of the two. Just like my comparison with the FLC8 it's more up to personal preference, whether you prefer a sparklier, cleaner treble or a smoother, less fatiguing one.
Into the soundstage, they could not be any more different. Where the IT03 had a very out-of-your-head, almost disjointed presentation due to its U-shaped tuning, the A3H went up close and personal, sometimes a little too close. The IT03 is very wide but is very two-dimensional and flat in its stage. The A3H is so much deeper and holographic in its stage, though is noticeably more congested and narrow.
It's a recurring rhetoric, isn't it? They perform the same but have different signatures. Well they do, and unlike the versatile FLC8S the differences between the IT03 and A3H are constant and unchanging. Prefer better bass separation and a U/V-shaped signature? The IT03 is your pick. Want a richer and more coherent overall sound? Can't go wrong with the A3H.
Jomo Audio JM4v2 (Demo set)
Reviewer's note: Comparison was made in Music Sanctuary with the provided demo set. Sonic differences may exist between the demo and the full-custom.
AAW's local competitor, Jomo Audio, is also not one to be overlooked. The revised JM4 model is ever so slightly V-shaped and very clean sounding, making it another solid option in the niche entry-level CIEM market. It's priced at US$650, so while it's still defined as an entry-level CIEM, it's still nothing compared to the budget-oriented A3H.
In the bass (ignoring quantity, the A3H clearly has a good 3-4dB above the Jomo's), the JM4's dual Knowles DTEC still pales in comparison to the A3H's dynamic woofer in sub-bass resolution. The air and rumble of the A3H creates a much fuller and weighter bass response in the low end and pushes forth details that the speedy BA drivers rush past. Into the mid-bass, the speed and resolution of the JM4 turns the tables, surpassing the A3H in rhythm and pacing. However, by itself it isn't the fastest BA around, which may be a good thing as the JM4's bass has one of the more natural decays I've heard.
The midrange is slightly recessed though not overly so, with vocals firmly positioning itself closer to the foreground. The A3H just manages to edge out the JM4 in vocal performance, though more prominently in male compared to female. The JM4 is also much cleaner and marginally clearer than the A3H, being able to pick out details that the A3H's dynamic driver sometimes smooths over.
Into the treble, both exhibit similar smoothness with the A3H edging slightly in linearity. The JM4 extends further and images an airy presentation that the A3H can't replicate.
Resolution on the JM4 is slightly better, with the A3H sounding a little fuzzy around the edges when doing a direct A/B comparison. The JM4 also wins in microdetail retrieval, being the clearer and cleaner IEM by a small but noticeable margin.
In conclusion, the JM4 is definitely the more technically capable IEM, pushing its 4 Knowles drivers to their very limits of performance. It's not a clear-cut victory though; the A3H still manages to land some good blows where its shines: in sub-bass resolution, vocal performance and treble smoothness. In overall resolution, detail and treble extension, the Jomo Audio JM4 shows why it costs more.
InEarz S250 (Demo set)
Reviewer's note: Comparison was made in Music Sanctuary with the provided demo set. Sonic differences may exist between the demo and the full-custom.
The S250 sits near the A3H in pricing at $350 (depending on location), sporting a dual-driver, single-bore solution. It follows the typical house sound of its Sonion 1723; a typical V-shaped IEM with a very clean and slightly thin sound. Sparkly treble with solid bass that produces adequate extension; mediocre when compared to its dynamic-equipped competition.
As usual, the A3H wastes no time in showing off its deep, resolving bass, absolutely smoking the S250 in texturing and extension. On the flipside, the S250 delivers punchy, fast bass that paces better than the A3H's comparatively slow, booming mid-bass. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison, though technically the A3H produces a better low-end.
I would give the midrange to the A3H, no contest. The S250 is rather recessed and backgrounded in the vocals compared to the A3H's intimacy, and sounds rather cold and lifeless when comparing side-by-side. The S250 can be considered analytical in this regard, though the microdetailing of the A3H's TWFK is noticeably superior, along with the better timbre and dynamics that just melts into any instrument. The S250 has its moments in rock and metal with its blazing fast driver speed, though suffice to say it doesn't produce the same emotion and buttery smoothness that the A3H effortlessly does.
The treble is another problematic area. While the A3H has its weaknesses in dullness and extension, the S250 is a polar opposite, being rather bright and edgy at times. There is a tendency for the S250 to produce sibilance in rather energetic tracks, a problem that is nonexistent in the A3H. In linearity and smoothness, it's also a landslide victory for the A3H. However, a redeeming factor for the S250 is that with all the extension and brightness comes an airy presentation that the A3H can never hope to reach.
The resolution of both CIEMs are pretty neck-to-neck at first listening, but as time goes on the difference is enough for me to call the A3H the more resolving one by a hair. The S250 does have a cleaner and clearer sound, though its edginess and rather thin midrange misses a few details that the A3H could pick up despite its warmth.
All in all, while I may have touted the A3H as the winner by a long shot, the technical differences between the two are more minute than you might think. I personally have a bias against the thin and fast sound of the S250, so against the A3H it would be like me comparing my favourite food to another I simply tolerate. However, preference aside, the S250 is still a very capable CIEM for speed junkies, so if you find yourself disliking the A3H the S250 is another solid option to consider.
The review for the newest revision can be seen on the next post.
Last edited:
