TLDR:

The Letshuoer S15 is an extraordinary in-ear headphone that offers an immersive audio experience. Its soundstage is wide and captures both the grand dynamics and intricate details of each instrument. The vocals are solid and robust, adding depth to the audio experience, particularly during powerful guitar and drum sections.

The S15 package comes with the product images.



Sound impression:



I had my first hands-on experience with the LCD-i4, which was an excellent IEM with its flaws and was not cheap. Later on, Unique Melody released ME1, which looked more like an Audeze IEM than anything. I bought one, and I had no regrets until I listened to it. It is the worst-sounding IEM I've ever tried. I hated the sound so much that I couldn't justify selling it, and I ended up giving it away. I then thought that the planar IEM format would be more possible to produce cheaply and get it wrong. However, the S15 proved me wrong!

The S15's bass performance is outstanding, providing a dynamic range that transitions smoothly from thumpy to punchy. The 14.8mm planar magnetic driver contributes to a strong bass response, avoiding overpowering vibrations while maintaining a substantial and impactful presence. This controlled bass quality enhances the overall fun factor when one listens to such a bass type. S15 is able to maintain such bass quality without compromising on the richness of the rest of the frequencies too much.

The S15 mid-bass is visceral, making it amazing for EDM and dance music. However, it has a strong personality that can cause a bias towards it. The S15's versatility across genres makes it suitable for a wide range of musical preferences.

While reading my impressions above, one might think that the S15 has a natural bass boast. That, was not my intention. The S15 does not have a bass boast bias, but it does let mid-bass hit shine more, should the track have a midbass focus.

I recently reviewed Spirit Torinio Twin pulsar, and to my ears, that IEM has a more detailed, tactile bass, but if my sources are right, the S15 is half the cost of that IEM. While the S15 might have less quality bass portrayal, it has a much better natural soundstage than Twin Pulse. While sound still feels within your head, instrument placement is easier to pinpoint than Twin-pulse.

The Letshuoer S15 is a closed-form IEM that is affordable. If it had been released 5 years ago or by another brand, it would have been placed easily within the 1-1.5K price bracket. It offers dynamic sound performance, showcasing technical excellence in bass, midrange, and treble frequencies. Its well-rounded sound profile positions it as a noteworthy contender in the sub $1000 bracket. Its build quality outshines some flagship IEMs I've tried this year. It is designed to be engaging, durable, and something one would use day to day without breaking the bank.

Source matching:

Oddly enough, I did not sense playing S15 from a higher-end source adding more refinement to S15. I enjoy the tonality of the RS6 S15 as much as I did with the N8ii and the Lotoo PAW S1.
I did enjoy pairing it with RS6 as I felt it added richness to the midrange.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Letshuoer S15 is an excellent choice for engaging, durable, and affordable in-ear headphones. Its well-rounded sound profile, technical excellence, and build quality make it a noteworthy contender in the sub $1000 bracket. It is perfect for daily use, providing a passive way to remove as much of the external world as possible and enjoy your favourite music on your daily commute.

Letshuoer seems to be on the right path, and I haven’t come across any product they made that sounded bad. I feel S15 can be further refined and worked on. I personally love to see a flagship planar version of the S15, with better management, a thinner membrane, and perhaps a less resonance metallic housing.

Spirit Tornio Twin Pulse Beryllium: A Balanced Assessment

Introduction

The Spirit Tornio Twin Pulse Beryllium IEM is the first Inner-Ear Monitor (IEM) produced by the Italian luxury headphone maker Spirit Torino. In this review, I aim to comprehensively evaluate these IEMs, with a special focus on their sound quality. We will delve into the design, build, comfort, and practicality, but let's start by examining what these headphones bring to the table in terms of audio performance.
I would like to take the time, and thanks, Andrea, the owner and chief designer of Spirit Tornio, for loaning me this IEM; at the end of the review, it will be going back to Italy.

View attachment DSC01709.JPG

Methodology:

When it comes to evaluating the sound quality of headphones/IEM, there's often a wealth of detail to explore. As a hobbyist, I’ve been in this hobby for long enough to know from first listen whether I will quickly mesh well with a product. However, when I want to evaluate the product from a viewpoint other than mine, things can get rather complicated. While as much as I like to stay neutral, my personal sonic performance will play a significant part.

Equipment used:
DAP: Luxury Precision LP6 Gold (where stated: Hiby RS8, RS6, WM1AM2).
Tips: AZLA Xelastec.
Cable: Stock cable with ear hook removed.
Nozzle: Silver reference nozzle.
Music:
DAWN FM, The Weeknd (R&B, POP, Dance).
Djesse Vol.1, Jacob Collier (Male vocal Jazz, A cappella).
Sex, Dope & Cheap Thrill, Big Brother & The Holding (Rock).
A Love Supreme: Live in Seattle, John Coltrane (Jazz).
Breathless, Schiller (Electronic).
Screw rework, Nils Frahm (Electronic).
So in Love, Roberta Cambarnini (Female Vocal Jazz).
Violin on Stage, Bomsori (Classical).

Ergonomics/Design

Design purpose: Beyond sound quality, the practical aspects of headphones are equally important. You might ask who the main target audience of this product is: professional users. Twin-pulse was designed for anyone needing an IEM for mastering post-production and live monitoring. The inclusion of wire in the cable will be a giveaway to the keen eyes.
Outside of your typical custom IEM, which are all balanced armature designs, needing a complicated crossover design, almost costing many times more than, no other IEMs have taken the Spirit Torino approach of professional, live mastering.
Andrea designed this reference based on his philosophy of reducing dynamic driver weakness and keeping its strength. Andrea's view is the limitation of the dynamic driver is the speed in transients from the dynamic driver while keeping it inherits coherency.
The Twin Pulse Beryllium offers commendable noise isolation, mainly due to its secure fit and the inclusion of foam tips. This ensures that external noise is effectively reduced, allowing for an uninterrupted listening experience. The comfort during extended use is also satisfactory once you are able to take the time needed to adjust the metallic wire. These headphones are designed to be worn for long periods without causing discomfort or listening fatigue.
But I’m not a professional user; I listen to my IEM mostly while lying on grass outdoors, on my bed, or on the sofa. So, for me, the metal wire causes frequent seal breakage. So, I simply removed it, which was easy.



Cable: Twin Pulse uses QDC-style 2-pin connectors, ensuring a secure cable connection. However, it is compatible with any 2-pin cable.

I found the stock cable adequate, and cable rolling did not make as much of a difference as finding the right tup.

Fit and Tips: Three things I did to Twin Pulse to improve fit were:
1) Use Azla Xelastec tip,
2) Use a shirt clip and
3) Remove cable wire.

Getting the right fit on Twin Pulse will take some playing around, and sadly, upon first listening, when you are trying to make a decision in the store, during auditioning, will result in very poor first impressions. I hope Andrea looks to improve on this in future revisions.

Sound Quality: A Deep Dive

Overview:

This item is ideal for those who listen to small chamber classical pieces or anything that does not require a large sound stage. The sound is fast, and bass decay is natural, albeit not syrupy like some other dynamic drivers, thanks to its Beryllium feature.
The sub-bass is deep and hit hard when the recording asks for it. The treble is well-extended and never harsh.
Its major weakness is the lack of horizontal spread, which becomes too much in your head for some classical larger orchestral pieces.

Listening to So in Love by Roberta Gamarini, I feel like I’m in the recording studio, hearing the recording directly from the near-field speakers. Thankfully, the magic does not disappear when I listen to the track Overture performed by Jacob Collier in his album Djesse Volume 1; I can understand all the musical elements within the recording, thanks to its well-mastered album. However, with poorly recorded albums, the sound tends to collapse. This is less obvious in IEMs like my Sony IER-Z1R, which it is built to mimic a certain sound, this issue is less obvious. Is it the fault of Twin Pulse? No, as they are designed to be mastering IEM, if the mastering is bad, it will show it. However, for audiophiles who want to enjoy Hi-Fi speaker sound in an IEM format, this can be an issue, and it is my responsibility to highlight this aspect of Twin Pulse.

Bass:

The low end, or bass, in the Twin Pulse Beryllium, is a notable aspect of their sonic signature. These headphones deliver a deep bass response that is tight and impactful. It's not an overwhelming, chest-thumping mid-bass focused but rather a controlled and precise one.
This characteristic is especially appealing to those who appreciate a balanced presentation. While it may not cater to bass enthusiasts seeking a pronounced thump, it effectively complements the overall sound signature. The Twin Pulse Beryllium manages to provide a sense of depth and warmth to the music, enhancing the listening experience. This quality becomes obvious in track Mi, in the album screw rework by Nils Frahm. The track has a deep that shows its quality and impact from Twin Pulse.

Mids:

One of the standout features of these IEM is their midrange performance. The mid frequencies are where vocals, guitars, and many key instruments reside, and the Twin Pulse Beryllium handles them with grace. Vocals are presented with a level of clarity and forwardness that stands out. The vocals are natural and lifelike, never nasal or sibilant.

Instrument separation in the midrange is another area where these headphones excel. Whether it's the strumming of an acoustic guitar, the resonance of a piano, or the timbre of various instruments in a complex arrangement, the Twin Pulse Beryllium delivers a rich, textured audio experience. The ability to discern subtle nuances in the midrange adds depth and complexity to the music. This feature is particularly appreciated by those who enjoy dissecting the intricacies of their Favorite tracks.
Solo instrument tracks are no issue. This becomes apparent when listening to Bomsori performance on her new album, Violin on Stage.

Highs:

Moving to the high frequencies, the Twin Pulse Beryllium offers a clear and crisp presentation. High-frequency instruments like cymbals, bells, and chimes are rendered with precision. The treble maintains a controlled character, avoiding harshness even at higher volume levels. It's worth noting that these IEM aren't overly bright or piercing, which might appeal to those who favour a smoother treble response.

Soundstage:

The soundstage of the Twin Pulse Beryllium is the only aspect I wish it could do better. I think it is important to remember once again that Twin Pulse is designed for professional stage usage, where a single focus on one instrument is critical. From that point of view, you cannot fault this IEM, however. from an audiophile point of view, it leaves room for the desire for a wider, more expansive soundstage.


Source comparability:

Switching between Hiby RS6 and Luxury Precision LP6 Gold, I noticed that both dap maintained the tonal balance of Twin Pule, but only thing that changed is the tonal decay. With RS6, one would be tempted to say the sound has become warmer, while LP6 Gold remains clear and sharp.

View attachment DSC01711.JPG

I normally can easily explain changes perceived while I DAP roll and recommend a DAP based on how it is able to enhance the good qualities of the IEM.
With Twin Pulse, DAP rolling does not alter the IEM overall tonal balance; the soundstage remains the same, but how the bass decays (or, in that sense, treble) alters.

If you want a slower decay, go with RS6, but if you want that sharp finish and precise decay, go with a more balanced DAP.

View attachment DSC01710.JPG

Conclusion:

As we've explored the various elements of the sound quality of the Twin Pulse Beryllium, it's clear that these headphones strive for a balanced presentation. They don't emphasize any specific frequency range to an extreme degree but aim to provide a well-rounded listening experience with a professional focus.

However, it's important to acknowledge that the term "balanced" can be subjective. What some listeners might interpret as balanced, others might perceive as lacking excitement or energy. The Twin Pulse Beryllium favours a more controlled and precise presentation, which many appreciate but might not satisfy those who prefer a more aggressive or analytical sound.

In conclusion, the Spirit Tornio Twin Pulse Beryllium IEM is a balanced offering with strengths in the presentation of the natural timbre of the instrument. It shines when the music is not overly crowded.

Spirit Tornio has crafted a pair of IEMs that cater to discerning listeners, and the Twin Pulse Beryllium represents a step in that direction. Whether these headphones align with your audio preferences depends on your taste and expectations.
This is a solid first attempt in my books, and it is amongst the most competently designed dynamic driver-based I’ve tried this year.

Interview with the designer:

I wanted to ask Andrew some questions about what led him to design this IEM, I would like to thank Andrea for his time once again.

Audionewbi: “What was the initial inspiration for creating these IEMs?”

Andrea: “My clients have made me listen to a lot of IEMs, but I have always found big problems with the naturalness of the sound.

I thought that if I could miniaturize our Twin Pulse patent, it could be a solution to this problem.”

Audionewbi: Can you describe the key design and performance goals you aimed to achieve with these IEMs?

Andrea: “The goal of this headset is to get a reliable recording monitor that could be alongside the Valkyria.

Each of our headphones must have the ability to be credible in comparison with live listening.

Audionewbi: What was the research and development process like for these IEMs? Did you try different metal finishes?

Andrea: “The research and development process of this IEM is based on the knowledge gained during the experimentation of Valkyria, which is our headphone that comes closest to live sound.

A listening committee made up of the conductor, artistic director, Spirit staff and the audience, after a few minutes, compares the real sound with the sound reproduced by our headphones.

Each member of the committee has its own perspective and analyses the outcome.
Stabilised aluminium is the best material to make this product after Stabilized Titanium.”


Audionewbi: “What materials and components were chosen for these IEMs, and how do they contribute to the product's sound quality and durability?”



Andrea: “To stabilise aluminium in this project, we could not use the Dynamat because the dimensions did not allow it; consequently, I studied a different stabilisation system:
Texalium + elastic bi-adhesive sheath dampens the resonance frequency of aluminium, resulting in a similar result.

These are materials whose behaviour has already been tested in other projects over time.”

Audionewbi: “Were there any significant technical challenges you had to overcome during the development process?”

Andrea: “Yes, of course, the miniaturisation of our patent was not easy because it provides for the balance between external and internal pressures so that the movement of the mobile group is also braked in both directions.



This means we had to devise a different way to achieve this balance.



We had to insert a series of outsides into the frame that were covered by paper filters with thickness differences to find the right sound balance.


This process always passes through the comparison between the real sound of an instrument or a voice and the one reproduced, but absolutely not by the measures that do not give any indication of the quality of the sound.


Our development is very similar to that of a musical instrument rather than a classic high fidelity instrument.”


Audionewbi: “Spirit Tornio began as a headphone company. Did any of that philosophy make its way to your IEM, or do you have a different design philosophy for your IEM?”


Andrea: “Let's start from the fact that headphones and earphones are profoundly different, but they must achieve the same result, that is, to deceive our brain that they are listening to a real concert and not a reproduction of the concert.

Spirit pays particular attention to voice reproduction.

At the end of the listening sessions with the committee, I spent a lot of time listening to the human voice of a TV series, alternating headphones and earphones to see if there were any substantial differences in the way the voice is reproduced.”

Audionewbi: “Your headphone lineup is composed of different tiers of headphones. Will you be having a similar class for your IEM?”

Andrea: “For the time being, we will take advantage of the experiences gained in this project to understand how to push the reproduction quality of the earphones even higher.

We are experimenting with different cabling solutions and tips.”

1-Prologue:​

I joined head-fi in 2010 after acquiring Etymotics ER4S when I was looking for noise-isolating earphone. Before then, I had no idea that portable audio was a thing, let alone a hobby. I remember plugging in the ER4S for the first time into my Sony Walkman, thinking this sounds different, in a good way, but why is it so under-power? I searched for whether there was something wrong with the earphones. Somehow, Yahoo led me to Head-fi (yes, I was a Yahoo search engine user).

At that time, Skylab, average_joe and CeliOS were the prominent reviewers of the “mainstream” products, and Mike from Headfonia provided insight into the niche product. There was no high-res music player—my research in “fixing” ER4S low volume led me to Xin super macro and Hifiman minibox E+, which I bought neither as I felt they were both expensive and, most importantly, I didn’t understand the concept of amplifier at all. I didn’t understand the language used in the reviews; it was foreign.
I remember getting my first 20GB Sony mp3 player, and thanks to its ATRAC file format, I learned about lossless music files.
I ended up never buying any amp for ER4S.
Instead, I tried various source improvements. That is how I learned about iPod cap mod, where ALO Audio offered modification services to bypass the iPod amp section[iMod], providing the cleanest lineout to most likely a Ray Samuel audio SR71A, SR71B

Source: mike from headfonia.com

If you wanted Flac support, thanks to the fantastic RockbFlaox community, you could turn your iPod into a flac player.

The first company to mention and push for a hi-res format was Hifiman, with the introduction of hm801. I had yet to learn what exactly that was, nor did I take it seriously for a long time.
HM801 offered no streaming, and Bluetooth audio was not mainstream, let alone in a DAP format. I remember buying the hm801 and downloading some sample songs for HDtrack, the only legal source of 24-bit audio.

Source: http://vaiopocket.seesaa.net/

I couldn't hear much of a difference, and due to poor UI, I sold my HM801, buying HM601, which I installed Rockbox and with the spare change left I bought myself ALO/cypher lab bundle for my iPod video for ultimate stack setup.
Somehow, things were more fun those days. The DIY community was buzzing with various mod, high-grade interconnects, and IEM cable started flourishing. Dac for iPod family became mainstream.
Almost everyone used an iPod for sources paired with either RSA audio intruder or ALO audio rxmk2/3.

Source: Audio-Head.com.

You all remember the stack, right? Slowly, the stakes setup was replaced by a DAC/amp. Centrance Hifi M8(top image below) was everywhere, followed by Cypher Labs 720 DAC(bottom image below).

The demand was slowly growing for all in one unit. Those who could shift made, and those who didn’t, sadly, went away.
ALO audio transitioned into IEM (Campfire audio); Centrance focuses on pro audio, and sadly, Cypher Lab is no longer in business.
Companies like ALO audio decided to spice things up and added a tube amp section, but that was way after DAP was becoming mainstream.

Source: aloaudio.com

All-in-one solutions. Digital audio players (DAPs) with high-quality DAC and amp were slowly being released. However, it was in the AK100 release that the hype of the DAP movement took place. It was the first portable, hi-res music player with a dual microSD expansion slot. It was the first of its kind, arguably leading to the DAP movement.

Source: astellnkern.com

It had gapless playback and a modern UI with optical out and lineout features. I could continue listening to all the other products that came after AK100. Still, I would like to stop there as, in my view, AK100 started the high-quality DAP movement. An honourable mention goes to AK120, which proved that Astell & Kern is not a random brand. They mean business, and AK240 proved there is a market for high-quality audio on the go, especially one going after a slightly pro user with the inclusion of 2.5mm TRRS balance out. Was it a good idea to go 2.5mm balance out or, more importantly, needed for portable IEM usage? That would be another topic of discussion.

As you can see, it took a lot of company and an evolution in our listening habits, which resulted in industry-wide changes.
I went from single-ended(3.5mm TRS) to balance (in Kobiconn format) to 3.5mm balance TRRS (and its pro variety) to the awful 2.5mm to now what appears to be industry-wide 4.4mm pentaconn format, into WAV only play, to all about measurement focused, a tonne of voltage out, to discrete design, to R2R, class A to….
So why am I writing this article now? Basically, I spent a lot of money and want to pause for a while, but before doing so, I want to make sure what I’m leaving the hobby with is a good representation of my experience over the one and half decades.

1.1 What have I learned?
If someone were to ask me to explain what I have learned from being part of the digital portable hobby movement from early 2000, I could pretty much describe my entire experience in three words:
"Sacrifice:
1. give up (something valued) for the sake of other considerations."
"Compromise:
1. expediently accept standards that are lower than desirable."
"Privileged:
1. having special rights, advantages, or immunities.
2. having been granted a special honour."

To me, to be an audiophile, who might be slightly more obsessed with sound reproduction than music, requires a lot of sacrifices, like giving up on a much-needed vacation to be able to afford an upgrade cable for my favourite IEM or allocating funds to buy the same album remastered release over and over, just so we can hear how new things in our favourite recording, instead of a dinner.
Selling items to try out the new one, only to repurchase the same hardware, I accept that perfection is an unachievable target set to keep us moving forward and, most importantly, keep the companies in business.
The best is what you have right now.
I realise compromise is sometimes needed; appreciate what you have now.
I feel privileged over our journey to be where we are now, knowing that going back 20-30 years, what we have in the palm of our hand, like portable audiophiles, would be nothing short of sci-fi.
I feel I'm where I need to be, and I feel I need to take a break and let science advance in the DAP world. But before leaving this hobby, I like to be sure that what I will have with me is a good representation of my audio preference evolution over the last two decades.

2-Methodology:

2.1 Sonic impression.

Writing DAP reviews is more complicated than writing an IEM review. It is much easier to hear sonic changes going from one IEM to another; however, with DAP, it is difficult. Why so? The difficulty is mainly due to the limit of one's IEM, assuming you do not have significant hearing loss.
It also requires the listener to deeply understand their IEM tonality and intimacy with one's favourite music; otherwise, when dealing with the high-end DAP segment, the truth is there is no wrong option; it is what works best for your headphone/IEM. The difference in the higher-end DAP matters if one also wants a DAP to power harder-to-driver, less efficient headphones. If not, assuming you are one IEM type, picking the suitable DAP is easy. The methodology I use for myself when choosing a new DAP is as follows:

"How is the sound of IEM X when plugged into DAP A vs. B vs. C? Can I hear the same changes in IEM Y and Z? (Do I notice the same perceived changes?)"

For this review, I will follow the same method. Where relevant, I will mention the IEM used; however, the main IEM used for this review are:



Why these four? They are my favourite; I know their sound well, and each response to the source amp output changes.

Before going forward, I would like to let you know that in the world of subjective review, one's preference plays a huge part. While I do my best to be unbiased, there is no substitute for one's ear. No review can replace that. In this review, I aim to share my experience, rather than as someone who is an expert in any way, shape or form. I’m just some random guy who wants to share his two cents with the rest and, in doing so, hopefully, find what is best for him.

The science of sound reproduction is very young. Hardware maturity and generational sound preference are maturing differently. An argument can be made on even music theory on how major and minor notes arouse different feelings across different cultures. For example, how happy and sad notes are perceived in various cultures is common.

Interest in High-fidelity reproduction represents a tiny section of the population, and an even smaller portion is high fidelity in the portable format.

We are the niche of the niche, and the research in our market segment is even smaller. All one can do is share their experience. Hoping that their subjective opinion forms a data point in the larger objective research.

So, with that, I continue with the rest of my thoughts.

2.2 The art of subjective findings.

How much does each part in the portable chain matter, assuming the chain consists of an IEM, a DAP, and a cable that connects the two? Why do certain IEMs sound different from each other? For example, why can a balanced armature sound different from a dynamic driver? Why do we expect different DAPs to sound different from other DAPs? I will answer these questions below.

In a portable setup, assuming one sticks to a single-box solution, two main factors play a role:

1)The DAC: What role does DAC play?
The DAC is the part that performs all the mathematical calculations. All DACs perform mathematical operations to reconstruct the original signal stored in a digital format (data) from the data, ensuring they adhere to the sampling theorem. DACs differ in how they perform these calculations and filtering (Delta Sigma vs. R-2R vs. FPGA, custom FIR filter), but they are all constrained to the same theory.

The natural question is how important DAC plays a role. Is it significant enough for one to spend thousands of dollars versus a couple hundred dollars?

I believe the DAC is the most crucial part of the chain, as it feeds the rest of the system. The argument here is that if you start with a weak DAC, it can only get worse downstream. However, we cannot fully comprehend its true potential or impact for a portable hobby (or in a larger setup in general). In my lifetime, I may hear the effect of the DAC within the mobile usage footprint (something I can put in my pocket). Still, in most cases, we are limited to the stock reconstruction filters used by the DAC chip maker. There is nothing wrong with that, but I have to admit that I have never been able to pass a blind A/B test across all my DAPS. Reconstruction filters are needed; we can read about what they do; however, not everyone can hear their effect.
Brands like Hugo, with their own WTA filter, Mola Mola, with their PWM, and Hiby, with their Darwin filter, have attempted to move away from stock Delta-sigma chips and design their own DAC and reconstruction filters, even though they all perform the same mathematical calculations.

2) Output stage of the DAP(IV+LPF+AMP): The current/voltage converter, the analog low-pass filter section and the amplification stage of your source, which feeds the IEM/headphone. Once DAC has finished its calculation, the result is usually a current that needs to be converted into voltage. (We have cases where the DAC outputs voltage; in such cases, an IV converter is unnecessary.) Afterwards, a Low-pass filter is applied to eliminate any high-frequency nasties resulting from carrier frequencies. (If you are confused, don’t worry; me too; it is all linked back to the Nyquist-Shannom theorem. I’ve provided links where I could; feel free to read them.)

I believe it's in the output stage where all talented DAPs can make a difference. Anything beyond the DAC section (assuming they have designed a proper power supply section) is where designers can get fancy and implement various enhancements. They might, for instance, apply class A amplification, incorporate a tube here or there, or use space-grade capacitors. You can think it, and they can do it if they want.

3) Transducer use: After all is done, the voltage feeds the IEM attached. This itself can get very complicated.
This review will focus on the impact of points 1 and 2 on portable audio fidelity.

2.3 IEM vs. DAP, which is more important to get first?

My recommendation to newcomers is to start with the following purchases:

1) Try to figure out your IEM first: You can improve on the sound of an IEM, but no DAP can change the fundamental tonality of an IEM. If you don’t like the sound of the IEM, no DAP on earth can change that.

2) Experiment with various DAPs: You now know what you like in an IEM? It took you maybe half a dozen purchases, and perhaps you aren’t quite sure still, but you are happy where you are now. Only now should you start looking into DAP.

3) The cable: Only after 1-2, try with cables. (This is another topic altogether.)

2.3.1 Why this combination?
It all comes down to whether the IEM you have chosen can produce timbre to your liking. Only some have pitch-perfect hearing; only some people attend a live concert regularly to experience whether their setup faithfully reproduces that live experience, which is especially important in classical concerts. It takes time for an average audience to get to that level. So, at the start, don't buy based on the target of specific steemed reviewer recommendations. You shouldn’t even read any reviews when you first start this hobby, as it will confuse you. You should try them first-hand, form a gut feeling view about it, and start doing your research.
Hi-Fi(HiFi, short for High Fidelity) is a term used to describe audio equipment and systems that aim to reproduce sound with high accuracy and fidelity to the original recording or performance. What does that even mean to someone who started? I have been doing this for a long time, and I still don’t know if IEM/headphones can even be considered Hi-Fi.
You should aim to find what sounds best for you and start there. That is, in my view, Hi-Fi in portable audio. You don’t need a handbook for this. And if you stay, like I did in this hobby, you will notice a change in your preference over time, that is okay, as it is part of the journey.

2.4 Some other random things I learned that I like to share before the central review:

2.4.1 Why this section?

I'm not an expert in this field; I can't even consider myself a beginner. However, I try to educate myself. I've formed an opinion, and all my reviews are based on these conceived opinions. Below is my attempt to share some of my learned knowledge, so before you read the main review, you can know based on what basis I’ve written the review. Again, I don’t claim to be an expert, and most likely, due to a lack of formal education, I might have misunderstood the facts.

Timbre perception: So, how does our brain perceive timbre? Wait, what is timbre?
Timbre is that thing that allows our brain to tell, let's say, the voice of your mother apart from your father. It is the quality of sound that enables us to tell different musical instruments from each other. It is the quality that most of us consider when judging whether an IEM can naturally portray the reproduction of our favourite instrument in our portable gear.

The brain's interpretation of timbre is affected by a complex combination of elements, two of which I find more important::
1) Amplitude structure: If you are into synth music, this concept is not new,
2) spectral content.

1) Amplitude structure pertains to vibration characteristics and describes how the sound's amplitude changes. It includes:

• Attack: The time it takes for the signal to rise from an amplitude of 0 to 100% (full amplitude).
• Decay: The time it takes for the signal to fall from 100% amplitude to the designated sustain level.
• Sustain: How long the single remains in its settle level
• Release: The time it takes for the sound to decay from the sustain level to an amplitude of 0.

This all forms what we call an envelope of a sound, which essentially shows the change of amplitude of sound over time.

Source:https://skytracks.io/blog/understanding-adsr/

This is the part where various DAC filters can alter the sound/timbre of the instrument (pre-ringing vs. ringing of an impulse).

2) Spectral content: This is usually analysed by viewing a sample of sound amplitude over a period alongside its fundamental frequencies and overtones. This part can get very confusing as we can have identical spectral content but sound completely different.

With that out of the way, the review begins.

2.3 Scoring Summary:

I did my best to score the DAP for all its features and all the features I wanted from a modern DAP in this era. The scoring guide table is as follows:

Below is a quick numerical score of all the DAP tests for those who would rather see a score than a written review.

3. Review:

Disclaimer: All DAP/IEM mentioned in this review are my own except SP3000, which I managed to source from Astell & Kern directly. It is a loaner unit that I will be sending back at the end of the review. I’m not required to write any positive about it, nor any part of my review has been edited by anyone other than me. I like to thank AK, especially Eileen, for trusting me. I’m in no way, shape, or form an established reviewer; I’m not even a reviewer, but just some random dude obsessed (and tired) with portable fidelity.

As I own the other DAPs, the format of the rest of the review would be SP3000ss vs. the rest. This review aims to determine whether I need SP3K before leaving this hobby for a while. Comparing the sonic signatures of the Astell & Kern SP3000, Hiby RS8, and Cayin N8ii is probably something I am dying to do, but most other folks on head-fi. Not everyone can afford to buy all this DAP and keep them simultaneously. More importantly, not everyone would have the time or patience to compare this fantastic DAP against each other. Once you enter the high-end bracket, there is no bad (at least in the DAP world, the IEM world is different).

To my ears, all of these devices cater to different tastes, and understanding their unique sonic characteristics will help you make an informed choice.

Before I go forward, all reviews use 4.4mm out, as that is where N8ii and RS8 sounded their best.

3.1 Astell & Kern SP3000: The modern gentleman's DAP, with music performance in mind.

Give credit where it deserves: The only DAP I didn’t have to think about whether I’m getting the best I can from its 3.5mm vs. 4.4mm was SP3000. Both performed well, which is essential as not all my IEMs are balanced. I have several IEMs where I cannot change the cable, and it is good to know that SP3000 is not designed based on optimising balance output and 3.5mm as an afterthought.
What makes SP3K unique in independent dual audio circuit design is that the balance is not differential into single-ended, which usually degrades the sound.

-Tonality: The Astell & Kern SP3000 possesses an accurate sound signature with a gentle warmth enough to make the DAP sound more than just a soulless tool of sound playback. It strives to faithfully reproduce music as recorded without adding excessive colouration or emphasising specific frequencies. SP3000 delivers clarity and detail, making it ideal for audiophiles who appreciate a transparent and revealing sound, and thanks to its low distortion, the sound is never bright. It unveils subtle nuances and textures in the music, allowing you to hear every instrument and vocal with precision.

The sound of the SP3000 is well-balanced across the frequency spectrum. Bass, midrange, and treble frequencies are presented with an even-handed approach, ensuring that no part of the audio spectrum is disproportionately emphasised. Perhaps some might consider SP3000ss to highlight the lower-end spectrum slightly, but this could be due to low THD.
I never once was fatigued due to the tonality of the DAP, which is the benefit of having well-engineered hardware with excellent measurement.

- Soundstage: The SP3000 typically offers a comprehensive and accurate soundstage, providing a sense of spatial realism. Instruments and vocals are precisely positioned, creating a three-dimensional listening experience.SP3K does not add artificial space to the recording; it only shows its ability when the recording asks for it. Compared to RS8, which somehow adds a vertical stage of all the soundstage.
In this regard, SP3000 is very similar to LP6. N8ii is more restricted in this regard and does not allow music with large soundstage perceptions to show them off. - Versatility: With the DAR feature, one can alter the dynamic of the sound: DSD allows a more mellow sound, suitable for Jazz and chamber music, and PCM is suitable for EMD music, providing more of an impact.
The stock warm/neutral sound signature makes the SP3000 versatile, as it works well with various music genres. Its perfect pitch-black background makes it suitable for all IEMs, and it managed to power the source-sensitive Rhaposodio Supreme 3 with plenty of voltage in reserve.
Whether you're into classical, jazz, rock, or electronic music, the SP3000 can handle them all with finesse.

3.2 Hiby You said you like soundstage. Do I have a surprise for you?

- Tonality: The Hiby RS8 have a different sonic signature than the SP3000. Sonically, one might perceive it as a W or, at times, RS8 leans toward a neutral to slightly bright sound signature, with a big lower end to match it. RS8 sound requires an hour to reach its best.
RS8 may have a bit more emphasis on treble frequencies, which can make cymbals and high-frequency instruments sound exceptionally crisp. This might be due to poorer THD performance.

RS8 sound changes with different filter settings. I’m enjoying the Ultra setting release not long ago by Joe Blogg. The strength of RS8 is the ability to have a custom FIR filter designed for it, and they make a different, quiet, audible one, too.


- Soundstage: The RS8 excels at macro-detail retrieval, making it ideal for genres that benefit from a focus on complex passages and large orchestral pieces, so it is just a joy to listen to via RS8 thanks to its ability to let the entire stage present itself perfectly. RS8 typically offers a spacious soundstage, allowing for precise instrument placement and a sense of airiness in the music.

-Versatility: The Darwin filter and the turbo mode make a difference. The user can switch between class A or class AB amplification. I couldn’t tell them apart, so I usually have class AB with turbo on, as I feel it increases bass fullness.
We also can change the gain setting.


3.3 Cayin N8ii: I’ll give you some tube goodness, just some.

-Tonality: The Cayin N8ii has a distinct sound signature known for its warmth and musicality. Its warm and lush sound signature characterises the typical Cayin house sound. It adds a touch of richness and smoothness to the music but doesn’t quite reach the typical syrupy sound one would expect from a tube.

-Soundstage: The narrows of the bunch, slightly below LP6.

-Versatility: Much like RS8, users can choose between class A and class AB. Once again, I couldn't tell them apart. The user also can increase the output voltage swing, which made an audible improvement for headphone usage; however, for IEM usage, I felt the sound felt more force and was not ideal.

What makes N8ii unique is its dual Nutube, which I loved and consistently used. This is what made N8ii so memorable.

3.4 Luxury & Precision LP6 Gold: savant of the DAP.

- Tonality: Neutral, natural, and revealing. Treble has a particularly vivid presentation, where vertical and horizontal soundstage es are not emphasised. LP6 does an excellent job of not over-emphasising it.

-Soundstage: Same as N8ii, not the widest, but slightly better than N8ii.It can scale, provided the IEM can show it, and the recording has captured it, but I feel it is less obvious than SP3K and RS8.
However, on symphony recording, where the stage is captured within the recording, assuming your IEM can reproduce it, Lp6 is less expansive than Sp3000 and RS8. You get a sense of it but would experience it like RS8 or as accurate as SP3000.

- Versatility: For its time, it was the most advanced DAP. It has a coaxial out that lets you feed your hi-fi system. It is a darn good one, too. It also could become a desktop DAC by allowing you to provide it via coaxial in. It sounds best from this setting. But it offers far fewer bells and whistles than the rest of the DAP—no streaming, no Bluetooth, heck, not even a gapless playback.
We were promised both would be fixed with future firmware, but we are now told there isn't enough memory on the MCU chip.

Summary:
In summary, the Astell & Kern SP3000 offers a neutral and accurate sound signature, the Hiby RS8 leans toward analytical detail retrieval, and the Cayin N8ii provides a warm and musical listening experience. LP6 is the most honest sounding of them.

Your preference for one of these players should align with your preferred sonic characteristics and the genres of music you enjoy most. I'd like you to know that auditioning these devices with your preferred headphones or IEMs is best to determine which fits best with your sonic preferences.

If judging based on the overall score, RS8 wins, followed by SP3K( overall score of 4.1 for RS8 compared to 4 for SP3000ss from a maximum score of 5. If you want to focus purely on sound, this review believes SP3000 is the best from the one compared in this review, scoring a 4.8 out of a total of 5.
Footnotes:
1. Emotional responses in Papua New Guinea show negligible evidence for a universal effect of major versus minor music, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0269597
2. Interesting articles on industry expert and their view of what Hi-Fi (High-Fidelity) means nowadays. https://www.gearpatrol.com/tech/audio/a35407650/what-does-hi-fi-mean-experts-explain/
3. What the hell is the purpose of LPF: https://onlinedocs.microchip.com/pr...tml?GUID-F38D940A-259C-436C-B996-06EC82FDE3D0
4. What is timbre: https://byjus.com/physics/timbre/
5. What drivers perception: https://pressbooks.pub/sound/chapter/measurement-and-perception/
6. Pretty cool: https://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/timbre-envelope.htm

Disclaimer: I initially wrote this for earphonia and I decide to also add it on head-fi. My original review can be found on the site. Also while I purchased full price for my cable it is important mention Dita audio was kind enough to also include the copper variety which I did not purchase for testing purposes. 
 
I like to thank the owner of earphonia for editing my review and please note as always these are my opinion and nothing can replace your own ears. 
 
I also like to thank dita audio for the chance to test both cable and also some picture that you are about to see within my review are directly obtained from their site.
 
Dita audio page: http://www.ditaaudio.com/index.php/products/truth-replacement-cable.html
 
Original review can be read here: http://earphonia.com/cable-reviews/dita-revolutionary-truth-replacement-cable/
 
------------------------------------------------------------

Intro:

Alright I’ll be the first to admit whenever I come across reviews about cables I mostly skip them, it is not that I’m a full blown out cable sceptic, no I do replaced my stock cable however it is never because I am after a cable that will allow me to “rediscover” my music again. If we all had a nickel every time we read that statement we all would own an Sennheiser Orpheus II by now. No I am not saying that those individual are lying, I do believe cables do alter the sound however my argument is should a cable do that? Should it be its job to do that?
I mostly change my cable for ergonomic purposes, and it should be no shock to read that till today I’m yet to be enlightened by a cable. Let’s just call me an enthusiast with a healthy level of BS immunity.
If you happen to read few cable review chances are you will come across the following conclusions:

1. Copper cable are warmer sounding, organic natural and overall has the most bass quantity;
2. Silver-plated OFC can sound harsh but not as harsh as pure silver, which leads to;
3. Silver is more resolving, revealing, colder, more treble extension, excellent bass extension but can be harsh sounding which leads to;
4. High quality silver will never sound harsh and those who hear a harsh sounding silver cable only have low quality silver cable.

 
The above is just a small example of cable material and arguments associated with it, if you dig deeper you’ll get more exotic cables which are mixture of various gold-silver, silver plated gold, gold plated silver and probably so many other variety that most of us will never hear about, those one are for the really cool kids.
The argument could possibly than include 4N versus 6N, ‘do we even have such high purity product available commercially?’ Basically in short the possibility of argument and point of view on such issues are plentiful and can make for good discussion if the parties are willing to do so in a mature way.

My view is this: Buy it, test it and if it works for you good for you. I am not the one who likes to mention the dollar value and open that can of worms. No I don’t always believe more money means better product. Sure I like to have high quality staff at low prices but sadly neither of the two is very well defined. For instant what is high quality in our hobby and where do we draw the line for a fair price? For me it is as simple as buying the best I can afford and what is best is simply a trial and error/research process based on a healthy census from the community I am part of and the sciences that is behind a product development. Having said that not all cable makers have science backing them, so we shouldn’t strictly care about fact and figures when it comes to sound as frankly the science of audio is too young and what is more diverse is how we all hear things.



Reviews don’t reveal much, nothing can replace your own ears and with that I like to go to the next stage of my writing, call it what you want but I don’t like to call it a review, as if I do so by my own logic what you are about to read is a collection of pointless statement that can never do the job of your ears. The way I like to write my audio experience is mostly how I like to read subjective account of events, since I lack formal training in this hobby I will never dare pretend to do that.

What you are about to read is my very subjective and informal account on Dita Truth cables; both the silver and copper variety.

Method:

While I did say I like to keep it informal I like to briefly discuss how I do my evaluation.

First I use a set of IEM/headphone that I intimately know. No point testing unfamiliar gears with more unfamiliar gear, not unless you are just auditioning the gears, right?



For this review I use a variety of IEM, all with MMCX type connection (I say this as there are people who believe sound can be coloured based on the connectors used and MMCX said to colour sound the most).

Just to mention the gears used the most are mentioned:

1. Ultrasone IQ: can sound wide in the right condition and very bright in the wrong condition (wrong condition are: bright recording, high output impedance sources, wrong tip)
2. AKT8iE: An impactful bass, warm sounding, a wide sound stage and an average depth. Has the potential to offer great dynamic in those classical music recording which offer such dynamic range. Responses very well with cable swapping and hence why I selected for my review.
3. Chord HUGO: Reference source and thanks to dual 3.5mm I can do direct A/B.
4. Lotoo PAW Gold: Another reference gear which I use for testing the portability/duality of the plug for portable use.

 
What got me into cable replacement at the start of this hobby was merely because my stock cable wasn’t functioning correctly and since I was spending money I wanted to I am spending my money wisely. I never thought much on how cable replacement cable can change the sound. To be honest I didn’t know it could and at start when I was reading the “APURESOUND ER4S” thread, a thread relating upgrade cable for the Etymotics ER4, the IEM that got me into this hobby and begun my interest in cable replacement, I thought the people in the thread were just making things up, I was reading the thread not out of interest of learning after a short while spending time reading that thread but I was reading mostly out of amusement. How things have changed for me!

Another reason why enthusiastic are forced to swap their stock cable with something else is when they like to use a balance amplification to drive the IEM/headphone. I am not going to discuss why such method of power delivery is preferred; I leave that to you guys to look into.
Balance amplification was first made popular in desktop usage. But slowly portable amp makers came with the claims that they can offer the same level of performance in a much more compact form. The first one that I got to know was Ray Samuels SR71B. Soon the movement was large enough for it to give rise to now having sources (iPod DAC, remembers those?) which offered line out in balance format. Slowly the DAC balance out was thing of a past as the DAP makers decided the market is large enough for them to take the best of the staking and make it in a compact format.



Basically the DAP maker claimed we no longer need amplifiers to achieve what balance amplification offers. They could offer the same level of performance for most IEM users in a much more compact format. The idea sounded good right? Well yes (depends on how you look at it) but the issue was and still is one thing: on what kind of balance connection do we settle on? At start the Kobiconn connectors dominated the portable amplifiers. Thankfully it never made its way to the DAP world. The 3.5mm TRRS to my knowledge was the first balance connection used in DAP, first used by HifiMan HM801 and still used in current Cowon flagship DAP, the Plenue S. That too had its issues, people kept frying their amp section by plugging into the wrong jack but nevertheless it was the only option available for those who wanted to have such connection. That was until Astell&Kern made an entrance to the DAP world, first they focused on single ended DAP but surely with introduction of the AK240 the 2.5 mm TRRS jack appeared to have informally become the new standard. Unofficial as it is currently it appears that it will not go away anytime soon despite the new 4.4mm JIETA standard, which adds yet another option for various DAP maker to implement.
 

 
As you can see it merely is impossible to just have one cable to cover ever possible option in an elegant manner. Various cable makers tried to do it, they offered noble yet certainly bulky option such as using the Kobiconn connectors somewhere in middle of the cable and allowing the user to change the bottom half to tailor their needs however the final product was just heavy due to part used and the final finish had a lot left to desire for. So if you belonged to the group of DAP collectors who happened to own more than just one DAP your options was to either get the bulky cable with multiple attachment or get a cable for each of your IEM terminated in your required connector. They were the only option till Dita decided to take the same mindset they applied to their debute products, Dita Truth and Answer, and produce an after-market cable that I see as a revolutionary product as far as modular cable is concerned.
 
 

Ergonomics:

It is not the most comfortable cable I own, the protection shielding wrap that used on the original IEM has made its way to this product as well. The cable discomfort isn’t due to irritation, not at all the discomfort is in how the cable has a mind of its own when it comes to wanting to stay straight.I like the ear guide used, it has no memory wire and it is very comfortable. Micro phonics is low however it can be eliminated if you know how to wear it.I find the plug size to be the same as the current popular after market jacks however what makes it bulky is the locking collar, more on this later.

Sound:

When it comes to sound I admit that I do not have the sophisticated hearing that most of your favourite reviewers have. I am not sophisticated enough to tell you I hear changes at let’s say 500 hertz or anything like that, by merely changing cables. When I listen to music I just play my favourite tracks and see how sound changes. My method is something like this: Plug the earphone to Lotoo paw gold, increase the volume till I reach a comfortable listening level, and swap the cable while maintaining the same volume. Adjust volume if require to reach the same level of comfortable listening and note changes. With that let’s discuss sound!


 
When it comes to getting to know the cable material component of Dita replacement cable there isn’t much information available. What is known is that the design is based on a 3T Van Den Hul patented design. What is that you might ask, I don’t know. There isn’t much available and it is a well kept secret. And reading into it will not make things more clear. For example according to the only link I have found about 3T and direct quoting from there “No application of Platinum, Gold, Silver or Copper in any percentage. This avoids product price changes due to wild market speculation.”
All I know it is an alloy and I have no idea of what. Here is the link for those who like to read more about it: http://www.vandenhul.com/cable-technologies/3t-true-transmission-technology

I am told both cable has the same internal 3T core design. What makes them different is the final cable coating. One has a copper coating and the other has a silver coating.

To my ears the transparency of both the silver and copper variety is identical. They are both able to reveal the Grea in the tests tracks I used. However at louder volume the two cables to my ears sounded different. For instance when I had the copper coated cable installed on the Ultrasone IQ an increase of volume enhanced the bass quantity. But in higher volumes the treble definition and I dare say extension of IQ improved when I had the silver model plugged. Also the silver variety sounded slightly brighter at the louder volumes. But that was only in loud volumes and at normal volumes I wasn’t able to detect any sonic difference between the two cables.

Another thing that will separate the two models is the silver variety requires more power. I find myself that I needed to increase the volume dial of my Lotoo Paw Gold when I swapped to the silver variety, playing the same tunes and using the same IEM.

When it comes to vocal the copper variety places more emphasis on the vocal and places them more forward whereas the silver variety has a better emphasis on string based instruments, but I really had to listen for them to hear them in such manner.



Now if I was to be perfectly honest I doubt I would be able to tell the two models apart in a blind A/B test.

As I said before I will not be the one who will say ‘when I added this cable an entire spectrum of sound was opened to me, it is like I never heard those music before’. In my opinion it is not the job of the cable to do this. Sure a good cable will improve on the sound but how do we define that improvement?

In my view cables should have the least alteration in the sound. A cable job is to be as transparent and least coloured as it can be. Great cables are able to remain uncoloured and at the same time reveal all the detail in the recording, of course assuming the source is able to extract those detail from the recording to begin with.
To me cable upgrade is the last thing an enthusiast needs to look into. After all a cable is just a bridge from the line out of your source to whatever it is attached too and if the source is lacking than the cable cannot magically add to the sound.

If you believe in the 90% syndrome that most audiophile believe in to me Dita model will easily fill in that last 10% in a cost effective manner. Imagine having one cable to cover all cases, whether you like to use a single ended source, balance you really have no reason to buy another entire cable. This is why to me this cable is price very reasonably. The technology behind the cable has a name that is trusted in the audio industry. You can be sure you are not just buying someone hobby, which is in no way a bad thing. What you are paying is a price for a cable that offers versatility for the futures. At this stage the unit comes with 3.5mm singled ended jack and 2.5mm TRRS balance jack so for now if you belong to those two group you are covered but I am sure they will release more accessories in the near future.

Recommendation:

If I was to recommend something to Dita it would be to see if they can perhaps introduce a smaller plug to screw on, as I find it a little awkward to pocket. Perhaps a straight plug can allow for reduction in dimension as I feel this might unintentionally put too much strain on the 3.5mm jack due to slightly bulky design. In terms of the overall dimension they are identical to most main stream high end after-market plugs, what makes them bulky is the locking collar which is very solid and firm. Perhaps by shortening the body of the plug in the lower portion after the locking collar it will bring the collar closer to the actual jack and as a result the bulk becomes less noticeable and it will place the collar in a position where its centriod isn’t too much of a strain to the fragile metal jacks. Whether that is possible I don’t know, as the saying goes ‘easier said than done!’

I am very happy about the cable that Dita has produced. Its modular design is future proof, and what that means is at the end in long term the end user will be the one saving more money as they no longer need to order more cable due to the unpredictable markets of the future.

I am told Dita is busy working to release various other connectors, with a new DITA 4.4mm to be release around Singapore Canjam 2017, which is where they will also be revealing their Dream product name Dita Dream, hopefully more to come about that in a near future. Need to mention what I just said isn’t directly sourced from Dita but from my sources who are close to Dita Audio.



Over all I cannot wait to see what they can come up with next. Will they ever enter the portable amplification world or perhaps the DAP world? Who knows and I can only hope they do.

1 Introduction

Shure arguably is the only brand that is well known amongst the professional consumers as well as the audio enthusiast for well over a decade and it is for a good reason. To me Shure really begun to be known to the so called audiophile world with the release of SE846, some might argue that honor is bestowed upon SE530 and SE535 but to me SE846 marked the era that Shure should be proud of, the era where Shure tried to do things differently.
While the rest of the market focus remains on increasing driver numbers in order to in large improve bass/midrange Shure focused on how to do the same thing arguably with more coherence without increasing the driver numbers and they implemented a low-pass filter in the SE846 and instantly it was a hit. SE846 was sold out for weeks in Japan and it has always gotten a very popular respond from the massdrop community whenever it appears on the audiophile section. 
And than came the KSE1500. AnakChan described KSE1500 as a revolutionary product and I strongly agree with him and I could not find a better way to describe Shures KSE design approach.
As stated before the current trend in high end IEM design is to find a way to stuff more drivers inside the acrylic shell and when that has reached its limit to the point that is physically impossible to stuff more drivers without them looking like the two pin sticking out of the head of Frankenstein the other focus is shifted on offering fancy art work to make those larger things look more appealing, which to me is a great idea as after all we are paying for a very personal product which resembles the shape of our ear, I see no harm in that however I believe end of the day what counts first and foremost is how it sounds and I rather pay more for sound than anything else. 
 
To me more drivers don’t always translate to better sound, I experienced this with quiet a few product, rather few too many. One can only push an old technology so much and so much innovation can be achieved based on the same driver and driver combinations. It is like trying to over clock a Pentium 4, an over clocked pentium 4 it is still a pentium 4 and against i7 generation it is just an old technology.

In order to take the next step a new approach is required and to me in large Shure approach in the KSE1500 clearly is an indicator of that.
The following is going to be my personal review complied over the short period of time I have owned the KSE, I will periodically update the review as I see required.
 

1.1 Brief history

 
Electrostatic headphone aren’t a young thing, the one that really started making an important impact on music reproduction have been around since the 60s, beginning with the SR-1 produced by the Japanese mastermind of of the electrostatic technology STAX. Arguably STAX  paved the path for the development of a very limited yet immensely important number of headphones, to name a few SR009 and Orpheus.
The technology in large, or at least the one that mattered for the head-fi hobbyist remained in the hand of STAX, for a very long time until Senheisser decided to prove what their engineers are capable of and as a result they commissioned their engineer to design a so called statement product, a thing that is based on the ‘money is no object’, they named it Orpheus.  Orpheus was one of a kind and Senheisser did not venture into that territory for two and half decade. There is only one way to look at it in my view and that is no matter how good a dynamic driver is designed and no matter by whom end of the day if you want the very best the technology to use  in terms of developing the best headphone one can possibly built the design has to implement an electrostatic driver. This is why despite their expertise in dynamic driver Senheisser next flaghsip product is also another electrostatic design, the HE1060.
 
I don’t want to bore you on how electrostatic work, or to but it more specifically I am not going to pretend on knowing how it works, for a very concise read I highly recommend the Martin Logan ELS101 guide, http://www.martinlogan.com/learn/electrostatic-speakers.php
 
 

1.2 What is my background?

 
I believe it is important to know a little bit of the reviewer’s preference and background and know what kind of sound signature they like. This way you can perhaps spot any possible biases their preference can bring into the review written by them. 
 
I got into the head-fi hobby back in 2006 when I just finished high school and I was about to start my undergraduate degree. The need of a good isolating IEM made me search the web and I eventually found out about the ER4S. I got into head-fi when I started searching for an amplifier for the ER4S. Despite me wanting to purchase the Xin reference or  the minibox E+ I ended up getting Fiio E7 which kept me happy for an year. The next purchases were hm601 and hm801. hm801 pushed me into this hobby greatly. And now this hobby is no longer a hobby, it is an obsession, a drug and in a sense has formed a small portion of my quest into dealing with my existential crisis (or at least that is what I call it). 
 
I always thought there will never be a true all in one product that one can purchase and remain happy, there is no such thing as ones preferred sound signature tends to change with age and as we loss our hearing, also with age. To me the key is keeping a set of product with a contrasting sound signature. And to a certain extend that mentality has remain intake after owning the KSE1500. However if I was to say if there was ever a product worthy of making anyone happy it would be the KSE1500. Its tranparency and its ability to respond well with EQ allows it to be tailoring for a wide sound signature. I am going bit off topic so in short my prefeered sound is anything that is not too V shaped. I appreciate a good warm sound without a sacrifice in treble detail.
 
 

1.3 What defines a good sound, should I sell my kidney for it?

 
What constitute a good sound? The simple answer is whatever works for you but statistically speaking however there seems to be an answer. The science of head-fi, that is the science concerning the sound produced by headphone/inner ear monitors is young compared to to the science and research put into loud speakers. The issue that we face is we know what makes for a good sound when it comes to loud speakers, at least we are confident enough to know what makes a good sound for a larger portion of the market, however the sound science discussion when it comes to headphone and of course for the case of IEM is almost non-existent (at least for IEM).
 
There are people like Dr Sean Olive from harman audio who have started doing research into headphone sound, and companies like golden ears who believe best sound is what is closes to neutral.
According to Dr Olive headphone listeners tend to prefer less bass compared to similar sound coming from a loud speakers. This is in large due to the fact that when it comes to headphone and IEM keeping a good bass responses is much easier compared to a large room where bass largely linked to the room and how well it is treated. 
 
While the research continues and in large it appears that those research are rooted in loudspeakers research there appears to be a few similiarity between what make a good sound in both headphone and loud speakers. It appears in both method of sound reproduction transparent sound holds an important status.  When it comes to what constitutes a good sound reproduction of the music as recorded by the artist in an studio the argument is anything that is able to color the sound less than the original recording and is able to produce the detail without masking them, no matter how faint those details are.
The argument is not whether the item makes the music engaging but whether the sound produced remains true to how the music sounds from the original source file. 
There are people like Dr. Floyd Toole who arguably the god father of Loudspeaker design standard who believe we can never reproduce a live recording true to how it sounded in the concert hall and we should give up trying to mimic it, there is just simply no substitute to live performance. However to him the important aspect of a loud-speaker which can be translate to the headphone world, at least for recording engineers is a set of neutral recording instruments. 
 
KSE1500 sound signature is non-existent, perhaps it is the closest thing to the neutral sound Dr Toole is referring to: something that is not having any particular peak, excessive focus on any particular focus on any particular frequency range and is able to reproduce the detail within the music track with minimum loss. 
 

1.4 General comment regarding packaging, accessories and ergonomics

 
Packaging: The packaging includes all that one needs to get started listening to music. It comes with all set of tips from Shure for one to test and figure out which works for them. I would have liked to see a hardcase large enough to accomodate both the IEM and amplifier together.
 
 
 

Source: Shure Asia
 
 
Ergonomics: My main issue  is how the cable is in the lower half, after the Y-splitter. This is where perhaps I would have liked the cable to be a flat cable. The cables passed the the Y-splitter seem to be individually meshed and than wrapped together inside a larger meshing. As a result they freely twist and slide over each other and the fabric that is enclosing them can twist and look messy.
 

 
 
 
The cable is microphonic, even with the shirt clip. It can be loud and audible if the music is quiet. I find having the cable go behind my head and using the chin-slide snugly fitted behind my head reduces the microphonic by 80%.
 

2 Testing methodology

Below I have outlined the methods I privately use when I am testing new gears for my own collection. It is in no way perfect but I hope it shine some lights on how I came about writing this review. 

 

2.1 Find a set of test track:I have chosen 9 test track of which 6 are I am familiar with and 3 I have not listened to before. The logic for this is to reduce the bias of knowing what I am about to hear. In another word the music that I am familiar with are used for testing how good is the IEM is in reproducing those details I am familiar with of and the philosophy behind unfamiliar music is to see how much detail and information I am about to hear in this new music, they are just random music. 

 
Track list:artist/album/Title:Reason for track selection

• Keith Jarret/The Koln Concert/Part 1: Excellent micro detail, piano note that sound lively and 3D. Very good for testing atmosphere/ambience
• Michael Brook/Coblat Blue/Shona Bridge: Very good for testing mid-bass, treble and overall air between different sound. Can some unbalance with most IEM (overly bass oriented). 
• Yo-Yo Ma & The Silk Road Ensemble/When Strangers meet/Mongolian Traditional Long Song: A great track to test the for sibilance in human vocal and the 3-6 kHz
• Donald Byrd/Free form/Night flower: Random track
• Coldplay/Parachutes uk edition/Yellow: A highly compressed, that almost most gear present as merely a vocal presented with other noises mashed up together. Few IEM are able to give some air and make this music sound less confused when it comes to inner ear sound.
• Jackson, Hazeltine, Reedus, Gill/Sugar Hill/Things Ain't What They Used To Be: Random track
• Various/Color of sound/Persimmon: Used for testing ambience, micro details, instrument placement. 
• Armin van Buuren/A state of trance 2012/J'ai Envie De Toi: Random track
• Various/Sounds inquiry/Being a person like him: Live piano harmonics, with certain item sound flat and with very few it can sound alive. 

 
 

2.2 Finding set of IEM:What is the point of a review if you are not going to compare it against its competition but than again I have nothing in the same technology class as the KSE. Despite this I have selected the following gears to to do my review and I have include the reason why I have chosen these IEMs. 

1. Kaede II: Imaging, bass decay
2. FAD VI: Euphonic midrange
3. EX-1000: Soundstage/transparency
4. CK100PRO: Bass detail
5. AKT8iE: Bass detail/speed/decay/midrange resolution

 

2.3 Method: I will perform a direct A/B which has been widely use and supported in loud-speaker research.

 

2.4 Terminology:To reduce any confusion the audio terminology i will be referring to is the one found on stereophile website prepared by J. Gordon Holt. This terminology has been widely used in this hobby and to reduce any bias I will do my best to use the terms as closely as I can based on that list.  Were I feel I disagree with those definition I will point out my disagreement and reasoning behind it. 

 

3 Sound impression

 

3.1 Just an idea where I am going with this review; the so called TLDR

 
If one has the patient to read all the  top of the top of the line(TOTL) IEM reviews it shouldn’t be hard to notice a trend and that trend is the reviews all seem to indicate that in large all TOTL IEM possess a distinct sound signature. For example warm lower-mid (JH audio IEM, including Layla), neutral to warm in the case of Adel A12, even the infamous UERM seems to possess a certain sound characteristic despite of its neutral oriented design mentality.
Rarely do we see the term transparent be use for what it is; in large transparency normally associated with any reproduction of sound that is free from any thing that alters the sound from the original mastering source. Listening to KSE1500 and comparing it with other IEM and to various music made me realise that KSE1500 has no tonality of its own, perhaps if we are to define what a neutral sound can be like from and IEM it is to be based around what KSE1500. To this day the neutral IEM I have listen to sounded either lean or bright. Those who had the luxury to compared the HD800 and SR009 side by side should have an easy time understanding what I mean. To me HD800 is in large a good representative of a neutral analytical and SR009 is the best of what understood a transparent sound is. Sometimes when it comes to SR009 we hear complains that it sound lean, that is perhaps because it does not like to colour the midrange where the bulk of the sound “thickness’ come from. 
To me a neutral sounding IEM can make a warmer recording sound neutral whereas the strength of a transparent source is to expose the warmth of the recording as naturally as it can and that is an important distinction I make between this two similar natured terms.
 
I think it is important to note that KSE1500 transparency will not win anyone over on the first listen, the same way SR009 probably is not going to win anyone over in a direct comparison beside the HD800. On a particular occasion I was testing the HD800, TH900 and SR009, the mentality I had was something like this: well SR009 is out of my price range however it is said to be the ultimate headphone and I must try it where as the TH900 and HD800 are in my budget. I ended up getting the TH900 which is no doubt the more coloured of the three. So in short winning people upon first listen is normally the job that is reserved for coloured IEM.
 
KSE1500 requires a long listening and those who appreciate the approach of letting the music do the colouring should rather fall for the KSE quickly. Those who also generally like the alter the sound using various EQ setting should be right in home using the PMEQ feature of KSE amp module. In larger the DAC used inside the KSE module did the job. Certainly Chord Mojo did much better than the internal DDAC but have you seen how much messy it gets if you want to go down that path?
 

 
 
 

3.2 Sound impression: How does it stack against the competition?

 
What a difference a day makes and I am not talking about the burn in phenomena (which to me had no effect on KSE1500) but more along the line of how my perception of this device changed in a matter of using it for almost a day. To be more precise around 8 hours of listening time is where I realised KSE1500 is a truly revolutionary product, there is that word again.
I remember listening to this IEM for the first time when they just arrived and with the first few track I truly was craving for that warmer sound or a little more treble detail but something about the ambience kept me wanting to keep on listening. The ambience presentation reminded me of the few headphone that i always loved to have, the HD800 and SR009. 
 
The first word that comes to my mind when listen to the KSE1500 setup, regardless of the source I am using is how transparent the sound is. KSE1500 transparency comes in two folds, first is its ability to be transparent of the analog signal that is feeding its analog input and second it is transparent of the files mastering/mixing. Whether this is a good or a bad thing will be proven over time and in large to the personal preference of the individual listening but the sound that comes out of KSE1500 is rich in detail. 
 
Detailing of a sound normally described in two manners:
 

• Macro-detail: Normally deals with sound reproduction as a whole, involving with imaging and in general the spatial presentation of sound.
• Micro-detail: The small nuance in sound, such as a faint cough of a member of audience in a live recording, it relates to focusing of sound, that is ‘the ability to hear the brief moments of silence between the musical impulses in reproduced sound.’

 
To me the macro-detail of KSE1500 is going to fall in the realm of inner-ear monitors (IEM), that is it will not be able to have an airy sound as something like the AKG K812 however that is not to say that it will not be able to present spatial cues. To my ears the instrument placement of KSE1500 is among the best I have heard in both the headphone and IEM world. It is able to best the closed back headphone I have heard, T5p, LCD XC, TH900 or at least be as equally good if not better. It is able to give enough room, or ‘air’ between each instrument in a larger symphony works to keep the sound open, which can be problem for almost all IEM, in particular the one that completely design to seal inside the ear canal. 
KSE1500 is capable of presenting the micro-detail like nothing I own before. Some might consider this presentation as a little excessive, excessive to the point that they might consider it analytical. Now my definition of analytical is something that is treble emphasised with sacrifice to lower-end detail. However as I found out in the course of writing this review my definition of analytical based on the current convention is incorrect as according to the general definition of the term analytical refer to an over-excess of detail.
To me this makes no sense, how can you have an over-excess of detail? Detail is detail, if it is present in the sound track it should be heard.
I find the level of detail that KSE1500  easy to the ears and my brain, it is like giving more data to my brain to reduce its guessing game, I feel much less fatigue when I listen to KSE1500 compared to all the IEM I mentioned above. 
 
If I was to focus more on the strength of KSE1500 after its ability to extract and renders a natural ambiance of the music the other strength of it is in the bass quality and speed. According to Dr Toole during the loud speakers testing the general bass production results in 30% of the final score of how a listener rates a speaker. Bass reproduction can make or break a product. It is the slower frequency of the sound, take longer to get to the ear and it has a longer impact on our senses, both aurally and physically. 
 
To me KSE1500 has the bass quality of a dynamic driver with the speed of a balance armature driver with zero loss in coherency.
 
In order to perhaps produce a better idea of how KSE1500 is I am going to now compare it to the IEM listed perviously using the test tracks mentioned earlier
 
KSE1500 vs FAD VI:
I choice FAD VI as to me this is truly an IEM that will sound good out of anything. It has a very nicely midrange oriented sound with a delicate yet present treble that is never fatiguing. However it is heavily coloured and it distorted so easily in the music that seems to push the treble louder than usual. This IEM will make the KSE sound lean.  
Comparing the KSE to FAD VI the obvious thing that stand out is how little micro-detail is presented in FAD VI. The VI is about the macro-detail and the human vocal, mostly suitable for vocal jazz and recording of similar nature. 
Once someone listen to KSE and transition to the FAD VI and its lack of micro detail can create ear fatigue rather easily. 
 

 
 
KSE1500 vs CK100Pro:
Those who know me from the forum know I rate the CK100Pro highly. It is perhaps the most favourite balance armature that I ever listened and owned and I tried some really nice IEM much more costly. To me the treble detail of the two are similar. However where they differ and to me quiet significantly is with how they present those details. The 100Pro are much more sensitive and picky on good recording and can sound excessively bright on bad one. For instance on track 3 of the list the 42-56 second region all sounded sibilant on the 100Pro to the point of me requiring to reduce the volume way down. However with KSE I knew the female vocal is quiet energetic however the reproduction was much more tolerable. 
 
In summary CK100pro will not be a good all rounder, KSE1500 does what 100Pro does with much more ease but on those few occasion 100pro is as capable. 
 

 
 
KSE1500 vs EX1000:
Lets get one thing out of the way EX1000 has the best ergonomics in any IEM I have tried, period. Also soundstage wise EX1000 is much wider than KSE1500, so it should be as it has an air ventilation at the back of its housing. To me micro details are on the same level. Tracks 7 which have a very large 3D sound, excellent ambiance sound and instrument placement is rendered great on both IEM. Also the microdetails that I am familiar with on track 1, Keith Jarret Koln concert are easily audible on both IEM albeit EX1000 requires a quiet room whereas KSE1500 can do that almost anywhere.
 
Now where EX1000 falls behind is on faster bass. Modern music like track 5 and track 8 KSE1500 is about the only IEM which is able to give some air to the highly compressed and centre focused sound of these tracks. On EX1000 the music is just bright, piercing bright. 
 
On track 2 the presentation of EX1000 is too forward and treble has a distorted appearance in a similar manner as of FAD VI.
 
In short EX-1000 requires the right music to sound perfect and with the right music it is as good as KSE1500 or even for some better due to a wider more open sound. To be more exact any solo piano presentation will do just fine with EX1000 but play some coldplay you will not be able to finish the entire album.
 

 
 
KSE1500 vs Kaede II:
To me Kaede II is a more matured EX1000 with more extension on on bass and treble. Arguably at times the coherency of Kaede II might feel a touch less coherent than EX1000 but in large it has a better texture and timber. 
Compare to Kaede to me KSE comes across as less engaging due to the Kaedes more energetic tuning.  The same goes with the bass which might be a little mid bass elevated on the Kaede but not to a level that is unbearable. 
In summary the things that shine on EX1000 becomes perfect on Kaede II. Music like track 6 sound identical on both KSE and Kaede or better say the different aren’t enough to make the listener pick one IEM over another. But music like track 4 perhaps makes the Kaede II a better choice due to the nature of its sound. Track 4 is a classical Jazz with a presentation of your typical trumpet, drums, piano mixture, all typically a treble oriented sound which favours the more energetic treble presentation of Kaede II. However when one performs at lower volume listening test to me KSE texture and balance wins over Kaede II, Kaede requires a louder volume to sound its best.
So in summary kaede II could better be suitable for those audiophile recorded albums, piano and jazz but when it comes to faster modern music, the more compressed one KSE1500 wins by a large margin. KSE wins in ergonomic, noise isolation and overall linearity and speed where as Kaede is truly a product that require a noise free place, it is not something you can plug and enjoy in a noisy environment. It is almost a lot more fragile than the KSE.
 

 
KSE1500 vs AKT8iE:
AKT8iE is the fastest dynamic driver I have tried, it does well with fast hitting bass however where it suffers is on most classical music due to its more forward sound signature. It is perhaps the most forward sounding IEM in the entire list. It does not have a particular bright frequency spot but it does come close, or tangentially close to sounding a little hot. It has great potential with most vocal, cello or small jazz ensemble but with larger more complex works it can sound a little congested. It does well with tracks 1, 2and 6 but suffers in terms of producing the micro detail as effortlessly as KSE1500. It also just like Kaede requires a louder listening in order for the T8iE to sound its best which can cause fatigue quicker than the wonderfully linear sounding KSE1500.
 
 
 

 

 4 Source test for KSE1500

This to me was the hardest part of the test. Below is the list of products and a general summary of how each performed:
 

1. Calyx Mreferred overall source due to the its warmer sound and UI. If UI do not matter it has the same overall tonality as Venturecraft Valoq. Alongside with Mojo I consider these three pairing on par on most ground. Mojo offered more fine tuning, a little more better midrange. If I was to be perfectly honest Mojo sounds much better than all gears paired below but I cannot say whether for most it will be enough considering how poorly it stacks. 
2. Venturecraft Valoq: refer to calyx M
3. AK120: Lean, neutral and at times little more treble oriented, similar to the DD socket one albeit less bright. In terms of detail I could not hear any more or less detail compared to A16 walkman which was a bit of a surprise for me. A16 walkman produce the same level of micro/macro detail and perhaps a better overall experience due to a considerable more superior UI.
4. Lotoo Paw Gold: Neutral, very detail sound. Can come across as cold for some listeners. It offered the same level of detail as HUGO but HUGO had more warmth. Same soundstage perhaps the largest alongside HUGO perhaps due to its lack of warmth.
5. Chord HUGO: This was perhaps the  largest disappointment. Not that it sound bad, no in fact it sounded fine. I was expecting for sound to scale more. The  colder sound of Hugo compared to calyx M, Mojo perhaps makes it little less favourable pairing with KSE1500. I have heard HUGO sound much better, to me some of the magic of HUGO is lost in KSE1500, where is that wide soundstage? What causes it I do not know.
6. Chord Mojo: Refer to calyx M.
7. Shanling M3: Similar sound as DD socket 1, more detail than AK120. Issue is that it can clip the audio and you are required to reduce the input gain setting on the KSE1500 to fix this. In general this pairing cannot be faulted if one wishes for a more detailed pairing but not as warm sounding as calyx M. 
8. DD Socket 1: Refer to M3
9. Colorfy C4: The sound was too bright, lacked detail and I do not recommend it
10. Sony NWZ-A16 walkman: refer to AK!20
11. xDuoo X3: To me this pairing also was another surprise just like the A16 walkman. This little thing was able to perform in the same league as the AK120, M3 and better than the C4. In terms of stacking this was the second best best stacking after the A16 walkman

 
So what causes all this mix result? It makes me just feel that perhaps while KSE1500 been a transparent IEM at end of the day it is a closed back IEM. This means in larger it can only sound as open as an IEM and therefore when paired with HUGO which has the potential to sound more open with other gear the pairing will cause a disappointment for those who are very familiar with what HUGO has to offer.
 
I think the strength of KSE is in its ability to effortlessly extract detail from any analog signal that it is paired with. With certain pairing like Lotoo PAW Gold one might get more detail from the sound source but is it enough to warrant dropping the internal DAC and sacrifice on portability? That is for you to decide but to me the internal DAC or the unit as a complete package can perform as good as AK120, xDuoo x3 andA16 pairing. 
 
If one doesn’t care about how it stacks and want the best Chord mojo and Chord Hugo offers the best source. However the warmer tonality of Mojo to me outshines chord HUGO.
 
 

 
Top to bottom: Sony NWZA16, Chord mojo, AK120,SKE1500, Lotoo Paw Gold, Venturecraft Valoq, Shanling M3, DD socket , Colorfly C4, Chord HUGO.
 

Top row, left to right: DD socket 1, Chord HUGO, colorfly C4, Venturecraft Valoq
Bottom raw, left to right: Shanling M3, KSE1500, Lotoo Paw Gold, AK120, Sony NWZ A16
 

5 Conclusion: The difficulty of testing the performance of a transparent sound and the future wishes I have for KSE1500

As mentioned before a transparent sound is one that simply has no particular characteristic of its own. The role of a transparent sound is to try to as realistically produce the sound of the analog signal that it is feed. If I was to describe KSE1500 using three word it would be transparent, non fatiguing. 
So how can an IEM that has no sound of its own be described, that is the million dollar question. KSE is able to reproduce nicely mastered track as good as any other TOTL headphone and what makes KSE special is in how it deals with the more compressed music.  It is able to somehow better present those compressed sound by bringing about a little more breathing room which results in a better reproduction of music to the end user. 
 
Will KSE be an endgame unit? I do not see a reason for it not to be so but in reality I think the safer answer is no. Just with all things the key is variety. Transparent sound sometimes can do with a bit of extra warmth which perhaps the sound track lacks and this is in large why high end loud speakers owners pair their solid state fancy mono-blocks amps with tube preamps and various EQing hardware. The beauty of transparent IEM is the ability for the end users to have more of control on fine tuning of the sound.
 
What I like to see in the future is more accessories from Shure and more collaboration from them with the third party designers. As stated before pairing with Chord Hugo which is a proven product over at head-fi made me wonder perhaps the reason why the pairing with Hugo did not yield in a better production could be because of the nature of the IEM itself however there is no reason for me not to assume perhaps the amp might be creating a bottle neck. As there was no other way for me to test this assumption so till we can test the KSE IEM with some after market amp it will remain only an assumption. 
Perhaps Shure can produce a new amp model with a larger battery life or better with a model using a more an up-to-date DAC chip. Not known the DAC chip is one thing, knowing that it is an older model chip would naturally make the market which is craving for the most up to date design a little uneasy. After all we are paying for revolutionary design, why go with an arguably outdated DAC?
 
What I like to see in the future is Shure collaboration with various DAP/amp makers. For instances AK and JH audio collaboration resulted in creations of a number of product that are received quiet favourably.  On head-fi Fiio rep Joe Blogg showed that Fiio is interested in producing an amp module for their flagship DAP Fiio X7. I don’t now about you guys but that idea is truly exciting, it fits this revolutionary product. It would be the first truly portable electrostatic setup that requires nothing but a DAP to power it and playback music all in one unit.
 
Partnership with amazing electrostatic amp makers like cavalli audio and headampcan only create more attention with a positive long term impact. The idea of selling the IEM alone and giving the end user the freedom to pick and choice their own package could be more liberating. But that can only be possible if the after market is willing to endorse the KSE IEM unit which I think will come down to Shure interest to work with the after market movement.
 
One can only remain hopeful and of course it goes without saying my review is strongly my own view, you can only decide for yourself.
 
Disclosure: This unit was a paid unit, I in no way or shape Am endorsed by any company or anyone.