Please see the full review with frequency response graphs and comparisons to 64 Audio U4s and Sennheiser IE 900 here!

Sound​

When I first heard the Volür, I used the m12 module as I thought it’d be the obvious choice given that it’s specially included with the Volür. Turns out, that was a mistake. It’s not that the m12 is bad. It’s just that it doesn’t quite capture what the Volür is all about - bass. So I promptly switched over the m20 module. The overall tonality can thus be described as bassy with a big upper treble peak. It’s similar to a U-shape but not quite.

Bass​

The bass is the obvious standout performer of the Volür. It has a superb sense of heft and weight while maintaining great control and tactility that never gets muddy. Notes land with aplomb. It definitely leans boomy rather than punchy thanks to lengthened decay. Altogether, the Volür delivers a large sounding sustained low-end presence that’s excellent in both classical instruments like the double bass or in modern genres with electronic beats. One thing to note though is that it has less bass contrast due to the sloping into the lower mids. Thus if you’re looking for distinctly segmented bass notes, the Volür isn’t quite it.

Mids​

Given the bass tuning and how it transitions into the lower mids, you might expect the Volür to be rather thick and warm. And while it certainly has a good helping of warmth, the sizable upper mids in that 2 - 4 kHz region counterbalances the warmth. Vocals are well positioned in the mix, neither shouty nor recessed. Vocal tone has a slight off-ness at first listen due to the centering of the pinna around 2 kHz rather than 3 kHz. But spend some time listening to it and that off-ness mostly fades as you get accustomed to the tuning (AKA brain burn-in).



As for the other instruments, they have a tasteful vividness thanks to the coloration in the lower mids and the 4.5 kHz peak helps notes pop with definition. Stringed instruments, be it acoustic or electric, are especially engaging. I’d like to say that I don’t really have any complaints with timbre except…

Treble​

That big treble peak in the graph is real. This is a consequence of the tia driver technology that 64 Audio likes to use and can be pretty hit and miss on in terms of how well it’s controlled. As we can see, it’s not exactly the best on the Volür. To be fair, while the B&K 5128 system is much more accurate than the old GRAS rigs we’re used to, we still have to take it with a grain of salt. Doing a sine sweep by ear, I found that there was only one wide-ish peak around 12 - 14 kHz instead of a consistent airiness all the way up to highest octaves. For reference I can still hear up to around 18.5 kHz.



So how does this peak translate to the listening experience? It’s a constant emphasis on certain notes and it throws off the timbre of a number of instruments. For example, the thin raking of the pick against the strings on an acoustic guitar sometimes overpowers the rich tone of the strum. Or with vocals, there’s a shimmery sibilant sheen. It’s not painfully sharp but it’s a definite edginess to the voice, particularly for female vocals. And with hats and cymbals, it’s less of a clean, crisp attack and more of a clicky or tizzy body past the transients. I expect this peak to be a dealbreaker for a lot of people. It might just be a little too grating.

While the unevenness of the treble can warp the naturality of many notes, not every instrument is equally affected and some might even be enhanced. For example, crystalline or bell-like tones have amazing clarity. In addition, your experience will be affected by the tips you use. I tried on a set of Divinus Audio Velvets and it did wonders to shape the upper treble just enough to mask some of that timbral awkwardness.

Presentation​

The technical ability of the Volür is quite good but isn’t quite to the level I expected. Stage width is excellent but there’s little height and only a touch of depth. Imaging and layering is very good - nuanced and coherent across the soundstage. But its resolution is one clear step below 64 Audio’s universally acclaimed U12t and marginally better than the U4s. While the bass definition and control makes it less smeary than the U4s, it just doesn’t quite have the raw ability to highlight hidden notes in the way the U12t does. Where the Volür stands confidently is in its bass macrodynamics. I was once almost tempted to turn down the volume at times after getting caught off-guard when a track transformed from a quiet ballad into a heavy hitting passage.

Should You Buy It?​

Maybe. If you’re value sensitive, I can’t justify the Volür over the U4s or some of the other options around the $1,500 mark. But if your wallet is a little bulkier, the Volür is a very reasonable choice for those who already love the 64 Audio sound and want to further push the boundaries in their IEM’s bass. Or y’know, if you really love purple.

Introduction​

If you’ve been around the budget IEM space over the past three years or so, Tin HiFi (or Tin Audio as they were known before) would be a familiar name. From the T2 that put them on the map, Tin HiFi has continued to release model after model, some better than others, until the T5 that we have here today. So what is the Tin T5? It’s a single dynamic driver IEM that uses a 10 mm DOC driver. What DOC actually stands for, I don’t know but the promotional pieces I’ve seen tries to relate it to diamond-like carbon DDs. Personally, I don’t really care much for marketing materials and whether not the IEM is made of some exotic compound so if you’re curious to know more about the T5 I’ll defer to its product page. Speaking of product pages, you can get the Tin T5 over at Linsoul and Drop. At the time of writing, it’s going for an early bird price of $110 though MSRP looks to be $130 once the promo ends. Alright, on to the review.

Disclaimer: I reviewed the Tin HiFi T5 from Linsoul in exchange for this honest review. I have not and will not be compensated in any other way.

What’s in the Box?​

I made an unboxing video over on the Audio Discourse YouTube channel which I’ll link here. To summarize: the T5 comes with a foamy, fake-leather case, a 2-pin recessed cable, spare nozzle filters, a nozzle replacement tool, and a cleaning brush. It also comes with 6 pairs of tips where half are your generic tips, the other half are ostensibly Spin-Fit knockoffs.

The IEMs themselves have an ergonomic dark-gray metal shell. They fit quite comfortably in my ear and isolate decently. The cable is… serviceable. Not the best but nothing too wrong with it. It has a bit of cable memory thanks to its plasticky sheath. Cable noise is relatively low but still present. I wish they had kept with the Tin T2 Plus’ cable instead. That was nice.

Sound​

First impressions… were not good. And they didn’t change over the past few days I’ve spent with the Tin T5. It’s a V-shaped IEM with bass that bleeds into the mids with a lower treble spike. The Tin T5 is a $130 IEM that looks like $200 but sounds like a mediocre $50 IEM. That pretty much sums up my thoughts around the T5 in a couple of sentences. From here you can probably tell I won’t be recommending this IEM, and even if I try to wax poetic about the different parts of its sound, it’s a moot point. Still, for the sake of the review and for those still interested, keep reading. Actually, please keep reading so I don’t feel like the 5 hours or so writing I spent this review isn’t wasted.

Bass​

The bass of the T5 is boosted but isn’t particularly good. Quantity wise, I’d say it isn’t quite to basshead levels but there’s still plenty of bass here and it does extend and dig down when called for. Quality wise, it sounds a little soft and doesn’t really slam. It’s the boomy type of bass rather than punchy. Note definition is generally poor unless you put on a track with superb mixing/mastering. The bass also bleeds into the low mids quite a bit. I hesitate to call it muddy because it doesn’t really sound like what I’d normally associate with mud, but definitely has some of that unpleasant bass intrusion and lack of clarity in that region. The only instrument that worked for me on the bass were low/floor toms.

Mids​

Low mids bleh aside, the upper mids are actually fine for me. The pinna gain is pretty reasonable and centered around that 2.5-3 kHz mark so that’s nice to see. This has an interesting effect on vocals. If a vocalist is solo and singing a strong, clear melody with an emphasis on the upper harmonics, the tone is actually pretty OK. The vocalists sounds front and center. But as soon as the song starts to get filled out with various instruments and complex passages, the T5 struggles. Vocals fade into the mix and loses prominence. I think its because as more of that low mids energy comes in, the vocals have a hard time separating from the other instruments in the track and sounds suffocated as a result. As for these other instruments, they’re mostly a blur to me. Nothing particularly bad but nothing worth noting.

Treble​

If you look at the graph, you can see a spike at the 5 kHz mark for the treble. Personally, my ears are pretty resistant to treble so the peak doesn’t affect me that much. I also don’t hear it to be overly sibilant though your mileage may vary. What this peak DOES do is make hats/cymbals sound splashy and gives them a decidedly unbalanced sort of sound, throwing off their timbre substantially. For some, the treble of the T5 will be fatiguing. I find that despite its negatives, the treble spike does give the T5 some energy to prevent it from being dead. But I don’t find the T5 bright in the way the T2 Plus or Thieaudio Legacy 4 was with their constant crisp and shine. This is just splashy with the occasional burst of sharpness if the track hits that spike.

Presentation​

Bog standard from IEMs and nothing special. Average soundstage, maybe slightly below average imaging. Resolution isn’t anything better than something like the T2 Plus. It has an overall undefined sort of sound. Instrument separation is a problem spot for the T5. Once you have a full band going the T5 just can’t keep and instruments start to blend into each other’s spaces. Of course, this isn’t helped with its less than stellar staging.

Some Graph Comparisons​

Despite the graph of the T5 not looking too hot at first glance, it does share a few elements with other more favorable IEMs.

Here it is against the Thieaudio Clairvoyance. Yes, obviously there’s that bass bleed and 5 kHz spike. But if you look just the upper mids around 1-4 kHz region, it’s not far out of the ordinary. Here is where that inconsistency with the vocals come in I think. On some tracks it sounds fine. In others, especially where the voice either touches the spike or utilizes the lower frequencies more, the T5 runs into trouble.



Here it is against the Tin T2 Plus. The bass curves almost identically. But I find the T2 Plus to have a much cleaner sounding bass response with more definition than the T5 does. The T5’s bass is oddly murky when a full band is going.


Make of this what you will. I just wanted to give a bit of context to the T5’s graph and some of the odd thought I had while listening to it.

Should You Buy It?​

No. While the Tin T5 is far from the worst thing I’ve ever heard, I cannot call it good. It’s one of those things that if you had it as your only IEM and listen to it for long enough, your brain will get used to its sound and it’ll be OK. But put it by any real measure of decent and the T5 is clearly second fiddle. I’m not sure what’s going on at Tin HiFi but they seem to have lost their way when it comes to what made their tuning unique since the T4.

Even if you prefer this sort of more bassy tuning compared to Tin’s traditional lean and bright signatures, I think T2 Plus does everything the T5 does better at half the price. Better cable, better fit, lighter shell. Way better tonality and treble tuning. Better resolution and definition. While the bass tuning might look similar, the T2 Plus bass doesn’t feel as intrusive into the low mids like the T5 does. So much for that fancy DOC driver. Where the T5 may be a $130 IEM that sounds like a mediocre $50 IEM, the T2 Plus is a $60 that sounds like a mediocre $200 IEM. I’m fairly happy listening to music with the T2 Plus. Listening to the T5 is a chore.

Anyway, I think I’ve made my point. The T5 is not an IEM I can recommend to… anyone really. Buy the T2 Plus or some of the other great IEMs in this hyper competitive price segment. The T5 is a regression to the mean but maybe that’s exactly what Tin HiFi wants. Maybe they’ve done the math and are coasting on their brand awareness to sell mediocrity to more people rather than interesting products to a few. Who knows. What I do know is I don’t like it and after the T5, my interest in the Tin HiFi brand has faded.


Written by Fc-Construct

Introduction​

For today's review, we're going to be looking at a new brand to the IEM scene, SeeAudio. More specifically, this review will cover the SeeAudio Yume which is their entry-level model at $170 which sports a 1 DD + 2 BA configuration. What's interesting about SeeAudio is that while they are a new company to the scene, I've heard rumours that they're founded from ex-QDC employees. For those unfamiliar with QDC, they make some of the best TOTL IEMs on the planet, with the QDC VX being the most notable. At any rate, if there's any truth to this rumour, it would certainly lend a semblance of credibility to their products compared to yet another random-name-generated ChiFi company.

Disclaimer: I received the SeeAudio Yume from Linsoul in exchange for this honest review. I have not been compensated in any other way.

What's in the Box?​

Following the footsteps of Moondrop, SeeAudio's packaging has an unabashedly Japanese influence to it. I won't comment further; I'll let you decide what to think of it.



Inside the box are the IEMs, a carrying case with the cable inside, and 8 sets of tips: 4 silicon, 4 foams. Oh and you get some cute (?) stickers I guess. The tips are generic but I quite like the 2-pin cable. Its soft and pliable with little cable memory or noise.
The IEM itself is a standard affair. A blue/black ergonomic resin shell that's comfortable in the ear. I will say the fit is quite tight and I get a really strong seal. It has an interesting faceplate design with its logo and embedded green speckles that glimmer beautifully when the light is just right.

Sound​

As usual, I like to open with my first impressions before really diving into talking about how I feel about them after listening for over two weeks or so. Three things about the SeeAudio Yume stood out to me immediately at first glance. One: the tuning is an excellent balanced-neutral signature. Two: the staging is weak. Three: its technical performance is middling.



Unfortunately, it looks like the DD of the right unit of my Yume is dead. It doesn't look like any other reviewers have this issue so I'll chalk it up to bad luck. I'll proceed with my review as normal keeping in mind that it will sound bassier in the left.

And yes, if you're familiar with Antdroid's target, the SeeAudio Yume does measure practically dead on except for the subbass. My own preferences line up very closely with Antdroid's target so its no surprise I quite like the tuning of the Yume.

Bass​

As a hybrid IEM, the Yume boasts a dynamic driver to handle its bass which is always greatly welcomed. Rather than a bass shelf popular with a number of tunings nowadays, the Yume goes for a downward sloping response starting from the subbass and gently landing in the low mids. This gives it a very clean midbass while maintaining subbass presence when called for. Quantity wise, the Yume falls within that Goldilocks zone of having just enough quantity to provide sufficient presence without being the centerpiece of the overall sound. Think Etymotic ER2XR's bass slope except with more subbass from the 60 Hz mark down. I think that's a pretty reasonable move lend more impact at the very low end.

Unfortunately, if you were looking for a thunderous rumble in the low end, the Yume doesn't have that. Instead, it offers a rather textureless one-noted bass punch. Not that there are many IEMs (if any, really) with great bass in this price segment but still, the Yume's bass does fall short against benchmarks like the Tin T4 and Moondrop Starfield. The bass of the Yume's direct competitor in the Thieaudio Legacy 4 sounds a bit like a supercharged version of what the Yume offers thanks to the ostensibly better DD in the L4. That said, it's hard to fault the Yume too much. The bass does what its supposed to: hit a well-crafted tuning target.

Mids​

The tonal balance in the mids is extremely good. The low mids transition cleanly from the bass and possess the very slightest uplift that keeps it from sounding sterile or lean. The upper mids has about an ideal pinna peak of around 3 kHz and strikes superb balance of being forward but not shouty. Vocals are well positioned front and center. Instruments have a very slightly relaxed sound without embellishment. No complaints about the timbre either unless you want to be excessively picky about its BA nature. Despite throwing a number of tracks at the Yume, its tonality maintains rock solid no matter.

I'd go so far as to say that from a tuning perspective, its mids is probably among the best I've heard in an IEM, including the $1,400 Fearless Dawn x crinacle. But what the Yume lacks is the addictive quality that comes with the Dawn. It lacks the technical performance of the Dawn that really elevates that IEM from simply great tuning to a wholly enjoyable experience. While tuning of the mids in the Yume is about as good as you'll get, it somehow fails to truly captivate me. I forget about it the moment I take them off. This isn't a knock against the Yume necessarily: the vast, vast majority of gear I've heard have a similar problem regardless of price. It's what separates IEMs that stand the test of time and those that don't.

Treble​

Like the rest of the IEM, the tuning of the treble is quite good though it does lean on the safe side. There's decent treble energy throughout though it does start to dip out in the upper treble. Once again, no real complaints. It passes my treble test pretty easily; cymbals and hats sound nice and natural, limited only by the quality of the recording. The overall "feel" of its treble falls between the bright touch of the Legacy 4 and the soft, overly dampened treble of the Moondrop Starfield. The lack of peakiness makes the Yume a strong choice for those treble sensitive but has just enough sharpness to prevent it from sounding totally dead.

Presentation​

From its outstanding performance in the tuning department, its technical prowess is downright "normal". Its soundstage has a noticeably in-your-head feel. Imaging is your standard 3-blob affair with little height or depth. While I always like to say that almost all IEMs suffer from this problem to some degree, the Yume does lean into this problem just a little more than its contemporaries. On tracks with great stereo panning, the soundstage and imaging sounds unnatural on the Yume, like there's a sense of a sort of artificial stretching of the stage rather than gentler, diffused sort of sound.

Admittedly, the resolution isn't as bad as I thought it was initially. Though I wasn't impressed at the start, now that I've spent a decent amount of time with it, its detail retrieval is better than the generic $50 range I would've initially put it in. But it's still middling. I'd say that it falls short of the Tin T4 and Moondrop Starfield but is competitive with IEMs shy of that benchmark. As for instrument separation, at least the Yume does a solid job here. Instruments don't feel like they're tripping over each other competing for stage space.

Comparison to Thieaudio Legacy 4​

The Legacy 4 comes in at $195 and in my review of it, I said that it represented a strong $200 benchmark. It's a well rounded IEM that has both solid tuning and technical performance. The Yume chooses the approach of min-maxing. It's easily the one of the best tuned IEM around regardless of price. But the presentation of its overall sound leaves a little something to be desired. Some combination of its weaknesses, be it the soundstage, the softer touch of its treble, its one-noted bass, etc. holds it back from being the new IEM to beat.

Personally, I'm not as enamoured by absolute tonal perfection. I find that as long as the tuning meets a general threshold of "good enough", my focus shifts to an IEM's technical performance and its overall presentation. As such, I'd rather take the Legacy 4 for its more complete nature than Yume's master of one. The L4 has more "character" to it that tips the scales for me, if that makes sense.

Should You Buy It?​

Yes. Despite prefering the L4, there absolutely is a place for the Yume. At $170, the SeeAudio Yume an easy top 5 or so recommendation for its price range and the best if tuning is everything you care about. If you never want to touch an EQ, nothing in the <$300 price range challenges it. To say it sets the benchmark for tonality in IEMs would be unfair to new contenders. And truth be told, I really don't want every IEM to follow the Yume's tuning. Variety is, after all, the spice of life. That said, while Yume may not be the spiciest IEM out there, it'll serve as a great reference in the future to remind myself what an ideal tonality should sound like.

In conclusion, I'll draw a possibly blasphemous analogy. I think of the Yume a bit like the HD600. It's not exactly the best headphone in terms of technical performance. It has a small stage (intimate, if you want a nicer spin), the bass doesn't really slam, and its treble is little smoothed over. But very very few headphones match its tonal performance and with no real competitors, the HD600 is my defacto recommendation in the mid-fi realm. In the same way, the Yume outdoes almost everyone else in the tuning department. Unfortunately, the IEM space is significantly more competitive than the headphone space and the Yume is going to need to fight for its market share. Still, hats off to SeeAudio. Their debut IEM to the most contested market space brings something more than worth talking about.

Written by Fc-Construct

Introduction​

If you’re mildly familiar with the ChiFi IEM scene over the past decade, DUNU may have been one of those brands you’ve heard but never really given any thought to. At least, that’s the way it was for me. Yet in the last couple of years or so, DUNU has appeared back on the scene with a variety of new IEMs.

I was pretty curious about DUNU and reached out to them for a bit of a history lesson. To roughly paraphrase what their global director of business development Kevin told me:

“DUNU started as an OEM business incorporated in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China back in 1994. From there, DUNU started to engage in audio forums like Head-Fi in the 2010s. But around 2015-2017, they had to shore up some business in China (N.B. which explains why they’ve been quiet over the last few years) before returning back to the global stage. Specifically, over the past three years, DUNU has invested heavily in R&D for Beryllium-based dynamic drivers. This is reflected in their flagship DUNU Luna and upcoming IEMs.”

Click to expand...

At any rate, the past year has been especially fruitful for DUNU as they’ve found runaway success with the topic of today’s review: the DUNU SA6. Ironically, it doesn’t tout a Be DD. Falling squarely in the mid-fi price range at $550, it’s a 6 BA IEM with a single tuning switch for what DUNU calls an “atmospheric immersion” mode. Without further ado, let’s get into the review. And make sure to check out the video version of this review on Youtube!

Disclaimer: DUNU sent me the SA6 for review in exchange for my honest thoughts. I do not get compensated in any other way. Shoutout to Kevin and Tom at DUNU for their time and providing me this opportunity.

What’s in the Box?​

The SA6 comes with a comprehensive set of accessories. It includes a fairly classy faux-leather zipper case, 11 sets of SS, S, M, and L tips, a cleaner tool, a 3.5 mm to 6.5 mm adapter, and DUNU’s DW-03 modular cable that can hotswap between 2.5 mm, 3.5 mm, and 4.4 mm jacks. Personally, I’m not a big fan of the cable. It’s a cool concept but the cable is on the heavy side for me and has a fair bit of cable noise. On the upside, it has little cable memory and the L-shaped jack is greatly appreciated in these modular-style jacks when the length of the connector can start to get unwieldy.

The IEM itself is rather small and very comfortable in my ears. Isolation is good. It has a single tuning switch at the top that thankfully does not require a SIM tool to flip. The shell is made of a translucent smoky resin with a strikingly gorgeous faceplate. These shells are apparently handmade and the faceplate is made from stabilized wood that you can get in many different colors. Unfortunately, it looks like the exact color and pattern you get each time will be random and unique. Gives it a very nice one-of-a-kind artistic feel in my opinion but you’ll be rolling the dice a bit on what the final faceplate will look like. I think mine looks stunning and I’ve seen a few other beautiful pieces too, so good luck if you grab one!

Sound​

My first impression of the SA6 was “yea, this is an all BA IEM”. It’s definitely not bad, just that it has that classically BA-like sound. After having done nothing but review hybrid IEMs for the past year, that non-dynamic bass timbre was quite noticeable. My second thought was that these IEMs sound very nicely balanced. It has a smooth, forgiving sound signature. Bass is at a comfortable level, mids are lightly relaxed, and treble has an odd balance to it that I’ll get into. The tuning switch adds a slight 1-2 dB boost in the lower mids and bass on the ON position. Despite this minor bump in the low end, it absolutely has a meaningful effect on the bass response, going from a lighter punch to a weightier thump.

Bass:​

The bass of the SA6 is what I’d consider high quality BA bass. Where it lacks in a deep, bodied bass response seen from top tier dynamic drivers, the balanced armatures of the SA6 has that characteristically fast decay accompanied with a tight, reactive punchiness. What stands out about the SA6’s low end response is how well controlled it is. In some of the tracks in my library, it can be hard to tell if the track itself is poorly recorded or if the IEM/headphone can’t keep up with it. With the SA6, I never get the feeling that it fails to handle the track. What’s more impressive is that the SA6 does this without compromising low end quantity. It doesn’t need to rely on a lean tuning to as a way to capture that sense of control. The bass doesn’t bleed into the mids and there’s not a hint of muddiness or bloat.

There’s a healthy amount of low end volume that lends to the overall balanced tuning of the SA6. On the stock 1 position, the bass of the SA6 is light and leans punchy, giving a it clean cut low end that doesn’t sound sterile. On the so-called “atmospheric” ON position, that punchy bass takes on a weightier, thumpy type of sound that’s a whole lot fuller. While this transformation isn’t exactly dramatic, it definitely adds a different dimension to the SA6’s sound that I suspect many people will enjoy. I personally prefer it on the ON position for more bass oomph to compensate for the BA nature of the SA6. My only complaint would be a lack of a substantial DD-like subbass rumble and impact. Otherwise, the SA6’s bass response is nicely spread across the low end spectrum without sounding like it centers around the mid or upper bass. I’ve found that when some other IEMs that try for a fast, punchy sound or a deep rumble, they end up too pigeonholed in only the midbass or subbass and gives up the other parts of the bass range.

Mids:​

The mids of the SA6 can be described as tonally pleasing and smooth. There’s no sense of incoherency as the bass transitions into the lower mids. Notes are well defined. Tuning wise, while the SA6 certainly isn’t lean, it isn’t warm either. There’s not really any elevation in the lower mids and there’s plenty of upper mids to dissuade that notion. Speaking of the upper mids, I find it to be at a tasteful volume. Not too much that it sounds overly forward or shouty but not recessed that it’s hidden or smothered. Vocals are well positioned front and center without a glimpse of sibilance. I don’t detect any sort of peakiness that might put someone off. Instrument tone is excellent. Unlike the bass, there’s no BA timbre here. Like most other great sounding IEMs, the SA6 has a strong midrange showing with little to nothing to complain about.

Treble:​

The treble of the SA6 is pretty unique. It’s non-fatiguing and easy to listen to yet it doesn’t shy from being fully present in the mix. It’s also very forgiving of poor recordings. Listening to hats and cymbals, the initial attack is partly muted while the backend sizzle has more prominence. It gives the illusion of having a lively and unabated treble without fatigue. Looking at the FR graph, it’s easy to see what’s responsible for this. There’s a fairly large dip right at the start of the lower treble around the 5 kHz mark before recovering around 7 kHz. The de-emphasis on the lower treble and subsequent elevation of the mid treble gives rise to a clear presence that doesn’t sound aggressive. This dip also has the added benefit of avoiding common pain points for sibilance or harshness. While I’m usually a fan of having crisp hats and cymbals, I’ll give the SA6 a pass here. Though this tuning strategy does forgo some of that natural lower treble energy, instrument timbre is still mostly preserved. Other than the hats/cymbals, I’d say the other common instrument that’s notably affected is the sharp crack of the snare. For the smooth, overall balanced tone that the SA6 strives for, its treble complements it very well. My only nitpick is that I wish there was more upper treble extension to give air and brilliance but that’s a complaint for almost every IEM I’ve listened to.

Presentation:​

Soundstage and imaging on the SA6 is on the good side of average. It’s what I’d expect for mid-fi but nothing to write home about. Good width with a couple of steps in height and depth. Imaging is solid. Instruments are well separated and properly defined. Similarly, there’s a bit of a layering effect that positions instruments such that they never feel like they’re congested or fighting for space.

Resolution on the SA6 is about as good as its gets until you reach top tier levels. I’d say my only nitpick on the technical side is its slightly diminished dynamics. I do get a bit of a sense that soaring vocals or thunderous kicks seem to hit a bit of a wall at the very peak. But to be fair, this complaint extends to most every IEM except for the truly outstanding.

All in all, the DUNU SA6’s technical performance and presentation sets a robust benchmark for mid-fi. Some of the keen eyed among you may have noticed that the SA6 tuning is rather similar to QDC’s TOTL models, especially with the 5-6 kHz dip. Based on my brief demo of the QDC 8SH, despite the similar tuning, the SA6 is undeniably still a step down. While it’s clear that the SA6 still has a bit of a ways to go before the throne of TOTLs, it comfortably stands its ground in the court of other great IEMs.

Should You Buy It?​

Yes. The DUNU SA6 is simply a really good IEM. While it doesn’t necessarily have anything that’s particularly groundbreaking, every part of this IEM comes together beautifully for an experience that’s well worth the $550 price tag. It even managed to surprise me in some ways. I didn’t think I’d prefer the bassier ON tuning nor expect to enjoy this sort of treble tuning this much. And this may be petty but I do like knowing my SA6 is possibly the only one in existence with its specific color scheme and wood grain pattern.

From what I can see, the DUNU SA6 faces two threats. The first is the Moondrop Blessing 2. While I haven’t heard it, my guess is that the SA6 won’t beat it terms of sheer price/performance. Though you could always make the fit and comfort argument I suppose. The second challenge is that the SA6’s relative lack of a “special sauce” may make it susceptible to being supplanted by similar IEMs at better price points in the future. That said, whether those hypothetical IEMs will ever exist is a question in itself. And it doesn’t detract from the value that the SA6 brings to the table. In fact, to put things in perspective, I’d probably get a DUNU SA6 over the Thieaudio Clairvoyance. Between the price and the fit, the SA6 is better value for my money (though the Monarch is still safe).

To conclude then. The DUNU SA6 is an easy recommendation at $550 for almost everyone looking in that price range. This is an IEM that has rightfully earned its praise across a multitude of reviews. Though the hype train may be gone at this point, I’m glad I had a chance to toss my hat into the review ring. I hope DUNU keeps up the good work and continues to release other great IEMs. Only time will tell if that opening story about their R&D efforts was just marketing speak or the seeds of a great future.

And perhaps the greatest praise I can give the DUNU SA6 is that when the pandemic ends, it may be the new daily driver to replace my beloved Sony MDR-EX1000. Ultimately, audio is all about compromises and the SA6’s set of pros and cons might finally be the one that outbalances the EX1000’s.

Written by: Fc-Construct

Introduction​

A little while ago, I posted my review of the Focal Elex thinking it wouldn't be a while until I had a chance to review another Focal headphone. Well lo and behold, the folks over at headphones.com reached out to me and asked if I'd like to review the Focal Clear after seeing a conversation I had with a friend on Discord asking if I'd compare the Elex to the Clear. Obviously, I wasn't going to say no. So here is my take on the Focal Clear vs. the Focal Elex. Do read my Focal Elex review before this one! I'm going to assume you have for this review. I also did a video version of this review on Youtube! Though the content is mostly the same, I take a more conversational style in the video that changes the dynamics of the presentation so check that one out too for a fuller picture!

Housekeeping​

Before I start though, there's a few housekeeping items I need to point out regarding the Clear. First, it costs $1,500 vs. the $700 Elex. That said, I'm fairly certain you could probably buy it closer to the $1,000 mark if you find a sweet deal or go the used route. Speaking of deals, most of you are probably already aware of this but the Clear is sold through Focal's dealers while the Elex can only be obtained from (Mass)Drop. I'll get to the implications of this in the conclusion but it is a distinction to keep in mind. As for the build, the Elex uses the same pads as the Clear but the same drivers as the Elear. Those concerned over the quality control over the Elex's drivers may feel more at ease with the Clear as I haven't seen reports of its failure. Of course, this is a much more complicated topic with a lot of misinformation floating out there so I won't discuss it any further.
I also want to point out the existence of the Focal Clear Pro which ALSO costs $1,500. Despite the pro moniker, there is no sound difference. The only difference is the red/black aesthetics and an extra set of pads with the Clear Pro vs. the two extra sets of cables you get in the Clear. The main cable also changes from a cloth-like fabric to a more traditional rubbery coiled cable on the Clear Pro. To be honest, I don't see why you wouldn't get a Clear Pro since those extra pads are a $200 added value.
Finally, in the time that I've written this review, it looks like the Focal Clear Pro Mg has been released at... $1,500. No word on the non-Pro version. I don't know what's going on with the Focal Clear lineup but if I were a betting man, I'd say the Mg version is meant to replace the standard Clear. This review will be focused on the regular version vs. the Elex but watch out for those Mg reviews!
Finally finally, I'd like to thank headphones.com for sending me a loaner unit of the Focal Clear to review. All they ask is that I mention their name here. As always, this review will consist of my honest thoughts.
Phew that was a lot. Let's get started.

What's in the Box​

The Focal Clear's box is a minimalist black box with a slideout design. Inside is a carrying case containing the Clear along with a 3.5 mm and a 1/4 in adapter. There's also a box that opens up like a book containing two more cables. One is a 1/4 in cable and the other is an XLR cable. They have the same lengths. Finally, there's a user manual.
The cables are the same as the cable on the Focal Elex, except with a lighter gray. It is similarly awful. The fabric sheathing introduces a ton of cable noise. There's an insane amount of cable memory and constantly kinks in the shape it was shipped in. Please get a new cable for yourself if you pick up a Clear.
As for the build itself, it's built exactly like the Elex except for a light gray color instead of all black. I did notice that the pads and headband had a more substantial feel compared to my worn-in 2-year old Elex that gave in at a fairly light touch. But otherwise, they're the same. They're hefty but comfortable for 2-3 hours before I need a break to relax my neck. I get a really nice seal with these headphones so no complaints there.

Sound​

The Clear and the Elex sound surprisingly similar in a lot of ways yet have subtle differences that give life to each individual headphone. The main difference really comes down to tuning. Though they're tuned very closely to each other, the Elex draws my attention to the top half of the frequency response while the Clear focuses my thoughts on the lower mids and bass. Where the Elex emphasizes the primary melodies of a track, the Clear reminds me not to forget about the subtleties in the background.

Bass​

The bass and lower mids of the Clear sound like they have about a 1-2 dB bump over the Elex. This elevation isn't focused around say the subbass or midbass, but rather it's an overall perception of meatiness in the low end of the Clear compared to the leaner Elex. Where the Elex's bass is tighter and lighter, the Clear's feel weightier and nuanced. The Clear's better bass resolution, rumble, and refinement is lightly reminiscent of the Utopia. This improved bass quality and elevation is what makes me consider the Clear to be more low end focused compared to the Elex. It's as if the Clear is comfortable spending time exploring the intricacies of the notes in the bass and lower mids; I'm able to more easily pickup on the trailing backend character of notes that may get passed over when the Elex slams and moves on. An simple example is the kick drum: on the Elex, I mostly hear the defined attack of the beater head. On the Clear, the body of the kick blends seamlessly in to fill and round out each note with an added layer of character. The same could be said for the toms and even the guitars, though to a lesser extent.
In some ways, the bass of the Clear sounds like what I tried to EQ the Elex to. Though I tried to increase subbass quantity for a larger impact, I wasn't pleased with my EQ as I found the Elex needed to remain lean to get the most out of its clean slam. By adjusting the bass, that cleanness would be marred ever-so-slightly, enough that I felt the tradeoff wasn't worth it. Though the Clear doesn't solve that issue, the sense of physicality and weightiness of low notes was the missing piece of the puzzle I didn't have in my EQ attempts. While the Clear didn't manage to achieve my dream of a clean, thunderous subbass slam like I was trying for on the Elex, I was met with a more mature solution. For those considering the Clear vs. the Elex, this is where I'd say the Clear has its most definite edge over the Elex unless you're a diehard fan of a lean tuning.

Mids​

Continuing the story from the bass, the lower mids of the Clear are warmer and more coherent than the Elex. What stands out about the Clear is its coherency and nuance in that transition region between the bass and the lower mids. I find a lot of headphones and IEMs struggle getting sound across in this critical region but the Clear has no trouble at all. To be fair, the Elex doesn't have an issue in this area either. It handles it easily. But its leanness does mask some of the challenges that are often presented here.
For how good the lower mids are, it's the upper mids of the Clear that fall short. There's a bit of edginess to the upper mids that make it slightly sibilant on certain vocals. The sharp Sss sound is especially pronounced on wispy female vocals or when a sharp breath is taken. As mentioned in my Elex review, the Elex seems to always toe the line when it comes to vocal sibilance; it gets right to the threshold without ever crossing it. A similar sort of effect happens with the Clear where I can sense it stretches right up to that threshold... anddd steps over it occasionally. While the lower mids of the Clear does smooth out the sound of the mids as a whole, it isn't enough to soften the edginess of the upper mids. As such, I think the Elex does have a better tonal balance for vocals. That said, I do want to emphasize how subtle this difference in the upper mids can be between the Clear and Elex, especially depending on the vocalist. For some singers, I had to A/B test the tracks to check if it wasn't just the recording.
I find that instrument tone is slightly better on the Clear as it isn't as affected by the upper mids edginess nearly as much as vocals are. The lower mids warmth and coherency of the Clear works beautifully if you're looking for something like the emotional sounds of a moody electric guitar. The Clear's rendition of these stringed instruments really shine in quieted segments. But if you primarily enjoy high-paced rock or metal tracks, the Elex's lean mids may be advantageous. As mentioned at the start, I find the Elex is very good at bringing forth the main melodies of a recording and part of that reason is its ability to sound effortlessly clean in the mids.

Treble​

The treble of the Clear and Elex is pretty interesting. Neither is truly brighter than the other, though sometimes that upper mids edginess does make its way into the lower treble of the Clear. The Elex's treble is pervasively forward; I continuously hear the crisp sound of the hats and cymbals in tracks where they have any level of prominence. The Clear's treble are more mellow, with the warmth from the lower mids balancing the overall tone. Because it's less crisp than the Elex and has a lengthened decay, the Clear's treble oftentimes sounds just a bit more natural to me where the Elex can sometimes feel a little exaggerated. It adds a sense of musicality and emotion that leads to melancholic enjoyability. I find that the Clear is also more forgiving of poor recordings as it doesn't amplify the metallic sound of badly recorded cymbals nearly as much as the Elex does. In terms of airiness, neither headphone really has much top end air or sparkle.

Presentation​

From a staging perspective, they're extremely close. For soundstage, I'd say the Elex takes a small edge here, maybe about 5% larger at most. Imaging wise, I want to say the Clear pulls ahead though part of that perception may be because the Clear sounds just a bit more coherent than the Elex.
On a resolution level, the Clear has better resolution, mostly in the bass and lower mids where it's more nuanced. Though it is hard to tell if its simply because there's more quantity. Regardless, the low end of the Clear is more satisfying and it's where the Clear pulls ahead of the Elex. It has the ability to make subtleties in the background pop just a bit more. When I'm listening to a familiar track, background instruments and melodies are more noticeable. Especially those that play in the lower frequencies such a deep snare roll. The Clear manages to paint a clear, nuanced picture of those notes. When I listen for the same thing on the Elex, I can hear it but it's less noticeable and the overall "image" in my head is fuzzier.
Instrument separation and layering is better on the Clear as well. The overall presentation is just a little more mature on the Clear and elevates its sound compared to the Elex. I'd say that, to some extent, the sheer dynamism of the Elex, its slam and lean tuning, causes it gloss over some of the finer details that the Clear lays out. I do think the Elex is the more dynamic headphone by a small margin and sounds a bit cleaner as a whole thanks to its tuning.

Should You Buy It?​

Yes, if you want something a little thicker than the Elex and have deep enough pockets for it. Let me be the first to say that the Clear will NOT beat the value the Elex brings to the table. For all the compare and contrast I've given in this review, both headphones honestly sound quite similar to each other. Diminishing returns and the like; the truth is when headphones are this good, differences are often partially exaggerated (unintentionally) just to be able to illustrate them. At $700, the Elex is pretty much the best value Hi-Fi headphone you can currently get IMHO. The HD600 is nice but the Focal Elex and Clear are truly in a different league from it.
At $1,500, the Clear is more than double the price of the Elex. So what does it bring to the table? Ultimately, it really comes down to that layer of musicality in the low end. Its coherency and nuance brings this tactile physicality to the lower mids and bass that cannot be said of the Elex. Combined with better instrument tone and a more mellow treble, the Clear has an overall more mature sound than the aggressively slammy Elex. But its greatest flaw is the slight upper mids edginess and sibilance on vocals. For those who are extremely sensitive to vocal sibilance no matter how small or infrequent, that may be enough to prefer the Elex. Otherwise, I think the warmer, bassier signature of the Clear should appeal to more people.
Going back to the question of worth: one of the bigger justifications for paying the huge premium is quality control and dealer support. In my Elex review, I touched briefly on the potential concerns over the Elex's driver failure. The Clears do not have this issue (or at least, nowhere near the same extent). Furthermore, with the Clear you get 3 years of warranty from Focal instead of 1 year from Drop with the Elex. Obviously, how good this warranty will be would partially depend on how good your dealer is but in general, aftermarket support from dedicated audio dealers like headphones.com or similar companies should be better than Drop. While I don't think it's worth more than double the price of the Elex, it is something to consider.
And make no mistake, not every new Clear sells at $1,500. If you message a dealer and ask nicely, they may give you a sweet little deal on them. Or if you're lucky and there's an open box Clear in stock, you might get a pretty good discount on that too. Or even a used set since the 3-year warranty transfers. All that to say, I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a Clear for around $1,000 or less with a little bit of luck, making the value proposition much better.
To conclude then, I suppose I should tell you which I prefer. It's actually a pretty simple decision. Since I own an Elex, I'll stick with it for now. If you follow my reviews, you'll know that I like a lean tuning and forward treble so the Elex is right in my wheelhouse. But if I owned neither and assuming the price difference wasn't an issue, I'd probably get the Clear. While I will absolutely miss the superior vocal balance and lean cleanness of the Elex, the physicality and coherency in the low end of the Clear is quite hard to beat.

Written by Fc-Construct

Introduction

After the release of the Thieaudio Legacy 5 a few months ago, I could've sworn I saw a comment on the Linsoul Discord saying that there weren't any more plans for a new IEM from Thieaudio for a while. Well, here we are with the Legacy 4. At a $200 price point and a 1 DD + 3 BA driver setup, it lands right between the older Legacy 3 (1 DD + 2 BA) and the newer Legacy 5 (1 DD + 4 BA). What makes the L4 interesting is that it takes the concept of tuning switches from the L3 but builds off the design philosophies of the L5. It also introduces a new DD that's supposed to be an upgrade from the one found in the L5 and Monarch/Clairvoyance. Thus, the obvious question that immediately follows is: is the L4 better than the L5 for $50 cheaper? With that in mind, lets take a look at the Thieaudio Legacy 4.

Disclaimer: The Thieaudio Legacy 4 was provided to me by Linsoul in exchange for this honest review. I am not or will be compensated in any other way.



What's in the Box?

I must say, I am extremely impressed with package that the Thieaudio Legacy 4 comes in. You get a massive carrying case that holds the IEMs, tips, and IEM case. This case is made of rather decent material and does NOT feel cheap at all. You get 6 sets of generic S, M, L tips. The smaller rectangular IEM case is very similar to the larger overall case and houses a 2-pin cable. The inside of this IEM case even has a soft furry lining and a pillow-like bed. To be honest, I can't help but think that Thieaudio probably could've saved everyone like $10 with simpler packaging but hey, this unboxing experience was a welcome step up from your standard cardboard box.

The 2-pin stock cable that comes with the L4 has pre-molded ear hooks and is very good. Soft, pliable, light, little cable noise, little cable memory. Every cable should aspire to be at least of this quality. The fit and comfort of the L4 is excellent as well. The shell is small and very light. I get a tight seal that causes a little bit of DD crinkle upon insertion. There is a lack of a nozzle lip on the L4. Combined with the tight seal, sometimes ear tips get stuck in my ear when I try to remove the L4. It's a minor annoyance, but an annoyance nonetheless. Finally, there are two tuning switches on the L4 for a total of four tuning options. You will have to use a SIM ejector tool or similar as these switches aren't accessible otherwise.






Sound:

My first impressions of the Legacy 4 were positive. As expected from the newer Thieaudio IEMs, the mids tuning is on point. The real difference maker is the new DD. Compared to the L5, the bass is much tighter and responsive. Coupled with a forward treble, the Legacy 4 sounds lively. From this standpoint, I think the L4 is differentiated from the L5 which has a more relaxed and laid-back signature. I find myself more inclined to listen to energetic tracks with the L4 than slower ballads.

Tuning Switches:

There are four total configurations for tuning the Legacy 4. I don't know why Thieaudio insists on using ON and KE as names for the switches. So I'll opt for a standard 00, 01, 10, 11 system.



Interestingly enough, the first (ON) switch ostensibly has no effect on the frequency response. I was pretty surprised by this as I was ABing the switch quite extensively before graphing and thought that it affected the bass by a little bit at the lowest registers. For me, when that switch is up (0 position), I felt that the bass right at the interface between subbass and midbass had a little more of a thump to it. By contrast, in the down position, the bass was cleaner and better defined. But looking at the graphs now and trying to AB it again, I feel like I can hear that difference but it's diminished enough that I'm starting to wonder if it was some sort of placebo effect in the first place. Ah, the wonders of psychoacoustics.



The second (KE) switch has a much more straightforward dip in the mids. Though it looks pretty significant on the graph, it's a lot less drastic in practice. The biggest deviation is about 2.5 dB in the mids at about 500 Hz. I'm a lot less sensitive to changes in this part of the audio spectrum compared to say, the upper mids and treble. Thus, this switch adds a noticeable but subtle mild V-shapedness to the L4. What's also interesting is that if you normalize the curves to the 1 kHz mark, they look extremely similar. But since I didn't change my volume between AB testing, the un-normalized curve is how I interpreted it.



I prefer it in the up position and will move forward with this review using the 10 setting. Just keep in mind these two points on the tuning switches if you want to translate my review to a different setting.

Bass:

The bass of the L4 is reasonably elevated to provide a consistent bass presence without being overbearing. It extends nicely to give subbass rumble. But really, the L4 is more of a midbass IEM. It opts of a controlled presentation rather than a booming bass response. The bass quality in the L4 is a breath of fresh air from the slower, tired feeling DD of the L5. The driver is fast and punchy. It feels tight and raring to go. Resolution is solid with a nuance that isn't smoothed over like other DDs. Instruments are well defined and the L4 particularly shines with the bass guitar and kick. If I had to nitpick, I'd say I wish the bass had more impact and better texture. But given the price point and overall quality, the L4's bass is plenty enjoyable.

Mids:

I'm not sure how the 1 DD + 3 BA is exactly configured on the L4, but I can say that I don't notice any oddities in the transition from the bass to the lower mids. It sounds natural and done cleanly without sloppiness. There's not much to say here other than it sounds great on my 10 setting. The mids tuning is comfortable and just feels right. There's a very good balance between instruments and vocal presence. Vocals never fight for space on the L4 and takes a clean center stage. Try as I might, I can't really think of anything to nitpick here.

But if you were on the 01 or 11 setting, the mids do change a little. It becomes thinner and less full. With instruments, I barely hear a difference. But with vocals, the lower harmonies sound a little sucked out. To be honest, it's pretty subtle and if I didn't actively AB test it to see which I preferred, I probably wouldn't have cared if I was just using the L4 casually for commute. At any rate, I strongly suggest that if you do get an L4 to try it for yourself and see which you prefer.

Treble:

I really like the treble of the L4 but those treble sensitive should be a little wary. It's well elevated and doesn't try to smooth over or hide anything. However, there is a small peak right around the 5 kHz that can occasionally make music sound a little harsh, depending on how well the track is recorded anyway. Thankfully, I don't hear any vocal sibilance despite that peak. This bit of treble elevation does make the lower treble of the L4 sound crisp. As the rest of the region is similarly elevated, decay rings out naturally.

In fact, other than the slight brightness, I'd say the treble of the L4 represents a starting point of what a well tuned treble should look like. It passes my hats/cymbals tests rather easily and avoids a lot of the common pitfalls that IEMs have in the treble. It doesn't try to hide the lower treble nor does it have major dips and valleys that throw the timbre off. The only thing I'd say is lacking on the L4's treble is upper treble extension for air/sparkle but you only ever truly see that on a small subset of IEMs anyway.

Presentation:

I'd say that the soundstage and imaging of the L4 is on the good side of average. There's a bit of depth, not a lot a height, and decent horizontal width. Imaging is relatively nuanced within that stage. Layering is constrained due to a lack of perceived depth but separation isn't an issue thanks to how well defined instruments are with the L4. Resolution is solid for its price class. Altogether, the L4's technical performance here is what I would consider the benchmark for $200.

Now I will note is that the Legacy 4 does sound kinda compressed. But when I compared it to the L5 or other IEMs I had lying around, they performed at about the same level. I think it's less about the L4 being compressed but rather the fact that thanks to the L4's energetic tuning, it amplifies this limitation commonly found on IEMs.




Should You Buy It?

Yes. It's a very good IEM. As strange as this may sound, I think of the Thieaudio Legacy 4 as an upgraded version of the Tin HiFi T2 Plus. Beyond the technical improvements, the bass is fixed, the tonal balance of the mids are improved, and the L4 retains the brighter treble tuning. With the ~$100 price range being dominated by the Tin T4, Moondrop Starfield, and Etymotic ER2, it's nice to see an IEM that anchors the $200 price point. That said, if you're happy with the T4/Starfield/ER2, I wouldn't upgrade to the L4. It's better if you're coming for the budget $50 class of IEM like the aforementioned T2 Plus.

For the most part, I think you can safely skip the Legacy 3, save a bit more cash, and opt for the Legacy 4 instead. Whether or not you should get it over the Legacy 5 is a bit of a tricky question. I think for most people, the Legacy 4 should be the one you get. But if you specifically want a more laid-back tuning for listening to music as you work, the Legacy 5 remains the better option. I find the L4 to be a great commuter IEM but if I'm working, it's a bit too energetic for me.

Overall, the best thing I can say about the L4 is that I really did enjoy listening to it over the course of this review. I try to spend a couple of weeks listening to gear before I review them and sometimes it's a pain to listen when I'd rather spend my time with something better. With the L4, it was easy to reach for it and enjoy music. For now, at the $200 mark, I'm satisfied with the Thieaudio Legacy 4. I do have the Seeaudio Yume in my review queue, which is another $200 IEM that's been gaining some traction, so I look forward to seeing how that stacks up.



Written by Fc-Construct

Introduction

Today we're going to take a look at the LZ A7, a $338 IEM with a rather exotic 1 DD + 4 BA + 2 piezoelectric driver configuration. Though I have seen it go for $280 on sale at (Mass)Drop. What's unique about the LZ A7 is that it comes with 5 sets of tuning filters in addition to the tuning switch on the IEM itself. This means the LZ A7 has a staggering total of 10 different tunings! That said, this isn't the first time that LZ has made IEMs with tuning filters. I remember demoing to the LZ A4 a few years ago and wasn't impressed with it. How will the A7 fare with a few iterations under its belt?

Disclaimer: The LZ A7 was provided to me by Linsoul in exchange for this honest review. I am not or will be compensated in any other way.



What's in the Box?
Interestingly, the LZ A7's box is wooden. Though its clearly a cheapish box, big props to LZ for going the extra mile. Nestled inside in the foam is the LZ A7 itself and a circular carrying case. Inside the case is the MMCX cable, tuning filters, a tuning tool that looks like a SIM card ejector, and 3 unique sets of S, M, L tips for ta total of 9 pairs of tips. One is the whirlwind tips, one is the super generic silicon tips, and the last is a set of weird gummy, rubbery tips. I find that each type seals differently in my ear and settled on the gummy ones. YMMV. The cable is quite good. It's soft, pliable, no cable memory, and little cable noise. You definitely won't be needing an aftermarket cable for this.

The fit on the LZ A7 is excellent. It adopts that Shure shell that makes it quite comfortable in the ear. Isolation is alright. The LZ A7 is actually a vented IEM in the same vein as the Shuoer Tapes. Thus, it doesn't isolate very well but I think its good enough. The body of the IEM has a little dip switch that says POP on one end and MONITOR on the other for tuning, giving two variations per filter set. There is a little text box on the shell that says LZ HIFI AUDIO that I don't think was necessary and just makes it look crowded. The tuning filters (i.e. nozzle) is surprisingly long allowing for a pretty good fit and has a substantial lip that keeps tips very secure on there. To swap filters, you screw them on. The black one is stock.





Sound
I must say, with 10 different tunings, there's a lot going on with the LZ A7. Let me go through the stock tuning as a baseline before tackling to other wacky tunings you can play around with on the A7.



The stock setting for the A7 is the black filter on Pop mode. It's V-shaped and with plenty of vocal forwardness. Bass quantity isn't at basshead levels but is more than enough to give a meaty low end and satisfy most people who want to a filled in bass. The A7 has a minor hump right at the 30 Hz mark that consistently brings rumble to the table. However, at those lowest registers, the bass starts to lose a bit of control and definition is lost. Bass quality is actually pretty good. It's leans on the boomy side of things but is tight enough to handle most of what I throw at it without much loss of definition. No real complaints here; the DD is about as competent as I would expect for something in this price range. I quite like it; it's a fun bass that isn't of sterile. Surprisingly, there isn't really much bass bloat though there is a bit of mud right at the bass-lower mids transition. While you might say the bass bleeds into the mids from the graph, I think of it more as a counterweight to the upper mids. With how much upper mids the A7 has, this bit of low mids is sorely needed. I don't find it overly strident though any more would really be pushing it. Timbre is fine for a V-shape but tone is absolutely on the thin side. I don't hear any sibilance or harshness. The treble dip right after the 4 kHz mark tames some lower treble fatigue. Despite this, cymbals have a softened splashiness to them that's followed by an abrupt decay. Treble clarity and timbre suffers at times thanks to this awkward combination of splashiness without supporting upper harmonics. I'm not too sure what's causing this but I'd like to attribute it to the piezo driver.

On the Monitor setting, the A7 becomes a much more balanced sounding IEM. The mids are immediately restored. The bass is made relatively less elevated, cleaning up the slight muddiness in the lower mids without sacrificing the meatiness and oomph in the low end. Nuance in bass notes shine through more easily. The treble is a touch brighter and brings some clarity along with it but is overall still recessed. Vocals are also better balanced, sounding less shouty and definitely a lot less thin. I'd say its a rather well tuned IEM on this setting, with a neutral or balanced frequency response. The pinna gain centered around 2 kHz might not seem ideal but it isn't an issue thanks to the upper mids being sustained till 4 kHz. The A7 on the black filter is an IEM that prioritizes vocals first followed by a filled low end presence.

There's plenty of horizontal soundstage, likely due to the venting of the IEM, but the A7 lacks depth and height. I'd say resolution is actually pretty good for the price, though the lack of treble clarity does hurt it in the upper harmonics. Overall, technical performance is good. It might not be on par with something like the venerable Moondrop Blessing 2, but I want to say that it's a small step up from the Thieaudio Legacy 5.

Tuning options

Looking at the Pop vs. Monitor comparison graph, the Pop setting brings a dip in the mids that results in a more V-shaped sound. The biggest effect is that it makes the IEM bassier while making the vocals sound thinner. I find that if you listen to either the Pop for an hour or so to let your brain "burn in", you don't really notice the mid dip. But if reverse that and listen to the Monitor for some time then switch to Pop, the vocal thinness really sticks out. On all filters, I enjoyed the Monitor mode more for fuller vocals but YMMV.

The filters themselves follow the order: Red > Gold > Black > Blue > Silver in terms of how much of the actual filter is present in the nozzle. That is to say, how much dampening there is. For example, you can practically see right through the dampening screen in the blue filter while the red filter has a much tighter wall of tuning mesh.



The Red filter is the bassiest with the least amount of upper mids. I don't think the Pop mode on this is good. Bass is muddy and bloated without upper mid clarity to salvage it. Monitor mode is much better and I would actually have liked it the most in theory since it has the most moderate amount of upper mids. However, I found that the red filter makes the A7 sound low res compared to the black and gold filters. So I opted to stick with the other two. Though I do think some may like the Red filter on Pop despite the trade-off in technical performance.



The Gold filter is very similar to the black filter but lowers the upper mid elevation by a good 2-3 dB for more mellow vocals. There's still plenty of vocal presence, just not as much as black. I do think the bass quality tightens up a bit too with the gold filter. It feels more controlled overall, even if its just a little more than the black filter. The tradeoff however is that the treble feels more recessed. The initial attack of the hats and cymbals are dampened and notes quickly fizzle out. For less complex tracks with prominent treble notes this isn't an issue. But in your typical rock tracks where the hats and cymbals play in the background, they basically get buried. The splashiness of the black filter is curbed. The Pop filter made the mids too thin for my liking so I kept it on the Monitor setting. I would definitely recommend you go for this filter if you're looking for a more balanced sound but keep in mind the treble tradeoff.



Comparing all three filters, you can really see how they differ.



The Blue filter takes things up a notch. There's even more upper mid elevation and the bass is tamed down. With the blue filter, you'll definitely have to turn down the volume compared to the the red, gold, and black filters to volume match the vocals. I really wouldn't go to the Pop mode here as vocal thinness borders on excessive. On the Monitor setting, vocals are lean and very, very forward. Bass presence is still good however, with more a neutral elevation versus the bassier, fun feeling in previous filters. Treble is really brought to life with this filter. The awkwardness of the treble in the black filter is mostly resolved here. Note decay is still on the short side but tone is definitely more realistic. Technical performance seems more refined on the blue filter as well, though this may be just due to the tuning. If you want a more neutral-bright tuning, the blue filter is it. It's just a question if you can stomach really forward vocals. I can for a while before it starts to feel tiring so it's definitely something to watch out for.



The Silver filter is actually rather similar to the blue filter except the treble is now in the realm of exaggeration and timbre starts to suffer once again. It doesn't really have any advantages over the blue filter so I don't really see a point to this one.



Should You Buy It?

Ehhh. At an MSRP of $338, it's getting pretty expensive especially when something like the Moondrop Blessing 2 exists. At a sale price of $280, it's a bit more reasonable. Personally, I think it's worth it at the $250 mark as that's in a different price class altogether. All that being said, the LZ A7 does bring to the table some strong points. The fit and comfort is excellent. Soundstage is pretty wide. Resolution is surprisingly competent. It has a fun sounding bass that isn't sterile. Tuning filters to fit your tastes.

Yet it is those same tuning filters that end up hindering the A7 too. None of these filters end up feeling "just right". I found that I pretty much only stuck with the Monitor mode. The silver filter doesn't any much sense and the red filter felt like a step down. Altogether the blue, gold, and black filters have a sound quality that I liked but split up, it felt like I was making a small compromise here or there. Ideally, I would blend the bass of the gold and black, take the mids of the gold, and the treble of the blue. Sadly, that isn't possible.

At the end of the day, I think the LZ A7 is a decent IEM with a few unique features that may sway someone to buy it. While it is definitely a step up from the A4 I heard years ago, going purely by "objective" performance, it does falter in the price class it competes in. Yet as audio is a game of compromises, the A7 stands as a reasonable second or third choice.

Introduction

A couple years ago, I had the chance to try out the Focal Utopia. From my short listening session, I immediately understood why they’re generally considered the world’s greatest headphone. But the four thousand dollar or so price tag was not for me. Enter the Focal Elex. At a much more reasonable asking price of $700 and bearing similar drivers to its siblings, the Elex has gained a reputation as a “baby Utopia” or a “super HD600”. I knew it was only a matter of time before I got my hands on one to hear it for myself. And though the hype train has mostly come and gone for this headphone, here are my thoughts on the Focal Elex with comparison to the venerable Sennheiser HD600.




What’s in the Box?

Inside the black box is the headphones themselves, nestled in foam. You’ll find a couple of booklets for product info and a promo brochure for Focal as a company. Other than that are two fabric-sleeved cables, one XLR and the other with a 6.5 mm jack (1/4" for you Americans). These cables are atrocious. It has an ungodly amount of cable memory and awkwardly kinks because of that. I’d highly recommend getting some better cables to replace this.


As for the Elex itself, the build quality is rather nice. It’s a handsome black and feels substantial. That said, I intrinsically handle my Elex a lot more gingerly than the HD600. Weight wise, it’s significantly heavier than my HD600. Yet despite my initial fears of it being too heavy for regular use, I found I could go a couple hours before needing to take the off and stretch a bit. Comfort was quite good. I actually prefer it to the HD600 except for the weight. The clamp force wasn’t too tight and the pads molds nicely onto my head, even on top of my glasses. The pads are surprisingly pliable and conform at the lightest touch. I get the sense that a seal has formed around my ears. It also doesn’t get a bit warm like the HD600 does. I don’t really feel a pressure point on the top of my head thanks to the thick headband.

Sound

To my ears, the Focal Elex is less the “baby Utopia” and more the “super HD600”. While Elex retains a lot of the dynamism found in the Utopia, the level of resolution and sheer nuance of the Utopia is on a category of its own. As such, I didn’t get the same sense of wonder from my first listen to the Elex that I was expecting from my memories of the Utopia. But shifting perspectives, it is an excellent upgrade to the HD600.


So what makes it a “super HD600”? Tuning wise, the Elex is a lean neutral with a bright touch. Its mids are similar to the HD600 but cuts down slightly on the lower mids. It introduces a treble forwardness that was absent on the HD600. On a technical level, resolution, layering, and staging take a confident step forward. The biggest advancement the Elex makes over the HD600 is its sense of dynamics and clarity. To use a tired analogy, listening to the Elex is like removing a veil off the HD600. And I don’t mean the so-called Sennheiser veil (that I don’t even believe in!). On the Elex, recordings feel immediately cleaner. Songs effortlessly adopt another layer of musicality and liveliness.




Bass:

For all it’s greatness, I think it’s no secret that the biggest weakness of the HD600 is its bass (well, maybe aside from its soundstage). It’s nowhere near bad but the lack of subbass and bluntness of its bass response had always left me wanting a little bit more. Well, the Elex easily resolves both of those complaints with a tradeoff in midbass presence.


The bass on the Elex is tight . The transient response is superb and lets the Elex easily slam. While it can’t compete with the Utopia, the Elex is by no means a slouch when it comes to dynamism and resolution. Even in busy passages, bass notes possess a great sense of definition and cut right through the mix. With the Elex, the subtle variations in how the drummer attacks the kick in each consecutive note comes to life. Grooving bass guitar lines are simply delicious as they flit in and out effortlessly. In comparison, the HD600 sounds downright flat and compressed next to the Elex. Simply put, the Elex’s bass response is high quality. That unidentifiable sense of longing I felt when listening to the HD600 is met here.


Quality aside, what about quantity? The Elex’s bass takes the reference route. Though it extends nicely down with plenty of presence in the subbass region, it isn’t particularly elevated. The same can be said for its midbass. This gives the Elex a rather lean appearance. It’s far from anemic but doesn’t sound huge. While the toms and kick are meaty, it doesn’t always fill the room so to speak. Personally, it’s a bit of a shame because for bass this high quality, I want to hear more. I find myself turning up the Elex just to soak in that goodness. I’ve tried to EQ it lightly but wasn’t satisfied with the results.

Mids:

To my ears, the mids of the Elex and HD600 are rather similar in tone but with a distinctly different presentation to each. Where the HD600 has a warmer, smoothed over sound, the Elex is leaner and more engaging. Vocals have superb placement without ever being too forward or recessed regardless of male or female. I find vocals also blend better into the mix with the Elex than on the HD600. Electric guitars have a cleaner grit to them while acoustic guitars sound sharper on plucked strings. As a whole, instruments feel more spaced out and open on the Elex than on the HD600. In a vacuum, I think I slightly prefer the tonality of the HD600 but the overall technical advancements on the Elex makes me lean heavily in its favor. Oftentimes, when it comes to rhetoric on the HD600, it inevitably circles around its excellent timbre that few other headphones can match. And undoubtedly, the HD600 sounds phenomenal. But I don’t think the Elex lags behind in anyway. Its equally pleasing to me as the HD600. Perhaps its presentation is less relaxed to compared to the HD600 but I have no complaints here.

Treble:

The Elex is noticeably brighter than the HD600 with a treble forwardness that brings out the brilliance of the upper harmonics. If you’re used to the relatively laid back treble of the HD600, the Elex may sound fatiguing for the first half hour or so. Hats and cymbals are crisp. Bell-like instruments and the upper notes of a xylophone have a delicate crystalline clarity to them. The Elex brings to life the treble of a lot of tracks that were previously smoothed over on the HD600. The tradeoff is a bit of a shorter decay that hides the last trailing ring of the crash. If you’re a regular reader of my reviews on AD, you’ll know I’m not treble shy. As such, the treble of the Elex falls closely in line with my preferences. I don’t hear any problematic spikes or dips that adversely colors the treble.


One complaint I’ve heard with the Elex’s treble timbre in comparison to the HD600 was it sounds metallic. Truth be told, I was a little apprehensive of this as well when I first bought it. But I don’t really hear it for the most part. I concede that in some poorly recorded tracks where the cymbals sound incoherent to start, the brightness of the Elex does add a metallic glint as it amplifies the already discordant sound. Otherwise, it’s not a concern at all. I’m very pleased with the treble of the Elex.

Presentation:

The soundstage of the Elex is less intimate than the HD600, but not by much. I’d say there’s about 20% more height, width, and depth. Where the HD600 constantly feels closed in, the Elex opens up just enough to curb that sensation. Imaging is noticeably better with nuanced placements in the soundstage thanks to how distinct each note is. I think the leanness of the Elex’s tuning contributes to how much more open it is compared to the HD600. Instruments really feel like they have a space to breathe and play in where on the HD600 it feels like they’re corralled into a narrow space. I find that this sense of space on the Elex adds a lot to my enjoyment.


Resolution is also a step up on the Elex, though it isn’t immediately noticeable when comparing side by side. Instrument separation and layering are significantly better, taking advantage of the openness the Elex provides. I touched on how dynamic the Elex is in the bass section, but it really is the cornerstone of this headphone. Tracks gain a layer of energy and liveliness that I never knew was missing. Comparing them side by side, it’s truly like a layer of compression was applied on the HD600 and removed on the Elex. It’s an impressive step up as the HD600 is hardly poor in dynamics itself. Words really don’t it justice; I find descriptions about dynamics fall flat without a chance to hear it yourself.




Should You Buy It?

Clearly, I love the Elex. For the first few months that I had it, I didn’t even bother to A/B it with the HD600 I had lying around. While it didn’t live up to the “baby Utopia” dream I had, it did fulfill the “super HD600” promise. It was only as I began writing this review and spent a few afternoons directly comparing them did I come to appreciate just how much better the Elex was. Pretty much everything about the sound of the Elex was a step up in the right direction from the HD600 I was used to. It’s a headphone that I’ve come to appreciate the more I listen to it. The Elex lines up closely with my preferences and I would be content if I were to declare this as my endgame.


If a headphone was nothing more than its sound, the Focal Elex would have my highest recommendation. For $700, it’s well worth every penny. Its value proposition is on the level of a $200 HD600. But there are a few external catches that make hold it back. For those familiar with the Elex story, there is a big elephant in the room: quality control. I won’t go too heavily into the details here as I don’t know all of it myself but suffice it to say that on some units, its drivers have a propensity to die. While it does have a two-year warranty when new, I’d hate to be on the receiving end of Drop’s customer service, especially as Focal seems to have taken a hands off approach to the Elex. To exacerbate the issue, getting new pads for the Elex down the road isn’t be very easy and Focal pads in general are painfully expensive.


At the end of the day, perhaps the Elex was too good to be true. I wish with all my heart that I could confidently recommend it but I can’t in good conscience. Instead, it gets a cautious recommendation. I’m sure that there are plenty of problem-free Elexes out there and failures are inevitable for any product. If you can stomach the low risk that comes with buying the Drop x Focal Elex, I can think of nothing else I would buy for the price. As we move into 2021, I can only hope the headphone space receives a new challenger, one that further refines on the Elex and brings a more customer friendly experience at an equally affordable price

Note: This is a review for both the Monarch and Clairvoyance. The star rating is for the Clairvoyance.

Introduction

2020 has been a long year. Ignoring the craziness of the real world, the IEM world has had a number of big releases such as the MoonDrop Starfield, the refresh of Campfire Audio's flagship Andromeda and Solaris, the entrance of the heavyweight Empire Ears Odin, and to end the year, crinacle's MoonDrop Dusk re-tune of the hugely popular Blessing 2.

With so many exciting IEMs released in the past year, I figured what better way to end the year other than discussing what's possibly the most lauded ChiFi release of the year: the Thieaudio Monarch and Clairvoyance. Today, I'll be taking a look at these critically acclaimed IEMs and add yet another perspective for those wondering what the hype around these two IEMs are.

Disclaimer: I was lent the Thieaudio Monarch and Clairvoyance as part of Linsoul's review tour program. Below are my honest thoughts on these IEMs. I am not compensated by Linsoul in any other way.



What's in the Box?

For those unaware, the Thieaudio Monarch and Clairvoyance are also referred to as the "tribrids" as they contain a dynamic driver, balanced armatures, and electrostatic drivers. Specifically, the Monarch has a 1 DD + 6 BA + 2 EST configuration while the Clairvoyance removes a single BA from that setup. At $700 for the Clairvoyance and $730 for the Monarch, you could say that extra BA costs $30. The DD used in these IEMs is the same one found in the Legacy 5. The BAs and EST forgo the typical Bellsing drivers found in ChiFi in favor of Knowles and Sonion. Do note that despite being called electrostatic (EST) drivers, they are not true electrostatic drivers as you'd expect from headphone nomenclature. That is to say, they aren't true estats like the infamous Stax headphones or the Shure KSE 1200/1500 lineup. They do not require a dedicated amp with a transformer for power. Speaking of power, they aren't too hungry and can be driven rather easily from my Apple dongle. The Monarch actually requires less power than the Clairvoyance does despite having one more BA driver.

Looks wise, the Monarch and Clairvoyance are pretty much identical except for some shiny orange speckles on the Monarch's faceplate. The pearl-like finish and iridescent sheen is rather eye-catching; the promo pics on Linsoul's website seriously does NOT do a good job showcasing how good it looks. The packaging of the twins are identical with the exception of the labeling sticker on the box. It comes in the standard Thieaudio green cardboard box with a set of S, M, L foam tips, M sized SpinFits, a hard carrying case, and the Thieaudio EST 2.5 mm cable and its corresponding set of 3.5 mm and 4.4 mm adapters. In fact, the packaging is identical to the Legacy 5 and you can read my not-so-positive rant on the EST cable there.

Fit and comfort on both IEMs were about standard for me, though they aren't the most comfortable in the sense that they disappear into my ear. It has a nozzle size of 5 mm which I'd say is a bit above average. While my unit does not have a nozzle lip, Thieaudio has since added it for the newer ones in production. The shell of the tribrids are definitely on the large size and for some reason, I find the Monarch to be slightly more comfortable than the Clairvoyance despite them having practically the same shell. Maybe it's just my ears.



Sound

To be completely honest, I was not immediately blown away by these IEMs. They're both tuned extremely well but I wasn't overly impressed with their technical performance at first listen. Resolution wasn't immediately leaps and bounds better than what I was used to. Soundstage was within the realm of what you'd expect IEMs to be (i.e. eeehh). Admittedly, I had very high expectations of these IEMs from the hype that surrounded their release. To be honest, it was the sound of diminishing returns.

Despite saying all of that, over the next few hours and days of listening, the Monarch and Clairvoyance convinced me that they're worthy of their price tag. The Monarch's tuning is a lot leaner than the Clairvoyance thanks to a very controlled subbass boost and treble forwardness. In my view, the Monarch is an IEM that demands attention. It's not an IEM that you can forget about in the background. On the other hand, the Clairvoyance takes a more conservative approach. It has a lightly warm midrange and a relaxed but still present treble. The Clairvoyance has an easier-to-listen to presentation that fits perfectly into a work from home environment. Between the two, I greatly prefer the Monarch.



Bass:

The Monarch has a heavy subbass focus that hits deep. It both slams and rumbles with a great sense of impact and unique texture. When the right notes hit, it can be very satisfying to listen to. They accomplish this through dedicating the DD and 4 BAs solely to the bass. However, this does come at a cost: I find that the bass performance isn't wholly consistent. Certain notes, especially on the kick drum, have an awesomely deep rumble and weight to them. Other notes that don't fully leverage the Monarch's bass setup are less impressive and more akin to the Clairvoyance. Furthermore, in my initial listening, I could actually hear the blending of the BA and the DD though I haven't been able to notice it again after the first couple of days.

The Clairvoyance's bass is a fairly standard DD affair. It doesn't have that sense of awe like the Monarch does but still provides a respectable performance. While it does rumble when needed, it has much more of a warm, full-bodied midbass focus compared to the Monarch. Where the Monarch flattens out at about the 125 Hz mark, the Clairvoyance is sustained until around 200 Hz, right before the lower mids. This makes the Clairvoyance the bassier of the two to my ears. The Monarch feels like "neutral with a subbass boost" while the Clairvoyance is overall "balanced". There's a good sense of nuance and resolution in the bass, a far cry from its blunt and low-res sounding siblings. Despite sharing the same DD, the difference in bass quality from the Legacy 5 is mindblowing. The choice of BAs working in tandem with the DD makes a serious difference. Transients are very good on the Monarch and decent on the Clairvoyance. For those who want a low end that "fills the room", you'd want the Clairvoyance over the Monarch. The sterility of the Monarch may sound just a little thin for some people. Personally, I really enjoy the Monarch's bass presentation for its uniqueness and often deeply satisfying subbass.


Mids:

The mids of the tribrids are excellent with what I'd consider about an ideal pinna peak placement right around 2.5-3 kHz. While they both have forward leaning vocals, there is a significant difference in tonality. Compared to the Monarch, the lower mids of the Clairvoyance are ever so slightly elevated. Combined with the increased bass presence in the midbass, the Clairvoyance clearly has a lusher tone over the Monarch.

Vocals have a good sense of space on both IEMs, being placed cleanly forward and taking center stage. Both male and female vocals perform just as well on both. Neither are harsh nor sibilant. Vocals on the Monarch have a slightly aggressive front to them while the Clairvoyance are a touch relaxed. This is likely due to the minor mid elevation in the 1-2.5 kHz range. Likewise, electric guitars have a gritter and more engaging sound on the Monarch. Acoustic instruments have a homely tone on the Clairvoyance while they sound sharper and more defined on the Monarch. Overall, I wouldn't say the mids of the tribrids are especially unique or have some romantic quality to them. They're just really good with an instantly agreeable tonal balance, though with a different flavor on each. I prefer the midrange of the Clairvoyance.


Treble:

The treble of the Clairvoyance is present but restrained. It has good extension and provides plenty of clarity without being fatiguing or distracting. Hats and cymbals are tamed but have a very natural voicing to them. I don't notice any outstanding peaks or oddities in the treble. Where most other IEMs fail the treble test for me, the Clairvoyance passes it comfortably without overly dampening the sound and killing transient energy.

On the flip side, the Monarch's treble straddles the line of almost being fatiguing without ever crossing it. It's rather omnipresent and in-your-face for me, like I'm constantly being reminded that I'm listening to the Monarch. Like the Clairvoyance, the Monarch's treble has a natural tone, but is distinctly more crisp with more brilliance in the shimmer of hats and cymbals. There's a great sense of clarity in each note that rings out. In addition, the upper harmonics of brass instruments have just that extra layer of energy to it, making it a treat whenever they appear. The treble of the Monarch falls neatly in line with my preference for treble, though a bit of a longer decay would be nice. Needless to say, I greatly enjoy it.


Presentation:

The soundstage of both IEMs aren't anything amazing. They still have that centered, in-your-head feeling. For the most part, the horizontal soundstage is constrained to between the ears but occasionally they do surprise me with notes that stretch those limits. There is limited height to the soundstage though at times there is good depth, especially on the Monarch. Imaging is quite decent. There's plenty of nuance across the horizontal stage though depth is limited to two planes. These are not IEMs you buy for a vast sense of stage. Notes do seem to fight for the spotlight and layering is limited. The Monarch does a much, much better job here than the Clairvoyance, likely due to the leaner midbass tuning. While far from bad, it's clear that the staging is a relative area of weakness compared to the prowess of the other parts of these IEMs.

While I initially wasn't super impressed with the resolution, I gotta say, after listening to these IEMs for a while and then going back to my more budget range gear, the step up in resolution is definitely noticeable. Rather than a big step forward like I experienced in the Fearless Dawn, it's a lot of tiny little improvements that I notice every now and then that comes seamlessly together. Like the layering, the Monarch has better resolution. While part of it has to do with its more sterile tuning and forward treble, I suspect that its improved transient response really adds a subtle bit of extra clarity. Switching to the Thieaudio Legacy 5, it's like a whole other layer is missing. This is the threshold level of resolution that I expect top tier IEMs to have.



Should You Buy It?

Yes. While I think both IEMs are excellent, having heard both side-by-side, I'd buy the Monarch hands down every time. Personally, when I think about reaching HiFi or endgame, it's more about just tuning or technical performance. I want something unique, something that fills a gap that others leave behind. For me, that is the Monarch. I love its forward treble response and its bass hits like few others do. It's not a perfect IEM but for the price and what it strives for, I think the Monarch is an extremely compelling one-of-a-kind option with nothing yet on the market to challenge it. On the other hand, the Clairvoyance's safer, less aggressive tuning is a double edged sword. It's a great IEM but it doesn't reach for more than that. While the $700 price tag places it firmly below some of its competitors in the Viento and Sony IER-M9, the used market does open a lot of doors to IEMs near the kilobuck range.

If you've made it this far into the review (or just skipped to the end) and want a simple way of thinking about these two IEMs, here's my perspective on them. Get the Monarch if you really focus and listen to music when you do. If you're someone who really wants to immerse yourself in the sound while commuting or lounging. Get the Clairvoyance if you want a very solid and safe set to listen to. If you're someone who listens to music while working on something else and just want some good sound to keep you company. The Monarch is better for more energetic genres like EDM or pop. The Clairvoyance does better with more acoustic music.

Hopefully this review helps clarify things for those still on the fence for the Thieaudio Monarch or Clairvoyance. As I say goodbye to these IEMs and start a new year, I hope 2021 continues to bring IEMs that redefine the limits of sound quality and price performance.

Note: This is a review for both the Monarch and Clairvoyance. The star rating is for the Monarch.

Introduction

2020 has been a long year. Ignoring the craziness of the real world, the IEM world has had a number of big releases such as the MoonDrop Starfield, the refresh of Campfire Audio's flagship Andromeda and Solaris, the entrance of the heavyweight Empire Ears Odin, and to end the year, crinacle's MoonDrop Dusk re-tune of the hugely popular Blessing 2.

With so many exciting IEMs released in the past year, I figured what better way to end the year other than discussing what's possibly the most lauded ChiFi release of the year: the Thieaudio Monarch and Clairvoyance. Today, I'll be taking a look at these critically acclaimed IEMs and add yet another perspective for those wondering what the hype around these two IEMs are.

Disclaimer: I was lent the Thieaudio Monarch and Clairvoyance as part of Linsoul's review tour program. Below are my honest thoughts on these IEMs. I am not compensated by Linsoul in any other way.



What's in the Box?

For those unaware, the Thieaudio Monarch and Clairvoyance are also referred to as the "tribrids" as they contain a dynamic driver, balanced armatures, and electrostatic drivers. Specifically, the Monarch has a 1 DD + 6 BA + 2 EST configuration while the Clairvoyance removes a single BA from that setup. At $700 for the Clairvoyance and $730 for the Monarch, you could say that extra BA costs $30. The DD used in these IEMs is the same one found in the Legacy 5. The BAs and EST forgo the typical Bellsing drivers found in ChiFi in favor of Knowles and Sonion. Do note that despite being called electrostatic (EST) drivers, they are not true electrostatic drivers as you'd expect from headphone nomenclature. That is to say, they aren't true estats like the infamous Stax headphones or the Shure KSE 1200/1500 lineup. They do not require a dedicated amp with a transformer for power. Speaking of power, they aren't too hungry and can be driven rather easily from my Apple dongle. The Monarch actually requires less power than the Clairvoyance does despite having one more BA driver.

Looks wise, the Monarch and Clairvoyance are pretty much identical except for some shiny orange speckles on the Monarch's faceplate. The pearl-like finish and iridescent sheen is rather eye-catching; the promo pics on Linsoul's website seriously does NOT do a good job showcasing how good it looks. The packaging of the twins are identical with the exception of the labeling sticker on the box. It comes in the standard Thieaudio green cardboard box with a set of S, M, L foam tips, M sized SpinFits, a hard carrying case, and the Thieaudio EST 2.5 mm cable and its corresponding set of 3.5 mm and 4.4 mm adapters. In fact, the packaging is identical to the Legacy 5 and you can read my not-so-positive rant on the EST cable there.

Fit and comfort on both IEMs were about standard for me, though they aren't the most comfortable in the sense that they disappear into my ear. It has a nozzle size of 5 mm which I'd say is a bit above average. While my unit does not have a nozzle lip, Thieaudio has since added it for the newer ones in production. The shell of the tribrids are definitely on the large size and for some reason, I find the Monarch to be slightly more comfortable than the Clairvoyance despite them having practically the same shell. Maybe it's just my ears.



Sound

To be completely honest, I was not immediately blown away by these IEMs. They're both tuned extremely well but I wasn't overly impressed with their technical performance at first listen. Resolution wasn't immediately leaps and bounds better than what I was used to. Soundstage was within the realm of what you'd expect IEMs to be (i.e. eeehh). Admittedly, I had very high expectations of these IEMs from the hype that surrounded their release. To be honest, it was the sound of diminishing returns.

Despite saying all of that, over the next few hours and days of listening, the Monarch and Clairvoyance convinced me that they're worthy of their price tag. The Monarch's tuning is a lot leaner than the Clairvoyance thanks to a very controlled subbass boost and treble forwardness. In my view, the Monarch is an IEM that demands attention. It's not an IEM that you can forget about in the background. On the other hand, the Clairvoyance takes a more conservative approach. It has a lightly warm midrange and a relaxed but still present treble. The Clairvoyance has an easier-to-listen to presentation that fits perfectly into a work from home environment. Between the two, I greatly prefer the Monarch.



Bass:

The Monarch has a heavy subbass focus that hits deep. It both slams and rumbles with a great sense of impact and unique texture. When the right notes hit, it can be very satisfying to listen to. They accomplish this through dedicating the DD and 4 BAs solely to the bass. However, this does come at a cost: I find that the bass performance isn't wholly consistent. Certain notes, especially on the kick drum, have an awesomely deep rumble and weight to them. Other notes that don't fully leverage the Monarch's bass setup are less impressive and more akin to the Clairvoyance. Furthermore, in my initial listening, I could actually hear the blending of the BA and the DD though I haven't been able to notice it again after the first couple of days.

The Clairvoyance's bass is a fairly standard DD affair. It doesn't have that sense of awe like the Monarch does but still provides a respectable performance. While it does rumble when needed, it has much more of a warm, full-bodied midbass focus compared to the Monarch. Where the Monarch flattens out at about the 125 Hz mark, the Clairvoyance is sustained until around 200 Hz, right before the lower mids. This makes the Clairvoyance the bassier of the two to my ears. The Monarch feels like "neutral with a subbass boost" while the Clairvoyance is overall "balanced". There's a good sense of nuance and resolution in the bass, a far cry from its blunt and low-res sounding siblings. Despite sharing the same DD, the difference in bass quality from the Legacy 5 is mindblowing. The choice of BAs working in tandem with the DD makes a serious difference. Transients are very good on the Monarch and decent on the Clairvoyance. For those who want a low end that "fills the room", you'd want the Clairvoyance over the Monarch. The sterility of the Monarch may sound just a little thin for some people. Personally, I really enjoy the Monarch's bass presentation for its uniqueness and often deeply satisfying subbass.


Mids:

The mids of the tribrids are excellent with what I'd consider about an ideal pinna peak placement right around 2.5-3 kHz. While they both have forward leaning vocals, there is a significant difference in tonality. Compared to the Monarch, the lower mids of the Clairvoyance are ever so slightly elevated. Combined with the increased bass presence in the midbass, the Clairvoyance clearly has a lusher tone over the Monarch.

Vocals have a good sense of space on both IEMs, being placed cleanly forward and taking center stage. Both male and female vocals perform just as well on both. Neither are harsh nor sibilant. Vocals on the Monarch have a slightly aggressive front to them while the Clairvoyance are a touch relaxed. This is likely due to the minor mid elevation in the 1-2.5 kHz range. Likewise, electric guitars have a gritter and more engaging sound on the Monarch. Acoustic instruments have a homely tone on the Clairvoyance while they sound sharper and more defined on the Monarch. Overall, I wouldn't say the mids of the tribrids are especially unique or have some romantic quality to them. They're just really good with an instantly agreeable tonal balance, though with a different flavor on each. I prefer the midrange of the Clairvoyance.


Treble:

The treble of the Clairvoyance is present but restrained. It has good extension and provides plenty of clarity without being fatiguing or distracting. Hats and cymbals are tamed but have a very natural voicing to them. I don't notice any outstanding peaks or oddities in the treble. Where most other IEMs fail the treble test for me, the Clairvoyance passes it comfortably without overly dampening the sound and killing transient energy.

On the flip side, the Monarch's treble straddles the line of almost being fatiguing without ever crossing it. It's rather omnipresent and in-your-face for me, like I'm constantly being reminded that I'm listening to the Monarch. Like the Clairvoyance, the Monarch's treble has a natural tone, but is distinctly more crisp with more brilliance in the shimmer of hats and cymbals. There's a great sense of clarity in each note that rings out. In addition, the upper harmonics of brass instruments have just that extra layer of energy to it, making it a treat whenever they appear. The treble of the Monarch falls neatly in line with my preference for treble, though a bit of a longer decay would be nice. Needless to say, I greatly enjoy it.


Presentation:

The soundstage of both IEMs aren't anything amazing. They still have that centered, in-your-head feeling. For the most part, the horizontal soundstage is constrained to between the ears but occasionally they do surprise me with notes that stretch those limits. There is limited height to the soundstage though at times there is good depth, especially on the Monarch. Imaging is quite decent. There's plenty of nuance across the horizontal stage though depth is limited to two planes. These are not IEMs you buy for a vast sense of stage. Notes do seem to fight for the spotlight and layering is limited. The Monarch does a much, much better job here than the Clairvoyance, likely due to the leaner midbass tuning. While far from bad, it's clear that the staging is a relative area of weakness compared to the prowess of the other parts of these IEMs.

While I initially wasn't super impressed with the resolution, I gotta say, after listening to these IEMs for a while and then going back to my more budget range gear, the step up in resolution is definitely noticeable. Rather than a big step forward like I experienced in the Fearless Dawn, it's a lot of tiny little improvements that I notice every now and then that comes seamlessly together. Like the layering, the Monarch has better resolution. While part of it has to do with its more sterile tuning and forward treble, I suspect that its improved transient response really adds a subtle bit of extra clarity. Switching to the Thieaudio Legacy 5, it's like a whole other layer is missing. This is the threshold level of resolution that I expect top tier IEMs to have.



Should You Buy It?

Yes. While I think both IEMs are excellent, having heard both side-by-side, I'd buy the Monarch hands down every time. Personally, when I think about reaching HiFi or endgame, it's more about just tuning or technical performance. I want something unique, something that fills a gap that others leave behind. For me, that is the Monarch. I love its forward treble response and its bass hits like few others do. It's not a perfect IEM but for the price and what it strives for, I think the Monarch is an extremely compelling one-of-a-kind option with nothing yet on the market to challenge it. On the other hand, the Clairvoyance's safer, less aggressive tuning is a double edged sword. It's a great IEM but it doesn't reach for more than that. While the $700 price tag places it firmly below some of its competitors in the Viento and Sony IER-M9, the used market does open a lot of doors to IEMs near the kilobuck range.

If you've made it this far into the review (or just skipped to the end) and want a simple way of thinking about these two IEMs, here's my perspective on them. Get the Monarch if you really focus and listen to music when you do. If you're someone who really wants to immerse yourself in the sound while commuting or lounging. Get the Clairvoyance if you want a very solid and safe set to listen to. If you're someone who listens to music while working on something else and just want some good sound to keep you company. The Monarch is better for more energetic genres like EDM or pop. The Clairvoyance does better with more acoustic music.

Hopefully this review helps clarify things for those still on the fence for the Thieaudio Monarch or Clairvoyance. As I say goodbye to these IEMs and start a new year, I hope 2021 continues to bring IEMs that redefine the limits of sound quality and price performance.

Introduction

For today's review, I'm going to be looking at the Shuoer Tape Pro. It's Shuoer's follow up to their popular Shuoer Tape that I reviewed a while back and thought was fairly decent. At $130 IEM, the Tape Pro costs exactly the same as the regular Tape does, and I believe uses a similar "composite electrostatic dynamic driver". Please note that this is not a true estat driver as it does not require a specialized amp to power it. Technical trifles aside, how does it sound? While Antdroid released a rather unfavorable review of these recently, having heard the Shuoer Tape, I do have some expectations that comes with the Pro moniker.

Disclaimer: I received the Shuoer Tape Pro as a review unit from Linsoul in exchange for this honest review. I am not or will be compensated in any other way.



What's in the Box?

In an unusual turn of events, the first thing you're greeted with in the box is... a Shuoer product catalogue. At least the booklet is rather high quality. Moving on is the IEMs themselves and a small plastic case with a number of goodies. In it is a spare set of tuning filters and nozzles, a cleaning brush, and a set of S, M, and L tips. Below the foam compartment lies the included hard carrying case with the cable, a tuning tool, and another set of tips.The cable is a straight jack 2-pin 2.5 mm cable and they do include a 3.5 mm L-shaped adapter. The cable itself is of OK quality. It tangles easily, there's cable noise, and is rather hard to touch. But at least it does feel rather sturdy.

The build of the IEMs is a full metal shell that looks identical to the regular Tapes. There's a vent in the middle of the shell. It does feel a little thicker than the original Tapes and has a monstrous 7 mm removable nozzle. I'm not entirely sure why the nozzle is removable as it doesn't affect tuning. It's just a feature that's there. Despite the insane nozzle size, I don't find the Tape Pros painfully uncomfortable. The fit is shallow but it does seal reasonable well and stays in place. Isolation is subpar due to the shallow fit and large vent(s) on the back. The sharper edges of the shell can get a little uncomfortable at times. I guess this just goes to show that beyond nozzle size, the actual shape of the IEM matters quite a bit too as the Tape Pros use that popular Shure-style over the ear design.

As alluded to previously, one of the ways the Shuoer Tape Pro distinguishes itself is through its tuning filters. It comes with these blue and silver tuning filters that you swap on the back. Here's Shuoer's guide to installing them with the tuning tool.



You basically unscrew the filters and swap their places. The back filter (i.e. closer to the 2-pin jack) is the important one as it acts as a tuning port to the second vent. The front filter doesn't actually need to be there; it just screws in for convenience and aesthetics. My Shuoer Tape Pro set came with the blue filter installed in the back despite the image saying that the stock tuning is with the silver. I can confirm that the blue is the bassier of the two.

Sound

To describe the sound of the Shuoer Tape Pro, imagine witnessing a trainwreck. You see the train coming. You see the obstacle in its path. Right now it's chugging along just fine but deep down you know that something very, very wrong is going to happen. That is the Shuoer Tape Pro. When I listened to it for the first time, I opened with rock track starring a vocally driven opening. Immediately, the vocals felt off. Not enough that it was unlistenable but enough to fill me with a sense of dread for the next passage of the song. And sure enough, as soon as the drums kicked in, the Tape Pros turns into a messy trainwreck.



Blue Filter

There are a number of problems with the Tape Pro on the blue filter. The first is that there's pretty only two instruments. It's vocals and everything else. The Tape Pro is so vocal forward that it completely isolates the vocals from all other instruments. Yet it doesn't even do vocals well. Female vocals are shouty and hollow with little upper harmonics. Male vocals have a smothered veil on them despite being so forward. The second problem is the bass quality. It's probably among the worst I've ever heard, topped only by cheap dollar store IEMs and headphones. It's muddy, bloated, incoherent, sloppy, and every other negative adjective you can throw in there. There's just no definition at all. It's like Shrek's bubbling swamp, where each bubble represents a nondescript drum beat somewhere. I don't say this lightly: With the blue filter, the Tape Pro is close to unlistenable for a lot of music. Only on slower paced tracks is the driver able to keep up.

Silver Filter

Thankfully, the silver filter is much, much better. Despite measuring pretty much identically on the frequency response, it adds a much needed level of definition to the notes, partly salvaging the Tape Pro. At least the different instruments can be heard now instead of being just a smear. But it's still quite poor overall. The bass is still muddy and low resolution. It still sounds boomy and bloated. There's still very little dynamics and sense of impact. But at least it's not wholly incoherent and I can look past it to begin enjoying music.

Aside from the bass, the mids and treble are pretty scuffed too. I already mentioned the vocals but the rest of the mids have a distinctly off tonality due to the Tape Pro's midrange suckout and absolute Mount Everest for upper mids. The timbre of pretty much every instrument is wrong by some extent. The treble is completely muted and lifeless. After the 4 kHz mark where the upper mids generally ends, there's just a cliff where the treble drops off and never recovers. If there was any less upper mids, I'd call these IEMs dark.

Presentation

On the technicalities portion, the resolution is pretty much low budget tier on the silver filter. Forget about the blue. The only saving grace for this IEM is its large horizontal soundstage. Like its predecessor the Shuoer Tape, the vents on the shell does give it a wide stage. But otherwise it has absolutely zero height or depth. There is also pretty much no imaging beyond the 3 blob left, right, center.



Should You Buy It?

No. Absolutely not. At $130 this is a travesty. I'm frankly shocked that Shuoer decided the Tape Pros were good enough to be let out of the factory, let along as a successor to the Tapes. The blue filter Tape Pros is the worst sounding IEM I've heard in recent memory. The silver filter is better but its a bit of a stretch to call it acceptable. Even the Kinera Freya that I reviewed a while back wasn't this poor. It's a real shame because clearly the person tuning this had put some thought in designing the filters. I wish the Shuoer engineers good luck with their next design but I'm not holding my breath. Of the three Shuoer IEMs I've tried to date, they all share a very similar V-shaped tuning. And of the three, only one was decent: the Shuoer Tapes. With the <$150 IEM market being so fiercely competitive, Shuoer has a long road ahead of them.

Star Rating Explanation: Generally speaking, I consider 1 star products to either be something that makes no noise at all i.e. DoA or so incomprehensible that you might as well not be listening to anything. Thus, I gave the Shuoer Tape Pros a 1.5 star. If it was just the blue filter, it would be 1 star.

Introduction

In 2018, Sony updated their flagship line of in-ear monitors with the release of the IER-M7, M9, and Z1R. The M9 gained almost unanimous praise as an excellent IEM best suited as a stage monitor. The Z1R was a little more controversial with its exorbitant price tag, antagonistic fit, and uncompromising sound. For the few that could make it work, the Z1R seemed to be endgame. But today I want to talk about the overlooked, youngest brother of the line-up, the IER-M7.

On the surface, the M7 looks very similar to the M9. It has almost exactly the same shell design and boasts four of Sony's in-house balanced armatures instead of five. It also comes with the same extremely generous set of accessories: 13 pairs of Sony tips, two cables, and a hard carrying case. The cable isn't exactly the prettiest but it does the job splendidly with little cable noise and no cable memory whatsoever. Fit, comfort, and isolation was equally great for me. You can tell that these IEMs were truly made for stage use.

The biggest difference between them is the fact that the M7 shells are made out of a light plastic while the M9 is crafted from magnesium. Well that and the carbon fiber faceplate on the M9. Truth be told, when I had the chance to hold them side by side, I can't help but be disappointed that Sony sacrificed that slice of premium on the M7. Maybe there's was an actual engineering decision here but at an MSRP of $500 I would expect something a little more substantial.



Sound

Though the M7 is marketed as a "stage" or "studio" IEM, I didn't find it sterile or boring. It has an overall warm neutral tuning that's on the bassy side with laid back vocals. It plays nicely with the vast majority of music I threw at it. However, I was able to hear the difference in driver engagement during different parts of a track where the crossovers get employed. Sony's BAs seem to have a distinct sound to them and the transitions aren't always seamless. Alone, the mid drivers have a sense of clarity that really jumps out at you until the bass drivers kick in to add their own flavor to complete the M7's sound. Interestingly enough, when I demo'd the M7 next to the M9 a year ago, I found the M7 to be borderline dark. But listening to it again for this review, I didn't have that impression at all. While not the ideal tuning for me, it's plenty enjoyable.



Bass

The low end BAs are probably the most interesting drivers in the M7 (and M9). For those who don't know, Sony's BAs are designed completely differently from others in the industry and have a unique firing mechanism. I don't know the exact details but suffice it to say it can clearly be heard in the bass of the M7. If you didn't know it was a BA, it could almost pass for a dynamic driver. I'd say it's about 70% of the way to a good DD and preferable to a lot of bad ones. There's a decent amount of rumble in the subbass and the M7 leans towards being boomy rather than punchy which is uncharacteristic of BA IEMs. Fortunately, the clarity in the midbass isn't too negatively affected and the BA speed is mostly still there. Overall, the bass is elevated and bleeds into the mids. My nitpick with the bass is that it needs more of a defined leading edge. Right now, the notes in the bass sound rounded off which makes it a little soft and contributes to the boominess. It can also get a little muddy at times when there's too much going on due to a relative lack of definition. Of course, the better the recording/mastering, the better the M7 will perform.

Mids

The mids of the M7 are warm and laid back. Those that enjoy a lusher tone that's less forward will likely enjoy the M7's tuning. Personally, I'd prefer more upper mids to drive the energy of vocals and electric guitars. For acoustic instruments, the balance in the mids has a very clear, welcoming tone that performs excellently in unplugged-type setlists. As mentioned previously, on its own, the mid BAs have an engaging quality to it. But when the track goes from a mid-focused acoustic passage to bringing in booming drums, there is a sense of disconnect as the bass BAs kick in and dilutes the singular clarity of the mids. The laid back nature of the upper mids means vocals are never harsh or fatiguing to listen to, nor is there any issue with sibilance. I think the M7 does a good job in toeing the line between being too relaxed and having just enough vocal presence to prevent it from sounding buried.

Highs

The treble of the M7 definitely takes a backseat in the overall sound signature. It dips quite rapidly starting at the lower treble which partially mutes the attack of the hats and cymbals. Treble is present but kept to a minimum to avoid listener fatigue. That said, I didn't feel like it was overly dark and thought that there was a surprising amount of treble extension and presence where it mattered. I was actually pretty surprised looking at the graphs after listening as I didn't expect that large of a scoop past the upper mids. Personally, I would have liked just a bit more presence in the treble to bring forth the shine from the hats/cymbals and give the upper harmonics of vocals more breathing space. Overall, I thought the treble of the M7 was tastefully done for what they were going for. The timbre isn't perfect but there are no glaring weaknesses here.

Presentation

The biggest highlight for me was the soundstage and imaging. The M7 has large soundstage that feels natural to me and solid imaging ability to go along with it. The relaxed upper mids does lend to the illusion of a more open space though I wish there was a bit more treble to give clarity and balance out the occasional muddiness from the bass. Instrument separation is quite decent for the most part and resolution is a clear step up from the <$200 class of IEMs, as expected.

The presentation of the M7 works pretty well for me. Its stage, resolution, and tonal balance comes together well enough in a way that's enjoyable and easy to listen to but it isn't always a seamless experience. I can't shake the feeling that the M7 is the glued together pieces of something greater. That the M7 is a sort of first draft of an idealized entity. Of course, I'm being facetious here. That something is the M9 and the sound quality improvement is fairly striking if you ever have the chance to hear them side by side.



Should You Buy It?

At its MSRP of $500, it's a bit of a tough pill to swallow for me personally. On one hand, I quite enjoyed my time with the M7 and I found myself reaching for them again and again for this review even though I had other IEMs in line for ear time. But on the other hand, Sony's choice to seemingly cheap out on the build quality irks me (though kudos for the plentiful accessory set) and the M7's "almost there but not quite" feeling does stick in the back of my mind. This is exacerbated by the "mid-fi desert" as I like to call it, where IEMs at this price range have to fight cheaper mid-fi IEMs like the Moondrop Blessing 2 in that ever present price/performance arms race or against used entry level hi-fi IEMs. It's a tough spot to be in especially when new entrants to the scene like the DUNU SA6 shake up the already select few mid-fi models. I don't think I can fully recommend the Sony IER-M7 at its asking price. But if you ever manage to find a used one in good condition for about $250-300 or cheaper, I'd say its compromises are palatable and sound quality thoroughly enjoyable. It'll serve as a nice stopgap until you make the plunge into endgame.

Introduction

Today I'm going to be looking at the TRN VX, a 6 BA 1 DD hybrid IEM that costs about $70 from HiFiGo. TRN is yet another ChiFi company that has popped up in the last couple of years and seemingly puts out new products ever few months or so. I've had the chance to listen to the TRN V80 and the TRN V90 before. I wasn't a big fan of the V80 but thought the V90 was fairly decent relative to other offerings at the $50 mark at the time. With that, let's see how the TRN VX does. Disclaimer: I received the TRN VX from HiFiGo in exchange for this honest review. I have not been or will be compensated in any other way.

What's in the Box?

The unboxing experience is a very barebones affair. You get a minimalist white box that holds the IEM, cable, and tips. You get a generic set of S, M, and L size tips and a black 2-pin TRN cable. I dislike the cable. It is very tangly and has cable memory such that kinks are ever present. I'd probably swap out the cable if I were to daily drive the TRN VX.

The construction of the TRN VX is solid. It's a full metal shell and aesthetically pleasing with a clean look and tasteful chamfer lines. The TRN VX fits over ear and I find it to be quite comfortable thanks to its reasonably sized nozzle. Isolation is poor. You will hear cars as they pass by, if you still go out.

Sound



My initial impressions of the TRN VX's sound was favorable. It's a bit of a W-shaped IEM as it has a midbass emphasis, an upper mids forwardness, and a bright tilt. I'd consider it fairly well tuned and overall decently balanced. The bass clearly has that DD heritage while the mids don't suffer badly from BA timbre. Its treble energy may be the make-or-break for those looking at this IEM.

Bass:
As seen the graph, the bass is clearly lifted. While not overpowering, it's definitely bassy. The VX has a more midbassy approach to the bass rather than subbass focus and we can see it rolling off, though not too badly. The DD in the VX drives the bass and has a dynamism that gives plenty of energy to the bass. Though it lacks texture, it is responsive and has doesn't feel bloated or sluggish. Compared to the majority of other IEMs in the budget segment, the bass of the VX trades blows or edges out its brethren. You'd have to go to IEMs like the Tin HiFi T4, Moondrop Starfield, and Etymotic ER2 to clearly best it.

Mids:
Interestingly, I don't find the TRN VX to be a warm IEM despite the bass bleed into the lower mids that the graph may suggest. And the reason is fairly obvious: the large amount of pinna gain and upper mids around the 2-4 kHz mark offsets the warmth I'd otherwise expect. Speaking of the seeming bass bleed, I don't find that the VX has an issue there at all. The bass transitions into the low mids without fanfare. But back to the upper mids. Some may find the VX shouty; I don't. Though I will admit that I generally have a higher tolerance than others in this regard. Vocals have an obvious forwardness and is presented with plenty of clarity. There is a bit of an edginess to certain "sss" consonants in the vocals, though not to the point of full blown sibilance.

Treble:
The lower treble around 5-6 kHz is de-emphasized so there isn't too much of the crisp attack from the hats and cymbals. Nor is there harshness in the vocals. But past that is some treble oddities that aren't reflected in the graph (note: the 8 kHz peak is a measurement artifact - take it with a grain of salt). To start, there is a sharpness and some splashiness when it comes to the hats and cymbals. It's not so much the initial attack but the decaying ring that gains a brightness that can be fatiguing to listen to. There's a sense of aggression with the treble, and not in a good way. Generally speaking, I find that most IEMs, regardless of price, struggle to properly render the highly delicate and nuanced sounds of the hats and cymbals. In the case of the VX, this is exacerbated and turns into emphasized incoherence in poorly recorded music. For those sensitive to treble, the VX may not be for you.

Presentation:

Soundstage and imaging are about average for IEMs. It's not claustrophobic or congested but doesn't strive beyond that. Resolution is surprisingly good. Part of it may be due to the forwardness of the mids and aggressiveness of the treble but I felt that, like the bass, it performs better than the majority of other offerings in the price range. Well done here by TRN. Like the staging, instrument separation and layering are fine. Nothing standout about them nor will they be the limiting factor of the overall sound quality.



Select Comparisons

Tin Audio T2 Plus

The T2 Plus is my current budget benchmark as it provides solid tuning and respectable technical performance at the $50 sweet spot. Unfortunately, the T2 Plus pretty much beats the TRN VX in all respects except for the bass. The T2 Plus' bass is a little unconventional; it's not bad per se but is rather unique. I called it "bouncy" in my T2 Plus review. On the other hand, the TRN VX's bass has a more standard, straightforward approach and I'd say is a sidegrade or minor upgrade. The T2 Plus' treble response is much better than the TRN VX. Mids is a toss up. If you like vocal forwardness, get the VX. The T2 Plus' vocals is more subdued in comparison. Technical performance of both IEMs are otherwise on par with each other. For $50, the T2 Plus is just a straight up better price/performance proposal especially when it comes with better accessories.

Thieaudio Legacy 3

To be honest, one of the first thoughts I had when listening to the TRN VX was that it was a cheaper, exaggerated version of the Legacy 3. To an extent, I think that still holds true. The tuning of the VX has more upper mids, more bass, and has treble compared to the relatively treble-weak Legacy 3. A/Bing the two, I think it mostly comes down to a tuning preference issue. The Legacy 3 is noticeably warmer with laid back vocals and the lack of treble is very apparent next to the VX. The Legacy 3 has a slightly better bass response. VX's more midbass focus causes it to fall short when a solid deep note is needed.

TRN V90

The TRN V90 was one of TRN's previous offerings that I reviewed before the VX. At the time, I thought it was pretty decent and on par with the KZ ZSX and BLON BL03. Tuning wise, they're fairly different. V90 has a classic in-your-face V-shape while the VX has a more balanced tuning. Between the two, I'd say the VX is better but honestly the differences aren't night and day. If you already have a V90 or any other decent $50 or so piece of ChiFi, I'd suggest that you look for a bigger upgrade than the VX. At the very least, get the Etymotic ER2/Tin Audio T4/Moondrop Starfield.


Should You Buy It?

Not really. The TRN VX is a very solid budget offering. The challenge lies in its competition. For $50, the T2 Plus exists. For $80 or so, you can sometimes find the Tin Audio T4 or Etymotic ER2 on sale and those pretty much blow the VX out of the water. The only reason you should buy the TRN VX in my view is if you've heard the T2 Plus and crave more upper mids forwardness and treble presence. At the end of the day, if you already own a TRN VX or for some reason really want to buy one, be happy with it. It's a fine IEM and not every IEM can be a contender for the price/performance crown. The TRN VX has been a commendable effort and I look forward to what TRN does next.

Reason for 4 star rating: I wasn't too sure if I was going to give it a 3.5 star or 4 star rating. In the end, I decided that the TRN VX does deserve a 4-star. Despite its shortcomings and stiff competition, I believe the VX sounds good enough to be worthy of it.

Introduction

This a dual review for the Thieaudio Voyager and Legacy 3. The Voyager 3 costs $160 and is a 3 BA IEM while the Legacy 3 is a 2 BA 1 DD hybrid that costs $120. Disclaimer: I received both the Voyager and Legacy 3 from Linsoul in exchange for this honest review. I have not been or will be compensated in any other way. Also, this review is effectively identical to my Legacy 3 review on Head-Fi, with just the order of presentation flipped around.

For those unfamiliar with the Thieaudio brand, they're a ChiFi IEM brand with a number of products at common price segments, with the Voyager and Legacy 3 being their entry-level products. More recently, they've made waves with the release of the Thieaudio Monarch and Clairvoyance, two ~$700 IEMs that genuinely challenge some of the very best on the market. What's interesting about Thieaudio is that they're actually the in-house brand for Linsoul; you likely won't find them on some of the other common ChiFi stores like those on Aliexpress (e.g. NiceHCK) or Penon Audio. Notably, the Voyager and Legacy 3 are some of the only IEMs in the <$200 range that feature dip switches for tuning.



What's in the Box?
The Voyager and Legacy 3 ship in a minimalist green box featuring its logo. You pull a green loop to slide out the inner box that presents IEM shells and a faux-leather carrying case. Inside the carrying case you'll find the 2-pin QDC style, over-ear IEM cable, a standard set of S, M, and L tips, and a SIM card ejector tool you can use to adjust the switches on the IEM shell. Between the two, I like the Legacy 3's shell design more. The gold clockwork faceplate is striking against the translucent light blue shell. It also has more customization options for the faceplate and you can even get it in custom form for not too much more depending on the customization, making it quite an attractive CIEM option for <$200.

The fit on both the Voyager and Legacy 3 are quite similar, with the typical ergonomic shape that's becoming increasingly common with resin shells. The Voyager 3 however is slightly bulkier than the Legacy 3. Both isolate fairly well. I find that the Legacy 3 does have some driver flex with its DD, marking a slight inconvenience when walking around at times. The cables these IEMs ship with are great. The Voyager 3 in particular ships with the Tripowin C8 cable and one of the best stock cables to come with an IEM that I've encountered. There's next to no cable noise, no cable memory, and is soft and pliable. The Legacy 3's cable isn't up to the same level but still beats out the vast majority of stock cables and is a bit rubbery. Needless to say, there's little need to cable swap unless they die for some reason.




Sound
As mentioned before, both the Thieaudio Voyager 3 and Legacy 3 each feature two dip switches for a total of four possible tunings. For the Legacy 3, the switches have essentially no effect and I won't make a distinction between them for this review. For the Voyager 3, the switches have a noticeable difference. I'll post measurements at the end of each review. For reference, I refer to the four tuning options as 00, 10, 01, and 11 where 0 refers to the switch in the up position and 1 in the down position. The settings are read left to right i.e. ON then KE. This picture provides an example of the 10 position.



Don't ask me what ON or KE stand for. I'll chalk it up to some odd lost-in-translation problem from the manufacturers.

Voyager 3:



Technical Ability: The technical performance of the Voyager 3 is quite similar to that of the Legacy 3. Both imaging and soundstage are about on par for most IEMs - a flat 2D, in-your-head sound. Resolution and separation are very middling and a step back from the Legacy 3. Dynamics are blunted. For $160, I'm fairly disappointed. The technical performance of the Voyager 3 is on the level of some of the better $50-80 IEMs. BA timbre is not bad but is absolutely noticeable in the bass when comparing to the Legacy 3.

Tuning 00: This is my second favorite tuning. The bass is bloated but there is serviceable upper mids clarity to balance things out. There's a peak around the lower-mid treble that manifests as splashy cymbals and brings out the crack of the snare. Some may find this fatiguing. As with the other tunings, upper treble is lacking and there is no sense of air or sparkle.



Tuning 10: This is my favorite tuning. The bass is dipped just a tad while adding a bit more upper mids and treble. It's essentially a cleaner version of tuning 00. Although the bass is still slightly bloated, it's not an issue. My only complaint with this (which also applies to tuning 00) is that the splashy treble sometimes sometimes jumps out at you and the lack of treble extension makes the tone a little wonky. The Legacy 3's tuning is better IMO. There's just a much better balance between the mids and the bass in the Legacy 3 despite it's lack of treble. The Voyager 3's 10 tuning passes the bar for decent and that's about it.



Tuning 01 and 11: Like 00 and 10, these tunings are quite similar. For the most part, I dislike both. Compared to the 00 and 10 tunings, these sound bloated and muddy with a severe lack of presence in the mids due to a very small pinna gain. The 01 tuning is worse by a little bit. These tunings essentially dampen the uppers and treble. Because the low-mid treble hump is tamed, there is a further lack of clarity and the treble now just sounds cheap. Interestingly enough, the 11 tuning graphs fairly closely to the pre-2020 CFA Andromeda. While I also did not like the Andromeda's tuning when I had a chance to demo it, it was a lot better than this. I think the significantly improved technical performance and upper treble extension of the Andromeda play a big part in that. All that being said, I can see how some people like this sort of laid back, warm tuning. When I compare it directly to the Legacy 3 which has a much better balance, the 01 and 11 tunings are hard to enjoy. But after a good 30 minutes or so my ears started to adjust and I began to enjoy the music through this tuning. For some tracks, the lack of pinna butchers the vocals. But depending on the mix, other tracks aren't really affected at all. Of course, YMMV depending on what you listen to.




Conclusion: It's hard for me to recommend the Voyager 3 beyond the novelty aspect of playing with tuning switches. Its technical ability is middling at best. The best tuning setting is relatively decent. For $160, the Voyager 3 really shouldn't exist. To be fair to Thieaudio, the Voyager 3 was their very first foray into IEMs and the <$200 market is phenomenally competitive. The one case where I can see the Voyager 3 be worth it is if you're curious about tuning switches as I can't readily think of any other <$200 IEM out there with switches that meaningfully contribute to the overall sound. Though there are a number of other IEMs out there with tuning filters.

Measurements:
You can see the channel matching is quite good on the Voyager 3.


Here are the four tuning options. You can clearly see that if the second switch is in the "up" position, it has a lot more upper mids and treble presence.



Legacy 3:



Bass: The bass of the Legacy 3 extends down to 20 Hz with the slightest of roll-offs. It has a nice sense of impact and responsiveness that makes up for its relative lack of texture and nuance. As far as budget IEMs go, this is one of the better bass responses I've heard. It provides the much needed low end presence that makes music engaging while maintaining a balance that doesn't emphasize either subbass or midbass.

Mids: The transition into the low mids is tastefully done. A lot of budget IEMs can struggle here but the Legacy 3 handles it with no issue. There isn't much bass bleed or muddiness from the DD and nor a jarring DD/BA transition at the crossover. The Legacy 3 has just a hint of warmth in the lower mids. The upper mids has plenty presence with a forwardness that brings out clarity in vocals and electric guitars. Combined with the slight warmth in the lower mids, the Legacy 3's mids response nicely handles the tone of a majority of instruments. From the quiet strumming guitar coupled with a vocalist's whispered words to the screaming overdriven notes of lead electric guitar, the Legacy 3 is well suited to modern pop/rock genres.

Treble: Where the Legacy 3 stumbles is its relative lack of treble. Right at the transition between the upper mids and lower treble, there is a sharp drop-off in volume. This is not to say the Legacy 3 cannot produce treble at all. It can and the Legacy 3 is certainly not a dark IEM. It is simply de-emphasized. The sharp, crisp sound of the hats or delicate shimmer of the the cymbals have less presence, leading to a duller tone. For those sensitive to treble, the Legacy 3 would be a good choice as it is far from fatiguing with no sibilance issues. I liken it's lack of treble to that of the Etymotic ER4 line. It's there but its far from the focus. I find that the overall tonality of the Legacy 3 isn't negatively affected by this, with the exception of instruments that specifically rely heavily on the upper harmonics.

Technical Ability: On a technical level, the Legacy 3 is a solid performer for it's price bracket of about $120 but won't be taking home any medals. Imaging is a bit better than your standard budget IEM though its soundstage is mediocre with a flat 2D, in-your-head type of sound that's in line with 90% of other IEMs out there. Resolution and separation are competitive with some of the better products in this price range but are decidedly a step down from the best performers (i.e. Etymotic ER2, Tin Audio T4, Moondrop Starfeld).

Conclusion: As a whole, I quite like the Thieaudio Legacy 3. While it lacks the treble response that I generally look for in my IEMs, the mids balance and bopping bass response kept me listening to it for longer than I'd normally do for a review. While I don't think it provides the greatest value from a price/performance standpoint, it is a solid contender to the $100 or so IEM range. Where I see the Legacy 3 be undisputed is as a CIEM. The number of CIEMs you can buy <$200 can be counted on one hand and the Legacy 3 has a firm foundation in both tuning and technical performance.

Measurements:
My set has very slight imbalance but this is not noticeable at all.



You can see in this graph that regardless of what setting you're on, there's effectively no difference.


*Disclaimer: The Legacy 3 has a unit variation issue. Antdroid has previously documented it here. My unit has the old (orange) tuning. Based on the measurements, I would probably enjoy the newer tuning even more. That said, I still find the old tuning enjoyable as demonstrated in my review.

Should You Buy It and Which One?
As evident in my review, I would consider the Legacy 3 to be worth it while the Voyager 3 can be safely ignored. The Legacy 3 beats out the Voyager 3 in almost all respects unless you specifically want that Andromeda-like laid-back, warm tuning with minimal vocal forwardness from the Voyager 3. At $120, the Legacy 3 is a good value and I feel comfortable recommending it, especially if you want a CIEM. And while there may be better value propositions on the market, those may not fit your needs. As always, make sure you think about what exactly you want out of your IEMs and do more research into what fits your needs. If the Etymotic ER2, the Tin T4, or Moondrop Starfield have some sort of deal breaker for you, the Legacy 3 is worth a look.

Introduction

This a dual review for the Thieaudio Voyager and Legacy 3. The Voyager 3 costs $160 and is a 3 BA IEM while the Legacy 3 is a 2 BA 1 DD hybrid that costs $120. Disclaimer: I received both the Voyager and Legacy 3 from Linsoul in exchange for this honest review. I have not been or will be compensated in any other way.

For those unfamiliar with the Thieaudio brand, they're a ChiFi IEM brand with a number of products at common price segments, with the Voyager and Legacy 3 being their entry-level products. More recently, they've made waves with the release of the Thieaudio Monarch and Clairvoyance, two ~$700 IEMs that genuinely challenge some of the very best on the market. What's interesting about Thieaudio is that they're actually the in-house brand for Linsoul; you likely won't find them on some of the other common ChiFi stores like those on Aliexpress (e.g. NiceHCK) or Penon Audio. Notably, the Voyager and Legacy 3 are some of the only IEMs in the <$200 range that feature dip switches for tuning.

What's in the Box?
The Voyager and Legacy 3 ship in a minimalist green box featuring its logo. You pull a green loop to slide out the inner box that presents IEM shells and a faux-leather carrying case. Inside the carrying case you'll find the 2-pin QDC style, over-ear IEM cable, a standard set of S, M, and L tips, and a SIM card ejector tool you can use to adjust the switches on the IEM shell. Between the two, I like the Legacy 3's shell design more. The gold clockwork faceplate is striking against the translucent light blue shell. It also has more customization options for the faceplate and you can even get it in custom form for not too much more depending on the customization, making it quite an attractive CIEM option for <$200.

The fit on both the Voyager and Legacy 3 are quite similar, with the typical ergonomic shape that's becoming increasingly common with resin shells. The Voyager 3 however is slightly bulkier than the Legacy 3. Both isolate fairly well. I find that the Legacy 3 does have some driver flex with its DD, marking a slight inconvenience when walking around at times. The cables these IEMs ship with are great. The Voyager 3 in particular ships with the Tripowin C8 cable and one of the best stock cables to come with an IEM that I've encountered. There's next to no cable noise, no cable memory, and is soft and pliable. The Legacy 3's cable isn't up to the same level but still beats out the vast majority of stock cables and is a bit rubbery. Needless to say, there's little need to cable swap unless they die for some reason.




Sound
As mentioned before, both the Thieaudio Voyager 3 and Legacy 3 each feature two dip switches for a total of four possible tunings. For the Legacy 3, the switches have essentially no effect and I won't make a distinction between them for this review. For the Voyager 3, the switches have a noticeable difference. I'll post measurements at the end of each review. For reference, I refer to the four tuning options as 00, 10, 01, and 11 where 0 refers to the switch in the up position and 1 in the down position. The settings are read left to right i.e. ON then KE. This picture provides an example of the 10 position.



Don't ask me what ON or KE stand for. I'll chalk it up to some odd lost-in-translation problem from the manufacturers.


Legacy 3:



Bass: The bass of the Legacy 3 extends down to 20 Hz with the slightest of roll-offs. It has a nice sense of impact and responsiveness that makes up for its relative lack of texture and nuance. As far as budget IEMs go, this is one of the better bass responses I've heard. It provides the much needed low end presence that makes music engaging while maintaining a balance that doesn't emphasize either subbass or midbass.

Mids: The transition into the low mids is tastefully done. A lot of budget IEMs can struggle here but the Legacy 3 handles it with no issue. There isn't much bass bleed or muddiness from the DD and nor a jarring DD/BA transition at the crossover. The Legacy 3 has just a hint of warmth in the lower mids. The upper mids has plenty presence with a forwardness that brings out clarity in vocals and electric guitars. Combined with the slight warmth in the lower mids, the Legacy 3's mids response nicely handles the tone of a majority of instruments. From the quiet strumming guitar coupled with a vocalist's whispered words to the screaming overdriven notes of lead electric guitar, the Legacy 3 is well suited to modern pop/rock genres.

Treble: Where the Legacy 3 stumbles is its relative lack of treble. Right at the transition between the upper mids and lower treble, there is a sharp drop-off in volume. This is not to say the Legacy 3 cannot produce treble at all. It can and the Legacy 3 is certainly not a dark IEM. It is simply de-emphasized. The sharp, crisp sound of the hats or delicate shimmer of the the cymbals have less presence, leading to a duller tone. For those sensitive to treble, the Legacy 3 would be a good choice as it is far from fatiguing with no sibilance issues. I liken it's lack of treble to that of the Etymotic ER4 line. It's there but its far from the focus. I find that the overall tonality of the Legacy 3 isn't negatively affected by this, with the exception of instruments that specifically rely heavily on the upper harmonics.

Technical Ability: On a technical level, the Legacy 3 is a solid performer for it's price bracket of about $120 but won't be taking home any medals. Imaging is a bit better than your standard budget IEM though its soundstage is mediocre with a flat 2D, in-your-head type of sound that's in line with 90% of other IEMs out there. Resolution and separation are competitive with some of the better products in this price range but are decidedly a step down from the best performers (i.e. Etymotic ER2, Tin Audio T4, Moondrop Starfeld).

Conclusion: As a whole, I quite like the Thieaudio Legacy 3. While it lacks the treble response that I generally look for in my IEMs, the mids balance and bopping bass response kept me listening to it for longer than I'd normally do for a review. While I don't think it provides the greatest value from a price/performance standpoint, it is a solid contender to the $100 or so IEM range. Where I see the Legacy 3 be undisputed is as a CIEM. The number of CIEMs you can buy <$200 can be counted on one hand and the Legacy 3 has a firm foundation in both tuning and technical performance.

Measurements:
My set has very slight imbalance but this is not noticeable at all.



You can see in this graph that regardless of what setting you're on, there's effectively no difference.


*Disclaimer: The Legacy 3 has a unit variation issue. Antdroid has previously documented it here. My unit has the old (orange) tuning. Based on the measurements, I would probably enjoy the newer tuning even more. That said, I still find the old tuning enjoyable as demonstrated in my review.

Voyager 3:



Technical Ability: The technical performance of the Voyager 3 is quite similar to that of the Legacy 3. Both imaging and soundstage are about on par for most IEMs - a flat 2D, in-your-head sound. Resolution and separation are very middling and a step back from the Legacy 3. Dynamics are blunted. For $160, I'm fairly disappointed. The technical performance of the Voyager 3 is on the level of some of the better $50-80 IEMs. BA timbre is not bad but is absolutely noticeable in the bass when comparing to the Legacy 3.

Tuning 00: This is my second favorite tuning. The bass is bloated but there is serviceable upper mids clarity to balance things out. There's a peak around the lower-mid treble that manifests as splashy cymbals and brings out the crack of the snare. Some may find this fatiguing. As with the other tunings, upper treble is lacking and there is no sense of air or sparkle.



Tuning 10: This is my favorite tuning. The bass is dipped just a tad while adding a bit more upper mids and treble. It's essentially a cleaner version of tuning 00. Although the bass is still slightly bloated, it's not an issue. My only complaint with this (which also applies to tuning 00) is that the splashy treble sometimes sometimes jumps out at you and the lack of treble extension makes the tone a little wonky. The Legacy 3's tuning is better IMO. There's just a much better balance between the mids and the bass in the Legacy 3 despite it's lack of treble. The Voyager 3's 10 tuning passes the bar for decent and that's about it.



Tuning 01 and 11: Like 00 and 10, these tunings are quite similar. For the most part, I dislike both. Compared to the 00 and 10 tunings, these sound bloated and muddy with a severe lack of presence in the mids due to a very small pinna gain. The 01 tuning is worse by a little bit. These tunings essentially dampen the uppers and treble. Because the low-mid treble hump is tamed, there is a further lack of clarity and the treble now just sounds cheap. Interestingly enough, the 11 tuning graphs fairly closely to the pre-2020 CFA Andromeda. While I also did not like the Andromeda's tuning when I had a chance to demo it, it was a lot better than this. I think the significantly improved technical performance and upper treble extension of the Andromeda play a big part in that. All that being said, I can see how some people like this sort of laid back, warm tuning. When I compare it directly to the Legacy 3 which has a much better balance, the 01 and 11 tunings are hard to enjoy. But after a good 30 minutes or so my ears started to adjust and I began to enjoy the music through this tuning. For some tracks, the lack of pinna butchers the vocals. But depending on the mix, other tracks aren't really affected at all. Of course, YMMV depending on what you listen to.




Conclusion: It's hard for me to recommend the Voyager 3 beyond the novelty aspect of playing with tuning switches. Its technical ability is middling at best. The best tuning setting is relatively decent. For $160, the Voyager 3 really shouldn't exist. To be fair to Thieaudio, the Voyager 3 was their very first foray into IEMs and the <$200 market is phenomenally competitive. The one case where I can see the Voyager 3 be worth it is if you're curious about tuning switches as I can't readily think of any other <$200 IEM out there with switches that meaningfully contribute to the overall sound. Though there are a number of other IEMs out there with tuning filters.

Measurements:
You can see the channel matching is quite good on the Voyager 3.


Here are the four tuning options. You can clearly see that if the second switch is in the "up" position, it has a lot more upper mids and treble presence.


Should You Buy It and Which One?
As evident in my review, I would consider the Legacy 3 to be worth it while the Voyager 3 can be safely ignored. The Legacy 3 beats out the Voyager 3 in almost all respects unless you specifically want that Andromeda-like laid-back, warm tuning with minimal vocal forwardness from the Voyager 3. At $120, the Legacy 3 is a good value and I feel comfortable recommending it, especially if you want a CIEM. And while there may be better value propositions on the market, those may not fit your needs. As always, make sure you think about what exactly you want out of your IEMs and do more research into what fits your needs. If the Etymotic ER2, the Tin T4, or Moondrop Starfield have some sort of deal breaker for you, the Legacy 3 is worth a look.

This is a review of the Kinera Freya. It is a hybrid 3 BA + 1 DD IEM that costs $250 from HiFiGo. Disclaimer: I received the Kinera Freya from HiFiGo in exchange for this honest review. I have not been or will be compensated in any other way.

Introduction

Kinera is one of the older, more established companies in the ChiFi space. Unlike KZ, they have a more conservative release schedule with a focus on a few IEMs rather than many. The Freya is their newest foray into the mid-fi space. Boasting hybrid quad drivers, handmade, hand-painted shells, and a fairly luxurious set of accessories, the Freya looks to market itself as a lifestyle product for audiophiles. The only question is: does it sound as good as it looks?



What's in the Box?

The Kinera Freya probably has the most over-the-top unboxing experience of all the IEMs I've reviewed. It comes in a large hexagonal box and no less than four little pamphlets with ChiFi marketing phrases. Beyond the marketing material lies the Freya, a set of S/M/L tips, a Lightning dongle, a cleaning brush, a 3.5 mm to 4.4 mm adapter, and a circular carrying case. Inside the carrying case is a 2-core copper 2-pin cable, a USB-C dongle, and a set of Final Audio tips.

The fit of the Freya is on the bulky side as it has a fairly large nozzle diameter but otherwise the fit is comfortable. Isolation is decent. I preferred the included Final tips and used them throughout this review. The cable looks like a copper-colored Tin T4 cable but it feels nothing like it. This cable is a much stiffer and has a stronger cable memory. The cable noise isn't too bad though. The shells look nice but it definitely photographs much nicer than it looks in real life I think.




Sound
Overall Impressions:

My first impressions of the Freya were lackluster. The tuning of the Freya is heavy emphasis on midbass and low mids that's balanced with upper mid presence. Treble is a little on the muted side and peaky. It's an asymmetrical V-shaped with more emphasis on the lows than highs. The coloration of the Freya's tuning initially caught me off-guard but as I spent more time with it over the course of this review, I started to enjoy it. I'm generally not a fan of this type of tuning but I can see why it appeals to certain folks. It's a non-fatiguing listen with a warm body. The Freya works best for pop and light rock but instrumental works or technical music are non-ideal.

Bass:

The Freya is certainly bass boosted. There's a subbass roll off under 40 Hz but beyond that is lots of bass that bleeds into the mids. While you can certainly feel the note, it doesn't rumble or slam. Its boomy and thumpy. This is most clearly heard in the kick, where every note has a weighty, thumpy sort of sound. In certain recordings, this type of sound can be quite addictive, especially when coupled with great bass guitar playing. The Freya does a competent job with note separation in less busy tracks but starts to struggle with clarity when push comes to shove. Timbre is... fine. It's a tad too colored and lacking texture in the thumpiness for me to rate it higher but if you're looking for that engaging live concert sort of chest pounding sound, the Freya's bass tuning invokes a bit of that. As a whole, I'm mixed on the Freya's bass. The tuning is kinda like fast food: an enjoyable, addictive little reprieve every now and then but is ultimately shallow and leaves me wanting for more substantial and nuanced.

Mids:

The mids of the Freya are undoubtedly warm owing to the bass bleed; lush, if you prefer flowery language. Despite being a hybrid IEM, I don't actually notice the crossover between the DD and the BAs. In fact, if you told me this was a single DD I would be inclined to believe you. The only place I get a sense of the BAs is in the treble. In the mids, I moreso notice the rich tone of stringed instruments while the low mids have a bodied sound that is particularly suited to moody notes of the synth and piano. I fully expected the bass and low mids boost to overshadow the vocals. Thankfully, this isn't the case. The vocals are forward enough that it doesn't sound suffocated while maintaining the aforementioned "lush" tone. I do think the overall tonality of the vocals could be fine tuned for a sweeter upper mid presence. It feels excessively warm with too early a rise for the pinna comp.

Treble:

The treble is on the muted side for a less fatiguing sound. There is a notable lack of brilliance to brighten things up and forget about airiness. The drawn out, shimmering decay of the crash cymbal quickly loses energy while the sharp, crisp sound of the hats is clearly attenuated. There are occasional splashes of treble energy giving a sense of non-uniformity to the treble. I think this has to do with a large dip right around the lower treble starting at about 5 kHz, a peak around 7 kHz, and the subsequent roll-off of the upper treble. In the grand scheme of things, the Freya's treble is barely passable. The treble makes sense with the overall tuning of the Freya to complement the low mids emphasis but it doesn't always sound right thanks to the dip, peak, and roll-off. At the very least, I applaud the Freya for not overdampening the treble for an overly safe sound like that of the Moondrop Starfield.


Presentation:

The soundstage is fairly average for an IEM in terms of height, width, and depth. Imaging is above average beyond the standard 3-blob sound and feels well suited to the soundstage though there is a lack of layering. The staging has a sense of being contained but not congested.

On the surface, the resolution of the Freya isn't outstanding. But if you listen closely, there are glimpses of micro-detail interwoven into the sound that enhances the overall listening experience. As whole, I would generally put the technical ability on the level of good budget IEMs about $50-100. Compared to great IEMs like the Tin T4 or Moondrop Starfield, the Freya is a clear step back.




Should You Buy It?

No. I find the Freya to be reminiscent of the old ChiFi tuning. It may look pretty and come with an extraneous amount of marketing material, but it is fundamentally another fairly sloppily tuned V-shaped IEM with excessive bass bloat into the mids. I find that over time as I listen to IEMs I initially dislike, I start to look past their flaws and the Freya is no exception. Once I got over the highly colored tuning, I began to enjoy the Freya more as an IEM for background music while working. The thumpy bass, warm tone, and non-fatiguing treble makes it engaging enough for long listening sessions without being too in-your-face and demanding of attention. It's an easy-to-forget type of sound for when you want to focus on different tasks.

The biggest problem with the Freya to me is its price. It just isn't much better than good $50-100 budget IEMs really. The $250 price tag is expectant of quality that simply isn't there. The tuning isn't anything special and its technical ability is middling. Maybe about $100 would be more justifiable. After all, the BGVP DMG exists and has a similar sort of tuning for about half the price. Kinera may have dressed the Freya up as extravagantly as possible, but ultimately that's all it is. A nice looking IEM that sounds OK and photographs beautifully. That said, I don't want to be too hard on it. It may not be a price-performance winner but I did come to enjoy it while writing this review. The Freya is an IEM I'll probably pull out once in a while to listen to if I'm going to be working at my desk for an extended period of time. But as a reviewer, I can't justify any reader buy it. If you already own a Freya and are happy with it, don't let this review persuade you otherwise.

Introduction

This is a review of the Tin HiFi T2 Plus. It is a single DD IEM that costs $50-60 (depending on sales) from Linsoul. I received the T2 Plus from Linsoul in exchange for this honest review. I have not been or will be compensated in any other way.

For those new to Tin HiFi (formerly known as Tin Audio), here's a quick primer. A couple years ago, Tin HiFi released the T2. Relatively unknown at the time, a few people picked it up as yet another ChiFi curiousity thanks to a handful of reviews and a timely Aliexpress spring sale. To their surprise, the Tin T2 was a splendid IEM with a unique neutral tuning rarely seen in the budget realm. Rave reviews soon followed. Spurred by the success of the T2, Tin HiFi capitalized on their newly acquired brand recognition, soon producing well regarded IEMs such as the Tin T3 and T4 but occasionally stumbling with questionable IEMs such as the T2 Pro.

Within the past few years, ChiFi has been undergoing somewhat of a renaissance. Mostly gone are the days of poorly tuned V-shaped monsters from companies like KZ. The budget market is now filled with a wide variety of decently well tuned IEMs to fit any one's taste. And all of this started with the T2. Perhaps I may be giving the T2 too much credit as it surely isn't the first hyped up ChiFi IEM. But as far as I can tell, it seems to be the first reference-style tuned IEM that kick-started a entire paradigm shift in the budget market.

As for the T2 Plus, it is Tin HiFi's latest offering after the release of the Tin T4. But don't let its name or low price fool you. It doesn't have too much in common with the original T2 or any of Tin's other offerings. Priced at $50-60, it competes directly with the Tin T3. So where does it stand?







What's in the Box?

The box it comes in is reminiscent of the original T2: a simple white box. The inner box opens to reveal the IEMs themselves with a compartment below that holds the MMCX cable, foam tips, and a few pairs of silicon tips. As usual, Tin HiFi is stubbornly sticking to the MMCX standard despite the multitude of issues it has given them in the past. This time however, the cable is quite nice. It's soft and supple with no cable memory and low level of cable noise. The MMCX connection feels solid and does not swivel freely. It does have included earhooks of the soft molded kind without memory wires. Like the Tin T3's cable, the T2 Plus' is one you likely won't want to replace.

The fit of the T2 Plus is shockingly good. Despite looking like a Blon BL03 ripoff, I was floored at how well it fits me and how comfortable it is. Between its ergonomic shell and a nozzle diameter that's smaller than the previous T2/T3/T4, I wouldn't mind if all future Tin HiFi IEMs use the same cable and shell. This is one of the best fitting and comfortable budget IEMs I've tried.



Sound

Overall Impressions:

Right from the get-go, the T2 Plus is not the T2. There is too much bass here compared to the relatively bass light T2. The best way to describe it is as a mild V-shape with a bright slant. It has a sizable bass boost that extends into the mids to give it an overall warmish tone. Upper mids aren't overly blown and transitions nicely into a lively treble. As a whole, its signature has a maintains part of that Tin HiFi reference tuning masked under an elevated low end. For most people, the T2 Plus will have "fun" tuning that works well as a jack-of-all-trades with an overall balanced tone.


Bass:

My biggest (and only) gripe with the T2 Plus is its bass response. It has a reasonable amount of bass to give the T2 Plus low end presence and extends down to about 40 Hz with a minor roll-off at 20 Hz. The T2 Plus maintains this bass response all the way in to the mids, giving it a more mid-bassy signature rather than a sub-bassy one. The problem is that the T2 Plus' bass response is undefined when it comes to drums. It's loose, boomy, and weirdly enough... bouncy(?). The kick drum and low toms seem to lack that part of that deep, weighted oomph to them. It's as if you hear more of the beater head or stick impact and the immediate bounce back of the drum head rather than the full resonance of the drum. It doesn't have the slam or tightness necessary to convey a sense of authority. Nor does it have much rumble. In this respect, the T2 Plus is unique as I have not heard a bass response like this before. Despite graphing with a sizable bass response, low notes sometimes just does not have as much depth I'd expect. Perhaps it has something to do with the upper harmonics in the treble. I think that perhaps if the T2 Plus had about 2 dB less bass, this effect would be somewhat mitigated or at least, less noticeable. Overall though, this isn't a deal breaker by any means. Bass presence is clean and notes are well defined in bass guitar or synth lines.


Mids:

I quite like the mids of the T2 Plus. The low mids are slightly warm and bring a touch of richness to a variety of instruments. The upper mids cut cleanly through without ever being harsh. Instruments are realistically presented and balance nicely with each other in the mix. Vocals are neither too forward or recessed, with no preference towards male or female vocals. Typical vocal pitfalls aren't a problem here; vocals aren't shrill, shouty, or sibilant. The upper mids may graph odd with its early rise and plateau starting around 1.5 kHz, but there's nothing odd about the sound. As a whole, the T2 Plus' mids fall within a Goldilocks zone for me. Everything is about right. Maybe minor tweaks here and there would make them sound phenomenal but I'm happy with what the T2 Plus brings.


Treble:

I really like the treble of the T2 Plus. It's leans bright with a sustained lower treble presence that continues seamlessly from the upper mids. I particularly like how smooth the T2 Plus' treble sounds; there are no noticeable peaks or dips that jump out at me. My simple test for treble is how well it can render hats and cymbals and the vast majority of IEMs I've tried fail this test. The T2 Plus does not. The notes of the ride cymbal have that clean, delicate, crystalline shimmer to them. Hats have a crisp, lively sound that brightens and adds flavor to music. Crash cymbals have a gracious decay and rarely devolves into a trashy mess. Chime and bell-like instruments are able to cut right through the mix without seeming out of place. Rarely do I enjoy the treble of an IEM this much but the T2 Plus simply does a tremendous job without relying on an overly bright and exaggerated signature. Its presentation by far the best of any budget IEM I've heard and I certainly wouldn't mind it on some of the higher end IEMs I've tried.



Presentation:

Soundstage is above average for width, average for depth and height. Imaging is really quite solid with a nuanced spatial distinction. There is a nice sense of space in this IEM that isn't in-your-face or closed off. I think the former is due to the non-shouty nature of the tuning. The latter is from the rather sizable vent holes that allow the driver to breathe.

Resolution is fantastic for its price. It isn't as immediately noticeable like on the Tin T4 or the Moondrop Starfield, but follows closely in their footsteps. In the same vein, note separation is quite good and really shines in slower, well recorded songs. Instrument separation is above average with decent layering, taking good advantage of the overall staging.



Comparisons:

Tin T2:

Ah the T2, the IEM that started it all. Unfortunately, over the past couple of years, it hasn't up to the test of time that well. Tuning wise, it's still a very unique IEM. Its upper mids combination with the minor lower mids bump is magic. But unless you want that specific tuning, the T2 Plus otherwise beats it handily in technical ability. The treble response on the T2 Plus is notably better as the T2 has a couple of noticeable peaks and dips that manifests on my hats/cymbal test. At $35 vs $50-60, the T2 Plus isn't exactly in the same price bracket. Nonetheless, I'd get a T2 Plus over the T2 if you don't have a T2. If you do, I'd save up for a more substantial upgrade.

Tin T3:

In my opinion, the T3 is criminally overlooked. It's essentially an improved T2 that does not stray from the spirit of original tuning. Here, I prefer much prefer bass of the T3 than in the T2 Plus. The bass of the T3 isn't anything spectacular but it does have the tightness and slam that the T2 Plus frustratingly lacks. Technical ability wise, the T2 Plus does edge it out, only by a bit less this time around. At about $50-60 for either, it's honestly a toss-up which you should get. I'm inclined to say the T2 Plus just because the fit is likely to be better for most. And like the T2, the treble response of the T2 Plus is better than the T3.

Tin T4:

And here is the T4, one part of the $100-150 trifecta along with the Moondrop Starfield and the Etymotic ER2. The T4 undoubtedly has better technical ability, especially in resolution and bass response. But the T2 Plus takes the tuning and tone crown. The T4 may come off as too lean for some, with a potentially unforgiving treble. At $50 vs. $110, the T2 Plus is just a better value proposition. Plus, the much improved fit and better cable are just the cherries on top. The T4 still has its place as one of the most technically proficient IEMs at its price point but the T2 Plus is going to be a much safer buy for most. Now, if you're able to find the T4 on sale for $79, I'd start to lean towards getting the T4.




Should You Buy It?

Yes. If it hasn't been obvious yet, I really like the T2 Plus. I consider it to be one of the best IEM in the very competitive $50-60 segment despite my reservations about its bass. Sure there are other good IEMs at that price point but if you want a more balanced IEM that still maintains that fun factor, the T2 Plus makes a very compelling argument. And if you really value your treble, well, the T2 Plus may be the only budget IEM worth looking at.

To be honest, I wasn't thrilled by the T2 Plus when I first listened to it. In the first 10 minutes or so, I was fairly nonplussed (pun intended). Coming from much better, more neutral reference gear that I had, the T2 Plus sounded a little generic. It's certainly no giant killer. But as I started using it over the next couple of days and realized that it only cost about $50, I quickly became impressed. The price/performance of the T2 Plus is simply stellar. If only the bass response was halfway as good as I'd like it to be. Alas, it seems like despite Tin HiFi's best efforts, all of their great IEMs seem to all suffer from some minor flaw that keeps them from relative perfection.

Introduction

This is a review of the Fearless Dawn x crinacle. It is a $1400 IEM sold by Linsoul that was made in collaboration with Fearless and crinacle, a well known community member (in)famous for his IEM ranking list and large library of frequency response graphs. The Dawn boasts a 6 BA + 2 EST configuration and was made using Fearless' $4400 Y2K tuning system. For this review, I was sent the Dawn as a loaner unit from Linsoul. As the title suggests, I'll give my thoughts on the Dawn from the perspective of someone who has minimal experience with TOTL gear. Hopefully this will be helpful for those looking to move into more expensive gear but are unable to demo IEMs.




What's in the Box?

The box itself is quite large and upon opening it you're greeted with the glitzy black and gold of the Fearless Dawn. Past this initial bit of showmanship is a circular leather case, a cleaning tool, and an interesting star-shaped tip holder with 7 sets of tips. The tips aren't anything special; they're run-of-the-mill stock Fearless tips. Oh, and you get a user manual card to read that's mostly in Chinese I guess. Truth be told, it's a little disappointing that there isn't much more in such a large box but oh well.

The Dawn is meant to be worn over-ear and thus has the usual 2-pin cable with pre-molded earhooks. The cable is actually also sold separately for $80. Anyway, it feels soft to the touch and has no cable memory. There is a bit of cable noise but nothing to really complain about. What is worth complaining about is the extremely heavy connector joints they chose to go with in this cable. The Y-split, cable cinch, and 3.5 mm jack are all made of solid metal that weighs an ungodly amount. It's horrendously impractical for any realistic scenario. Even sitting at my desk, I can barely use it as the Y-split and cinch drag the entire IEM down.

Fit and isolation is about average for me. That is to say, pretty good. A lot of these all-BA resin-shell IEMs tend to isolate quite well since they don't have venting ports but also tend to have larger nozzles to accommodate all the BAs in there. The Dawn is slightly more comfortable in that regard, especially compared to the Fearless S6Pro. No complaints here.





Sound

Overall Impressions:
While I've demo'd a few hi-fi IEMs before, I generally review budget and occasionally mid-fi gear. So I was initially quite impressed when I first listened to the Fearless Dawn x crinacle. So much so that I briefly considered if I should buy it. The large step up in resolution and tuning competency wow'd me. Pretty much every track I threw at the Dawn was a pleasant listen with tons of little details I hadn't noticed before in my cheaper IEMs. But to be honest, over the two weeks I've had with the Dawn, it partially lost its lustre. Other than its tuning prowess and high resolution, it doesn't bring anything unique to the table.

Having been tuned by crinacle, you'd expect the Dawn to have superb tuning and tonality. Well, it doesn't disappoint. The Dawn has a relatively "balanced" tuning that tilts warm and has a reasonable bass boost. Its frequency response falls within what I would consider an "ideal range". While no IEM will have a 100% perfect match to the listener's preferences, the Dawn's tuning is extremely likely to match an individual's preferences closely with minimal adjustments needed. Or in other words, it's what the Harman IE target should have been. The Dawn is a forgiving, non-fatiguing IEM you could easily listen to all day and not think about it. It plays politely with most every genre but I think rock is best on it. The Dawn is more a jack of all trades, master of none.

I think what makes a great IEM is a combination of three factors: 1) Tuning/tonality; 2) Technical ability; and 3) Presentation. All three work together and enhance each other. The Dawn has 2/3 of them. Tuning is on point. Resolution is great. But the sound of BA bass persists and overall presentation suffers from pitfalls common to IEMs. For me, the Dawn's lack of the last factor is what keeps it from being the very best of the best. It's darned good and deserves its TOTL status but its clear that there are improvements that can still be made.



Bass:
crinacle himself is a bass lover and that shows with the Dawn. There's a satisfying sub and midbass boost that tactfully rolls off into the mids. Thanks to the great seal I get, the Dawn easily extends down to 20 Hz and bass rumble is well presented. I'd consider the Dawn to be boomy rather than punchy and at times, I think the bass borders on being excessive. Tonality and resolution are, as throughout the Dawn, excellent. Subtle bass notes are clearly audible and well resolved where it would otherwise be overlooked or lost. Common bass instruments such as the floor tom, kick drum, and bass guitar have a realistic tonality to them. Low synths have great clarity and nuanced note distinction. Midbass definition is tight and well controlled for rapid bass lines. It neatly wraps up the bass section as it transitions into the mids.

While the Dawn is unfortunately unable to fully escape the pitfalls of BA timbre, it's miles better than the Fearless S6 Pro and other cheaper BA IEMs that I reviewed in the past. Here, there's much more weight and power to the bass notes that makes the Dawn sound big and boomy compared to the dry, sterile notes from cheaper BAs. Although it does sometimes feel like the Dawn overextends when going for a heavy, boomy note and ends up slightly loose with uncontrolled decay.

Mids:
The mids are the best part of the Dawn's tuning. I just adore the tone of electric guitars in the Dawn. It has just the right balance of lower and upper mids for a full bodied, ever-so-slightly warm sound that's absolutely perfect for rhythm guitar and excellent for lead guitar. Vocals sound effortlessly natural, being neither too forward nor recessed. Both male and female vocals are presented equally well. The snare drum is particularly outstanding as the Dawn easily replicates the unique and complex sound of the snare in each track. Honestly, I have no complaints. Its tonality is as good as you're gonna get in any IEM.

Treble:
Treble is good but nothing outstanding. Here I think the Dawn plays it just a little too safe. It seems to be tuned to be as inoffensive as possible but still retain treble presence. There isn't any peakiness, stridency, sibilance, harshness, etc. While hats/cymbals do have a crisp attack and clean decay, it feels lacking in terms of brilliance. The shimmer of cymbals is slightly muted in that sense. The Dawn isn't particularly airy as the upper treble is recessed compared to the modest lower treble. It's a bit disappointing that the Dawn is a touch conservative on the treble but I guess that if you want a tuning that will appeal to the most amount of people that's the go-to compromise.

Presentation:
The presentation on the Dawn is its weakest point. It feels flat and on a single plane. The soundstage is fairly wide horizontally but has little height and depth. There isn't a sense of space needed for more complex layering. Imaging is good. It's nicely nuanced and makes full use of the soundstage. Overall, the staging is a only small step up from a good mid-fi implementation. It's as if Fearless worked on it a bit, ran into a wall, and gave up. I will make a note here that sometimes I do get a glimpse of excellence. On rare occasions, in very well recorded/mastered tracks, I'll hear a couple notes coming from way off the usual stage or with a depth far separated from other instruments. It's a nice little treat when it does happen, rare as it may be.

Generally speaking, the dynamics of the Dawn are pretty much what I'd expect good IEMs to have. But it is fundamentally BA-like and a tad compressed. Brick-walled songs sound even more brick-walled on the Dawn. On a more macro level, I sometimes find that some instruments jump out at you for a bit before receding back into the overall track. I haven't heard this phenomenon and the aforementioned rare off-stage staging before in other IEMs so YMMV.

The resolution of the Dawn is worthy of a flagship product. While I haven't heard some of the most well regarded TOTL IEMs for resolution such as the qdc VX or Shure KSE, the Dawn is certainly no slouch. Instrumental separation is solid and detail retrieval is far and away better than any of the IEMs I've reviewed in the past. Compared to budget IEMs, it's like hearing a new note in every five in some cases. Yes, that's how much detail that can be missed. Guitar riffs are so much cleaner and defined with individuality heard behind each note. Little syncopated beats in the hats are peppered in and shows off the drummer's character. I think a lot of people mistakenly look for a night and day difference in resolution for an obvious "wow" moment. But in reality, it's the many little things that add up to separate hi-fi from mid or budget-fi. The subtle couple of notes that breathes life into the background. Or low sound of the bassoon that you've always heard but never truly noticed until it was distinct enough to catch your attention. I think this level of refinement is necessary for the Dawn's tuning to reach it's full potential.





Select Comparisons:
Note: I will denote the ones I've only demo'd, not owned, with a *

Campfire Andromeda* and Solaris*:
Soundstage and imaging are better than the Dawn but that's about it. Tuning and tonality is far, far superior on the Dawn while resolution is notably better from memory. To be honest, I was pretty disappointed when I first heard the Andromeda and Solaris and I don't think they belong in the same league as the Dawn. I include them in this comparison as they are popular hi-fi IEMs due in part thanks to CFA's strong marketing presence.

Sony IER M7* and M9*:
I'd get the Dawn over the M7. M7 was too warm for me, borderlining dark. While staging was better resolution and tonality were not. M9 is a different story. I'd take the M9. The tuning of the Dawn edges out the warmer, more laid back M9 but the M9 has much better staging and comparable or stronger resolution. While they both have BAs for the bass response, the Sony's in-house BAs have a more realistic bass presentation than the Dawn's. The trade-off however is that they can sound slightly bloomy and/or slow.

qdc 8sh*:
It's a bit of a toss-up for this one. The Dawn had more immediate "wow" factor for me but the qdc 8sh kept my attention the longer I listened to it while I find myself tuning out of the Dawn sometimes. The flat presentation of the Dawn really hurts it in my opinion. When it comes to comparisons against the best of the best IEMs, having near perfect tuning and tonality is no longer enough. I'd have to listen to the 8sh again to decide but I think I'd lean towards it.

Etymotic ER4SR:
As you'd expect from something more than quadruple the price, the Dawn beats the ER4SR in pretty much every aspect. The only reason I can see someone getting the ER4SR over the Dawn is if they specifically enjoy the ERSR's unique tuning and laser-focused presentation that I reviewed here. Or I guess if you want the best isolation possible without going into CIEMs.

Moondrop Starfield, Tin Audio T4, Blon BL03, popular budget ChiFi, Fearless S6Pro, etc.:
Although these popular ChiFi IEMs are reasonably well tuned, the Dawn absolutely crushes them with vastly improved resolution and clarity, near perfect tonality, and overall balance. The sheer sense of refinement on the Dawn is just light years ahead in comparison. It goes to show the importance of competent tuning combined with top tier technical ability. The only reason I include this comparison is because I've seen silly comments complaining about the lack of budget comparisons in other reviews. Well here you go. Obviously from a pure price-performance ratio diminishing returns exist and spending 10-20x more on luxury IEMs isn't practical for the vast majority of people. But the improvement in sound quality for someone coming from a budget background (such as me) into TOTL is eye-opening in a way that can only be appreciated by hearing for yourself. Unfortunately, that privilege is not available to many people. And for those who believe that "technicalities" are a made-up term or that EQ can fix everything, well I don't think there's anything I can do to convince you otherwise.

Sony MDR-EX1000:
The EX1000 is my current daily driver and I reviewed it before writing this review. When pitted against the Dawn, its age certainly shows. The EX1000's detail retrieval and tonality are almost pitiful in comparison. But the EX1000's major advantages lie in high dynamism, beautiful presentation, and of course, a 16 mm DD for phenomenal bass reproduction. These strengths make up its X-factor that keeps me coming back to it. So while the Dawn is undoubtedly a better overall IEM, I don't feel too sad when I need to let it go to the next person in the loaner tour.





Should You Buy It?

Yes, if you're coming from a more budget background looking for a safe, all-rounder IEM to upgrade into hi-fi and you aren't too nitpicky about presentation. The Dawn's tuning and tonality is a near-perfect fit for most anyone and the step up in resolution and refinement is sure to be a significant upgrade coming from mid-fi. $1400 is "affordable" in terms of TOTL IEMs and I think the Dawn is worthy of a spot among the top even if it has a significant (relatively speaking) weakness in staging and presentation.

In terms of options, the most notable ones are likely to be the Hidition Viento (which I have not had a chance to demo) or the Sony IER-M9, both of which are quite a bit cheaper than the Dawn. This places the Dawn in a bit of an awkward position. At the end of the day, I think the choice comes down to this: how much do you value tuning. If all you truly care about is wanting a TOTL that has the best tuning and tonality possible, the Fearless Dawn x crinacle is it. It is by far the best tuned IEM I have heard. But if you're more flexible with your tuning options in favor of technical ability, the Dawn starts to face some serious competition.

Ultimately, I think the Dawn represents the concept of the TOTL "normal" IEM. By that I mean the Dawn has practically an ideal frequency response, near perfect IEM tonality, and excellent resolution, the primary pillars of any IEM. It handles all genres without a hitch and doesn't ever get fatiguing. There's no doubt that it's a great IEM. But it also showcases some of the flaws seemingly inherent with many IEMs, such as BA bass and flat-ish staging. What the Dawn truly lacks is an X-factor to really separate it from other great IEMs over time. Unlike IEMs like the Etymotic ER4 or Sony EX1000 which have followings despite being decade old, I imagine the Dawn will be superseded and mostly forgotten in a few years as the market progresses.

Introduction



The Sony MDR-EX1000 was first released in 2011 along with its siblings the MDR-EX800st and the MDR-EX600. While the EX600 and EX1000 are now discontinued, you can still find the EX800st as the Sony MDR-7550 being sold as a studio monitor. Used prices for the EX1000 run about $350 for a set in good condition. It's close to impossible to find them new now although if you're willing to search and gamble on Taobao that option is available. Personally, I've owned a set of the EX1000 for over two years and it currently serves as my daily driver.

The EX1000 and EX800st gained quite the reputation over the years for its host of quirks. For those who are newer to the IEM scene, here's a short list of them with some of my thoughts on the matter:

• 16 mm dynamic driver. It is the essentially biggest DD in an IEM you can get. The EX1000 has a LCP (liquid crystal polymer) coated driver while the EX800st uses a ML (multiple layer) diaphragm. What are LCP and ML you may ask? Good question, only Sony knows. LCP and ML describe how the drivers are built but not what it is built out of. Likely it is some kind of proprietary material. You can see term LCP being used to describe the driver of other Sony headphones.
• Very little isolation. Both the EX1000 and EX800st are vented IEMs. There's some confusion over whether they are open back or not but I believe they are better categorized as vented. The large vents on these IEMs means they effectively have among the lowest isolation of any IEM. Wind noise a serious problem when walking down the street with these.
• Awkward build and fit. These IEMs are constructed with a side-firing mechanism to accommodate their massive driver. This leads to a strange shell shape and awkward fit. Despite that, it's rather comfy. The over-ear cable style lets the IEM kinda hang and float in your ears. I like to describe it as the comfiest non-ergonomic IEM I've tried.
• Speaking of the cable, it uses a proprietary connector pin with a screw-in locking mechanism. Many people get MMCX or 2-pin adapters at some point as cables with their connector pins are both expensive and rare. The cable itself is subtly awesome and one of the best stock cables implementations I've seen. Their earhooks are seriously great: they are readily moldable and retain their shape like wired hooks but are significantly softer and easier to handle. The cable has effectively no cable noise or memory and is very supple. Accessories wise, you get a ludicrous 10 sets of tips and a case.
• The shell of these IEMs is made from magnesium but many people report theirs of paint chipping especially in humid conditions. I don't really have this issue but it's common to see it on used EX1000's on sale.
• Last but not least is the infamous 5.5 kHz treble spike. I'll get to this in my review but for many people, this will be the killer.

Overall Sound Thoughts:

I bought the EX1000 blind as my first mid-fi IEM without knowing what to expect other than its cult-like reputation. The night I got them, I listened to it for about 10 minutes before going to sleep. I was not too impressed. Coming from the Tin Audio T2 which has a tuning that I greatly enjoy, the EX1000 felt like a step back. Tonality was not ideal. Overall resolution and clarity were a definite step up but lacked the "wow" factor the ER4SR had for me. The soundstage felt wide but I didn't pay much attention to it. I went to bed disappointed. But over the next week of listening, the EX1000 rapidly earned its place as my daily driver.

The EX1000's tuning is competent but not stellar. Despite other reviewers describing the EX1000 as bright, I think it's closer to balanced that leans warm. It also has an awful 5.5 kHz spike that just does not play nicely with certain tracks. Its strength lies in its one-of-a-kind presentation through its massive soundstage and sense of openness. And while the EX1000 does fine enough for low-level listening, it begs to be turned up thanks to a lack of shoutiness and its diffuse, open sound.

Accordingly, how good the EX1000 sounds greatly depends on the quality of the recording/mastering of the track you listen to. Badly mastered tracks often seen in rock and metal will sound mediocre. On the other hand, well recorded tracks, especially orchestral or jazz works, are absolutely stunning. If you listen to a lot of instrumental music, the EX1000 is a must try.

Bass:
While the bass quantity is relatively tame ("neutral flat") and the frequency response does lightly roll off around 30 Hz, the quality of the bass is the star of the show. As they say in certain circles: there's no replacement for displacement. The 16 mm DD on the EX1000 delivers an outstanding bass response that few, if any, other IEMs are able to match. The bass is full bodied and meaty and has a certain sort of texture to it. What this texture is exactly is unclear to me; it may be from some kind of distortion (despite a <1% THD) or resonance or something. I don't know. Regardless of what it is, the bass feels satisfyingly visceral, especially when it comes to subbass rumble. It's a significant upgrade compared to almost everything else. It's deliciously addictive.

That's not to say it's perfect. Compared the other "best-of-the-best" DD in the Sony IER-Z1R, the EX1000 doesn't hit as hard or as authoritatively enough. Despite its large 16 mm size, the EX1000's driver is by no means slow but does lack a sense of speed and finesse compared to BAs. Instead, it strikes a very careful balance between preserving the weighty impact and realistic decay of a massive dynamic driver while preventing it from sounding sloppy and slow. It balances between boomy and punchy, with enough refinement to cut cleanly through bass lines. The timbre of bass focused instruments feels realistic, especially when it comes to instruments that want to sound large such as the floor tom and bass drum.

Overall, the EX1000 embodies the idea of quality over quantity when it comes to the bass. Despite a lack of subbass elevation or midbass bump, the quality of its bass is clearly heard. Really, it's on another level compared to anything but other TOTL dynamic drivers. And for those who have yet to hear the difference between a BA and DD when it comes to timbre in the bass, give the EX1000 a try.

Mids:
The low mids and mids continue the same excellence found in the bass. Once again, it has that lovely textured feeling, this time, with a touch of warmth. Acoustic stringed instruments sound especially good here while the gritty tone of electric guitars are rendered beautifully.

The upper mids is where the EX1000 starts to run into trouble. FR wise, it has a relatively small pinna comp at 2 kHz while dipping around 3-4 kHz. Ideally, I'd like to see this peak at about 2.5-3 kHz and for it to continue with a minor decrease up to about 5 kHz. As it is, the 2 kHz peak gives the EX1000 a slightly nasally tone for vocals and worsened by 3-4 kHz dip which makes them sound partially recessed. The somewhat recessed vocals are a bit of a double-edged sword. On one hand it contributes to the spacious, more open type of sound the EX1000 is known for. On the other, the lack of vocal energy can diminish the overall tone of certain vocalists, especially female artists.
I mentioned earlier that I consider the EX1000 to be a warm leaning IEM. It's this relatively small pinna gain and the lack of upper 3-4 kHz mids that allow the lower mids to have more presence than other IEMs with larger pinna comps. While the EX1000 is commonly referred to as bright by many people, compared to something that I would consider to truly be neutral-bright such as the T2, the EX1000 is definitely a lot warmer. Generally speaking, the tonality of the mids is quite good. It's when you compare to it to something extremely good that its flaws become exposed.

Treble:
Ah the dreaded 5.5 kHz spike. This is likely what others refer to when they speak of the EX1000 being painfully bright. Admittedly, it is probably one of the worst treble spikes in any IEM. The bad news is that if your music has a natural peak around this area, this spike will simply amplify that and, depending on how loud you listen, it can be sharp to listen to. The good news is a lot of music doesn't actually interact too badly with the spike. About a 3-4 songs in my library hit this spike badly but that's it. If you're unlucky, vocals can be affected by this and you'll get a painfully sibilant sound.

The EX1000's upper treble starts to roll off pretty quick. This means there is a slight lack of air to the IEM despite how open it feels. Combined with the 5.5 kHz peak, this leads to issues with cymbals reproduction. There's a sort of metallic glare to crashing cymbals as 5.5 kHz lands right in key frequencies for the cymbals while the lack of treble extension kills its upper harmonics. Once again, this is highly track dependent and better recorded/mastered tracks avoid this issue.

If your music isn't affected by these two flaws, the treble is clean. Notes are crisp, the tone of bell-like instruments are crystal clear, and there is a rather nice lingering decay to ring out the hats/cymbals with a realistic shimmer. I don't find it particularly bright either; other than the peak, the EX1000's treble is just enough to add a hint of brilliance to the overall sound.

If you want to know what a 5.5 kHz peak sounds like, you can EQ it into your own gear. Give it a try! +6 dB at 5.5 kHz with Q of 8 using PEQ. It likely won't be as offensive as you would initially think from a graph.



Presentation:
The presentation of the EX1000 is among the most unique on the market, with a huge soundstage being its claim to fame. Personally, I find that the stage has an extremely large horizontal width with a solid height and depth. Think the shape and size of a football (rugby ball) centered around your head. While I haven't heard any other IEMs with a larger overall soundstage, the price for the EX1000 pays is its vented nature and no isolation. Another point I appreciate is that despite how wide the stage is, it never sounds exaggerated or artificially large. There's a sense of realism to its openness that feels inviting.

Imaging is very good but I would not call it pin-point accurate. This slight vagueness to the imaging works to provide a life-like effect. Unlike the 3-point blob of imaging from in the vast majority of IEMs, the EX1000 makes full use of its wide soundstage and images with a great amount of nuance. One way I can try to describe its level of nuance is to think of three 3x3 grids lined up side by side horizontally for left, center, and right stereo imaging. Sound images from the 9 points in each grid. This gives an idea of height (top/bottom of grid) as well as the width. To add on that is another layer or two of depth.

Resolution with the EX1000 is better on a macro level than on a micro level. Instrument separation is outstanding as the EX1000 reliably distinguishes between overlapping instruments are hitting the same notes at the same time; layering, if you will. It has a superb sense of spacing between instruments that keeps them cleanly distinct and separate from one another. Detail retrieval is good considering its dated nature but simply cannot compete with current TOTL BA IEMs where you can clearly hear the missing notes the EX1000 fails to capture.

The EX1000 is also a highly dynamic IEM. The 16 mm DD allows a track to feel alive as it moves through its passages. This is best demonstrated in orchestral music where rising crescendos are beautifully contrasted with delicately quiet segments. There is a sense of musicality as the EX1000 engages the listener in the overarching story of each song.

The presentation of the EX1000 gives it its X-factor. The sense of openness, slightly vague imaging, great instrument separation and spacing, and high dynamism invites the listener to appreciate and enjoy the music. I find myself imagining like I'm standing in front of a live band and listening to music wash over me. Whenever I try a new IEM, I still find comfort when coming back to the EX1000. I can't overstate how much its presentation does to endear me to its sound.

EQ:
Some of the EX1000's biggest flaws are in its tuning. Fortunately, the EX1000 responds to EQ extremely well and a simple EQ can eliminate any tuning complaints I have about it.
Here is a 6-band PEQ I set up for it using UAPP. It could use a bit of refinement as I made it in about 10 mins but I'm quite satisfied with the sound I get from it.



Here is the explanation for each band:

1. Low shelf provides the more subbass quantity. I mentioned above that the EX1000 is about bass quality than quantity, but why not both?
2. Midbass band to maintain bass energy past the shelf. The idea is to give a nice, sloping curve as we transition into the mids.
3. A cut at 125 Hz is important to avoid muddiness or bloat into the mids. Bands 1-3 create a nice low-end bump that provides bass quantity without sacrificing clarity.
4. 3.2 kHz with 3 dB at 1.5 Q took a bit of experimentation but helps me around the vocal tone I want. The natural 2 kHz pinna comp isn't too bad but could be better. Filling in some gain past the peak helps diminish the slightly nasally tone. It's important that not too much gain is added. We want to retain the sense of openness and non-shouty nature of the EX1000.
5. This is the most important band. The 5.5 kHz dip with a high Q is important to cut out the lower treble spike. This single cut does a lot to help improve the sound of the EX1000. No longer do cymbals sound metallic or overly strident.
6. The high shelf in the treble is mostly to accommodate for the treble roll-off. While it doesn't fix the inherent lack of upper treble, it helps give a bit of air and provide a more natural ring out decay for instruments.

Conclusion:
The Sony MDR-EX1000 represents a dying breed: great single dynamic driver IEMs. Admittedly, it has major flaws in both its tuning and practicality. While its tuning flaws may be fixed with EQ, nothing will change the fact that it has next to no isolation and the somewhat awkward fit. The real strength of the EX1000 lies in its phenomenal presentation. Regardless of how much technical ability improves and tuning is perfected over the years, the EX1000 proudly stands as one of the most unique IEMs ever made.

As mentioned earlier, I didn't fall in love with the EX1000 on first listen. I think some IEMs impress immediately from the start while others take some time before I appreciate them. The EX1000 is the latter. Maybe familiarity breeds fondness but I would be hard pressed to let go of these. Even after having demo'd other TOTL gear, I am still quite content with the EX1000 despite its host of flaws and aging technical ability. In the ever-increasing sea of IEMs claiming to the next best thing, the EX1000 has the X-factor that elevates it from a fading relic to an IEM worthy of lengthy praise a decade later.

Introduction
Hi everyone, this a review of the KZ S2, a new TWS that just launched on Indiegogo. Early bird pricing is $30 and MSRP will be $50. Full disclaimer: I received the KZ S2 from Linsoul for the purposes of this review. I do not otherwise get any form of compensation from them.

The KZ S2 sports a hybrid 1 DD + 1 BA configuration, that is to say, a dynamic driver and a balanced armature. It additionally has a touch sensitive button on the faceplate for controls. The matte plastic charging case uses a USB-C connection. Accessory wise, it's quite stingy. It comes with 2 sets of identical M size tips and that's it. Fit and in-ear stability is quite good for me, no complaints there.

As a TWS set, it boasts many features you'd expect from TWS IEMs. Below is a list of some of them them and my thoughts on each of these features:

• Bluetooth 5.0 connection using a Realtek 8763 chip with SBC and AAC support. Pairing was relatively simple. AAC is available only to iOS or Android 10. As I had Android 9 only, I used SBC. There is a notable floor noise from the connection and is noticeable in quiet passages of songs but does disappear into the background once a track really starts going. I can also occasionally hear the compression artifacts from the SBC codec, particularly in quiet parts of songs with stringed instruments.
• 4 hours of use time + 3-4 charges from the case. I found that I could get about 3-4 hours per charge, so no complaints here. I haven't tested the number of charges from the case but I don't think it would be an issue finding an outlet before using up all the charges. Note: The KZ S2's have a blue plastic tape covering the gold charging pins. You'll need to remove this after getting them in so they can charge.
• High performance mode to decrease latency. This mode I found worked really well. IMO the latency in the KZ S2 is already reasonably low for being a cheap BT set. The high performance mode brings this even lower to almost wired speeds. It's nice.
• Touch controls. Seems to work as advertised. There's no gestures or swiping here, just taps. Personally, I would have liked a physical button like that found in the Sabbat E12 as I like the tactile feedback but this is fine.
• 15 meters of range. The max range I managed to get was two stories, from basement to second floor before completely losing signal. More realistically, it's like 2-3 large rooms. Connection is quite stable for me. Obviously, the closer you are to your phone, the better. Hilariously enough, one of the ways it compensates for a weak signal is to pitch bend your music.
• Crystal clear call quality. I don't know about the crystal clear part but it's actually pretty good.

Overall, the KZ S2 provides a fairly full package of TWS features you'd expect from more expensive TWS sets. For $30 (or $50), it's hard to complain for what you get. There are obviously some cut corners and doesn't have a "premium" feeling but overall it meets a reasonable standard.



Sound
Overall Sound Thoughts
My initial impressions of the KZ S2 was... not great. Coming from 3 weeks of 8 hours a day HD600 use, the step down in quality was very significant. But after about 2 hours of use, the KZ S2 sounds pretty decent for it's price (thanks brain burn in). It's a V-shape signature with a sizable recession in the mids and can be bright. I would avoid hard rock or metal on these as the cymbals can start to become too much to handle.

Sound Review
As with a V-shaped signature, the bass is elevated. I found the bass to be about right for a bassy presence without being overbearing or overly bloated. It has a subbass roll-off starting around 40-50Hz and leans a bit more towards the mid-bass. The bass guitar has a surprising amount of note definition due to the exaggerated upper harmonics in the treble. Drum toms sound full and meaty. No complaints about tonality in the bass department for the most part.

There's some incoherency in the lower mids at the crossover between the DD and the BA that can make certain tracks sound smeary. While the lower mids retain some presence from the boosted bass, once you get into the central mids it's undeniably thin, casting a slightly inorganic sheen. While it does affect the overall tone, it doesn't sound hollow to the point of disrupting the musical experience. Vocals are generally OK for the most part, though lacking some body. There's an abundance of upper mids that helps maintain an overall sense of clarity.

Treble is similarly elevated like the bass is. It has a couple of peaks and can be bright depending your sensitivity and music. I didn't have sibilance issues with it but likely a number of people will. Very few IEMs can properly reproduce the complex sounds of the hats/cymbals and the KZ S2 is no different. For most, this will be where most have an issue with. They sound tizzy, occasionally splashy, sometimes metallic, and can be bright. If not listening to tracks with a lot of cymbals or hats, well the problems go away. I would recommend avoiding hard rock or metal genres on these. There is some decent air in the upper treble, preventing the KZ S2 from sounding suffocated. Overall, I personally don't have an issue with the treble but if you have a deal breaker, this will be it.

While I don't really have an issue with the overall timbre of the KZ S2, resolution leaves a bit to be desired. To be completely fair, this may be due to the fact that it's wireless using the SBC codec. Soundstage and imaging are about what you'd expect from IEMs, so no surprises there. Technicalities wise, it sounds like a budget set on par with other KZs.


Some Comparisons
Sabbat E12 Ultra: The E12 is about $80. The BT connection on the E12 is rock solid and maintains about a 6 hour charge. Too bad it sounds quite muddy to me and acceptable only for podcasts at work and avoid music with them.

KZ E10: This is one of KZ's previous wireless attempt and costs $60. It actually sounds better than the S2, with a more refined, neutral profile that's less exciting than the S2. Too bad the connectivity on it was very poor to the point of unusable and they stopped selling the E10s for some time. Additionally, it's not actually a true TWS since it uses an earhook system with a case the weight of a brick (mild exaggeration).


Should you buy it?
If you're talking about a $30 (or $50) TWS set from KZ, you're talking about an exercise in value proposition. Does the KZ S2 check enough boxes to be worth your coin? The answer is yes, especially if you don't already own a TWS set. These are about as cheap as you can get for a TWS IEM that has all the included features. For $30 the KZ S2 is definitely worth it. At $50, it's still worth a look into. Or put another way, the price of great budget choices like the Tin Audio T2 or the BLON BL-03 starts at about $30-35. The KZ S2 provides the conveniences of TWS with an acceptable sound quality that's on par with decent budget IEMs. It meets bar as the minimum a reasonably good TWS should be. Anything below and I wouldn't bother. Overall, get it as a beater, a starter TWS set, something to use in bed, as a gift, whatever. It's cheap, it works, and it sounds better than I expected from a wireless set. I know I'll likely be using them quite for some time to come in the future.