Let’s face it. The audiophile market gets more and more saturated by the minute. After my trip to the Munich High End, my own interest for audio plummeted. I really am happy with my FLC8s + Aune M1s set-up for now. While the FLC8s is not perfect, it comes very darn close to what I’d consider tonally ideal.

Anyway, today we are looking at the SENDIY M1221. Another chapter of the Chi-Fi storyline, emerging with each passing minute. Don’t get me wrong. They have some endearing qualities, but very few are tuned to accurately represent the source-material. Very fun and engaging, but often too coloured.

Onto the review:

Specifications:

• Resistance: 20Ω
• Sensitivity: 110±5dB
• Frequency Response Range: 20-20000Hz
• 1 Dynamic Driver + 1 Balanced Armature
• MMCX Connector
• 2x Cables, lots of tips and a pseudo pelican case.

There is nothing extraordinary about any of the specifications. At first glance your fairly standard Hybrid. Though at second glance, they have utilized a rather smart approach with the drivers, combining them in a very compact enclosure. Acoustic tuning is done with the three interchangeable filters, an approach becoming more and more common and popular. More on that later.



Accessories & Build:

The SENDIY comes with a lot of accessories. A very sturdy pelican replica, two cables, tips en masse, another little pouch, you get the picture. Of course the IEMs are inside as well. The M1221s are well build. CNC aluminum has been used for the shells. The filters are available in two variations: the regular 8 mm ones and a shorter 6 mm option. In either case, fit is more on the shallow side of things. Isolation is above average and better than most dynamic / vented In-Ears on the market. Around -10dB ambient noise is to be expected.

I don’t like MMCX connectors by design, but they seem to be sturdy enough. Just keep in mind to not forcefully disconnect them all the time. They like to get clogged with dust and debris.



Sound-Analysis:

The M1221 has three different filters for you to choose from. The Gray dubbed as “Balance”, the silver dubbed “Bass” and the black ones dubbed “Treble”. Changes are only on a tonal level, however.

The M1221 is neither source sensitive nor is it especially difficult to drive.

Overall speaking the SENDIY M1221 is a very forward and engaging sounding IEM. It has a distinct 4kHz elevation, causing female vocals and string instruments to sound very prominent aka. the traditional V-Shape. The acoustic filters are mainly changing bass response. Unfortunately the included options are not altering much of the upper-midrange and treble area.



Bass:

The Bass response is grand and very typical of dynamic drivers. It possesses quite a lot of impact, with attack and decay being on the slower side. It does not feel all that bloated and it does not bleed much into the midrange. However with the Bass filters attached, it does get very bass-forward, often too much, with excessive mid-bass resulting in a very unbalanced tonality. Gray and Black are much more tame, but still quite strong in overall presentation. Around 8dB above the classical Diffuse-Field Target. The Gray and Black filter are ported, balancing the lower bass notes in comparison to the rest of the bass. Bass-heads should take a look at the M1221. Very fun. Great detail. Much wow.

Midrange:

The Mids remind me of the MEE P1, with their very resolving, but tonally quite aggressive upper-midrange (around 4kHz). Detail is very good, although the lower mids are somewhat recessed. Unfortunately the filters have no effect on midrange performance or tonality. Excellent at showcasing micro-detail and texture, although ever so often hot around the edges.

Treble:

Treble is very similar to the LZ A4 or the aforementioned MEE P1. As a matter of fact, the M1221 are very much in between the both IEMs in treble performance. All of them exhibit a dip from around 4-5kHz until around 8kHz, after they have another rise in SPL, sometimes causing stridency and fatigue. The LZ A4 does stay very polite, whereas the P1 can often be sibilant. The M1221 remains at a middle-ground. Still, the treble sounds off and lacks much of the linearity I value with some of the best in class. (Etymotic ER4 comes to mind)

Staging:

Soundstage is a bit of a mixed bag. It extends quite far in X-Axis, but remains rather shallow in depth. Everything sound quite ovular, great with some genres and terrible with others. Bigger sized assembles can sound claustrophobic at times. Evening up the midrange and treble with some minor EQing does work very well. A shame, instrument separation is very remarkable otherwise.

Improvements to be made?

My personal recommendation for improvements.

• Improve the Soundstage depth. I think it might be wise to ditch the filters and move the driver assembly back a couple of mm. Work on a proper sound-guide. I would argue some of the issued arise due to 2nd or 3rd order harmonic distortion.
• Improve midrange tonality by evening up 1kHz and 4kHz respectively.
• Some more treble linearity is appreciated.

How does it stack up?

The M1221 isn’t an outstandingly natural earphone, but its one that is incredibly vivid and engaging. Price does fluctuate around 150-200$. A fair price for what it does. For instance the A4 from LZ does sound much more relaxed and overall warmer and more defused in tonality. Detail is more apparent on the M1221, but at the cost of sounding hot. Also, the M1221 is much more practical in daily usage. I can safely say that the M1221 is another great option in the already vast landscape of great In-Ears. Whatever you make out of it…

My conclusion is overall fairly positive. The M1221 is an exciting earphone. It surprises with top-tier resolution and an overall thought-out package. If you’re prioritizing neutrality and linearity, look elsewhere. But if you just want to party hard. Game on.

Shout-out to SENDIY to sending me the M1221 for reviewing purposes. This review represents my own opinion.

"You know, big things come in small packages."

I bought the Mini2 over at PenonAudio for 115$: http://penonaudio.com/Rose-Mini2-2BA-IEMs

Specifications​

:

• Price: $99.90 (fixed cable; $115 for the detachable cable version)
• Drivers: Balanced Armature, 2 drivers per ear, 2-way configuration
• Drivers: Sonion 2600 & Knowles 30095
• Impedance: 45 Ohms
• Sensitivity: 108 dB

Build and Accessories​

Coming in a very clean and understated black box, the Rose Mini2 features a pseudo Otterbox-like carrying case that is bolstered on the inside and includes the in-ears themselves and some of the tips. There is another, albeit very senseless, plastic case with some more tips. Speaking of which, there are only 4 pairs of tips, from which I only found the L-sized white tips usable. The package is great looking, however stuffed with a whole lot of air. The carrying case is great, though somewhat cheap around the hinges.

Inside the case are the actual IEMs itself. And boy, does the cable look nice...

The Mini2 is primarily made out of acrylic, with the nozzle being silicone. (Shout-out to HifiChris for noting that out). Myself thought of the nozzle being acrylic as well, but the nozzle is flexible and quite delicate in nature. The transition is very seamless.

The in-ears are tiny in size, very tiny. There is a coloured Rose logo on each of the shells, and the colour corresponds with red standing for right and blue for left, respectively.

I opted for the detachable MMCX version. Like mentioned, the cable is quite nice. Although it does look a tad silly with the strain-relieves being bigger than the actual IEMs themselves.

Isolation is ok for me, nothing extraordinary. They are no Etymotic in terms of blocking out noise. For those with bigger, wider earcanals, please get yourself some CP800 Spinfits or Shure Olives. The included tips are very underwhelming. (There is not much variety anyway...)

Sound-Analysis​

I did most of my listening with my HifiMe 9018 DAC/AMP, various phones and my Xduoo X3. I recommend using warmer sounding sources, with good amping capabilities. Balanced Armatures are not the best when it comes down to having a linear impedance response. EQ might be needed.

• [COLOR=30d617]Great clarity[/COLOR]
• [COLOR=30d617]Balanced signature[/COLOR]
• [COLOR=30d617]Good soundstage and imaging[/COLOR]
• [COLOR=30d617]Bass is very fast in decay[/COLOR]
• [COLOR=d68117]Insertion depth can alter the sound[/COLOR]
• [COLOR=d41c1c]Treble linearity[/COLOR]
• [COLOR=d41c1c]Sounds terrible with a lot of sources[/COLOR]

Overall the Mini2 is a very balanced, mature sounding In-Ear, with great clarity and imaging. However with the wrong source, the Mini2 can be overly bright, and shouty around the 6kHz and 8kHz area.

Bass presentation is focused around mid-bass around the 200hz area, making for a nice and punchy experience. Extension is commendable, although falls definitely short compared to higher priced models like my beloved FLC8s. The Bass is just a touch above "neutral", still it can give your ears quite an impact, when the source demands it.

Lower midrange is slightly recessed, which is a common way of tuning nowadays. The Mini2 has quite the spacious presentation, thanks to that. Yet, it doesn't sound diffused, but rather very focused with good spacial imaging for the price. Male singers sound slightly distant compared to their female counterparts, however. Moving beyond 2kHz, the upper midrange does press the stage more towards the listener, with female vocals sounding sweeter and more direct.

The treble has its up and downs. I have tried the Mini2 with various phones, and in 9/10 cases, my ears were blown off by the piercing treble. However attached to my friends tube-amp wielded much better results. They are on the brighter side, either way. Extension is solid, reaching toward 12kHz before rolling off. The treble does have some off-putting spikes here and there.

Separation is good and the in-ear also manages to showcase blackness and distance of instruments fairly well. Even with fast, complex and dense recordings, the soundstage doesn’t cave in but remains pleasantly controlled and intact. While width is more pronounced, the soundstage doesn't feel flat or unbalanced.

Comparisons​

FLC8s (Clear-Gray-Gray) (~329$):

The Mini2 was very similar sounding at first, however compared to the FLC8s it does fall short in soundstage size and imaging. It's not a huge difference, though. The Mini2 does hold very well in clarity, which I think both are on equal footing. Bass decay is slower and more "natural" on the FLC8s thanks to the dynamic driver displacing more air. The FLC8s doesn't stray into brightness as much as the Mini2. The FLC8s sounds great out of almost anything. But for 1/3 the Mini2 does possess the better value preposition of the two.

LZ A4 (Black-Blue) (199$):

The A4 is much more bassy, compared to the Mini2. Furthermore the bass has a very slow decay and speed in comparison. Bass extension is quite similar. Clarity is slightly better on the Mini2. The A4s treble is much more ressessed around the 5-6kHz area, making for a more mellow listen. I prefer the Mini2 in signature, though the A4 trumps it with better soundstage. The A4 is for the guy looking for some fun in their music. The A4 is much easier to drive. Both are pretty equal in terms of value.

Conclusion​

The Mini2 is great, but only with the right gear. Drive it well and it wields the power to enlighten you with great clarity and balanced sound.

TOTL (Top-of the line) is something you hear quite often around Head-Fi. The cream of the crop of the audio-world. While that may be true in most instances, investing into a 1200$+ product seems unreasonable at best. With the law of diminishing returns kicking in fast and unrelentless, buying the most expensive product might turn out disappointing.

I have listened to a lot of gear over the years. Be it 10$ earbuds or 1500$ custom-IEMs. With the rapid growth of audio in both quality and quantity, buying High-End gear seems not all that worth it. The gap is closing fast.

With that premise in mind, many have challenged this very belief. One of them being Piotr Graniski and CustomArt. I have a deep respect for what he has accomplished. From hobbyist to full-fledged professional. Piotr began his audio journey quite like the rest of us - from initial interest in better audio gear. He subsequently began experimenting with his own designs, delving deeper and deeper into the art and craft of making custom-molded IEMs. I always wanted one of his designs, but I never took the plunge...

Enter Harmony 8.2 by CustomArt

Disclaimer: The Harmony 8.2 were send to me as part of an European tour. I am not affiliated with CustomArt in any shape or form.

Specifications:​

• 8 Balanced Armatures
• 10Hz-20000Hz
• 4-way crossover in Single Phase configuration: Dual Low, Dual full-range, Dual mid, Dual tweeter
• 118dB @1kHz @0.1V
• 15 Ohm @1kHz
• Silicone or Acrylic body

Build Quality:​

Keep in mind that we are looking at a universal variant of the custom model; take the following with a grain of salt:

Overall build is exceptional. The tour model is done in a dark brown/reddish colour, featuring an amber coloured faceplate with a CA logo on the left and Harmony 8.2 logo on the right. The acrylic looks wonderful in sunlight. The translucent body has no blemishes and bubbles to speak of. Finish is smooth around the edges. The 2-Pin connector sits flush around the socket. Perfect.

The CA H8.2 is available in both acrylic and the more soft silicone. Piotr is more known for the latter, but neither is inferior to the other. One can clearly see that the guy knows his craft.

Isolation is quite stellar. While it does not fully seal like customs, isolation is amazing nonetheless. Around -20dB across the board. Be careful when on the road.

Sound Analysis:​

Keep in mind that a universal monitor is seated differently from a custom one. Due to the different distance to the eardrum, perception of sound will vary from your experience. In particular soundstage and treble are mostly affected by it.

Pairing:

- 15Ohm and 118dB/mW makes for easy listening out of almost anything
- Some hiss was noted with phones
- Neutral and bright sounding DACs will be your best match.
- Some sources were surprisingly better than others; from terrible sounding to pure eargasm

General observations:

- Soft tonality, relaxed listen
- Midrange is forward sounding
- Soundstage is grand and does portray an "out-of-head" image, depth is A+
- Bass decay is unusually long for Balanced Armatures; almost DD-like.
- Bass extension is above average.
- Treble is subdued; too much for my taste.




General sound-signature is mid-forward with slightly elevated bass and relaxed treble. A soft and mellow listen. The H8.2 is quite balanced, but definitely warmer than neutral.

While the sound of the Harmony 8.2 is balanced, both bass and mids are the high points of the 8.2. With Balanced Armatures, my general experience is fast and detailed bass. However the Harmony is atypical, with its bass being slower in both decay and impact. The low-frequencies are north of neutral, although quite even in balance. The bass in combination with the mids make the H8.2 sound very lush and full. Somewhere inbetween Dynamic Driver and Balanced Armature.

Lower mids are slightly leaner, but still have a nice body which adds to a natural tonality of the sound. Upper mids are smooth and detailed, though the accentuated 2kHz range adds to the fullness of sound without added grain. The organic nature of the sound makes both female and male vocals sound very realistic, albeit slightly congested with bad recordings.

Treble is to me, the weakest part of the overall experience. The highs got defused, adding to the overall smooth and relaxed nature of the monitor. Linearity is very good, until around 8kHz. After that it rolls off quite notably. Detail is still available in spades, however it is not exemplified - just enough to paint the complete picture of the sound, making the sound more forgiving in the process.

H8.2 soundstage is stellar in width/depth/height. Most of my other gear, including some great monitors, like the FLC8s and LZ A4 sound much more closed in, particularly with depth and height. While most are comparable in width, depth is the achilles-heel for many lower-priced IEMs.

I found the layering and separation of vocals and instruments to be rather average, due to some lack of airiness. Imaging features good placement of instruments and vocals, and in general it has a pretty convincing positioning of most sound elements. Even so, detail retrieval is outstanding, making my FLC8s look just average.

Comparison time - vs. FLC8s (~330$):

(Filter-combination used: Red(ULF)-None(LF)-Gray(MF/HF))

The FLC8s sounds much more lean in both bass and midrange. The lack of the LF makes the FLC8s more impactful, adding decay, compared to the other combinations. While the H8.2 wins in detail retrieval and soundstage width, depth and height, the FLC8s is superior in tonality. For me the less vibrant midrange and more extended treble, does help in perceiving the FLC8 as cleaner and more neutral.

vs. LZ A4 (195$):

(Filter-combination used: Black(B)-Green(F))

The LZ A4 sounds quite similar in tonality. This is where the similarities end. While the width is almost identical, both height and depth are clearly better articulated on the H8.2. Clarity and detail retrieval are superior on the H8.2, though the treble is slightly better extended and more prominent on the A4. The A4 sounds like 80% of the 8.2 at ~1/6 the cost.

Conclusion:​

Let's face it: 1150$+ is steep. And my pocket-money does only go so far.

However without the TOTL race to the top, our beloved market would look different. Much different, actually. 10% can make all the difference in the world. If it does for you, and you like smooth and natural sound, take a look at the Harmony 8.2.

Once upon a time, there was a guy named LZ. Reigning from China, he brought us a legend, now in its third iteration. The A4 has descended upon thee. Now with tuning fun, for the basshead and maybe even me?

(I am not a rapper)

Enter LZ A4

Disclaimer: This product was sent to me for the purpose of this review. I'm not affiliated with the company. Big shout-out to @duyu for arranging yet another LZ product review.

Specifications​

• Brand: LZ
• Model: A4
• Driver: 1 Dynamic driver + 2 Balanced Armature Hybrid
• Impedance: 16Ω
• Headphone sensitivity:120dB
• Frequency range: 20-28000Hz
• Interface: 3.5mm
• Cable Length: 1.2m±5cm
• Weight: 30g
• Interface Type: MMCX

First up, the accessories department. Generally nothing extraordinary, but much improved from the previous iterations. We get a well sized pouch (albeit in an unusual colour), lots of eartips in a foam enclosure, more tips inside the pouch, a cable and a metal tin featuring the filters and one pair of double-flange eartips. Unexceptional presentation, but everything you might need. Function over form was not a bad choice per sè - The thick foam layer does its job quite well. Maybe too well, in certain areas. (e.g using foam for eartips seems a bit excessive.)

Build​

The housings are all metal and have a quite a bit weight to them without being overly heavy. The filters have been implemented well. Both front and back-filters are working via. screw-in mechanism. Equally solid is the cable. Featuring a 45° jack, great Y-Split, flexibility and minimal microphonics.

The design allows them to be worn over ear or down cabled without switching the orientation of the earpieces. The A4 is OK in terms of comfort. It might be uncomfortable with smaller ear types, albeit this was not an issue in my case. You do feel the weight in your ears, once in a while. They are great for casual usage, but heavy-duty activity is not the A4s strong suit.

However, I do have a couple of reservations with the overall build. My biggest gripe being the MMCX connector. Many, including myself, had issues with the jack. LZ did his best in embedding the connector inside a plastic mold, maximizing longevity. Still, I would be careful not to change cables all that often.

Isolation is around average. Slightly better compared to most IEMs, in particular vented In-Ears. Although, the A4 would not be my first option for travelling. Still, after adjusting the volume, it might be acceptable for your daily commute. YMMV

Sound-Analysis​

Filters - Usability and general Impressions:

With 18 different combinations at its disposal, the A4 has some variety in sound-signature.

We have 2 sets of filters:

• Back filters (B) - Altering Bass response
• Front filters (F) - Altering upper Mids/Highs

Don't expect the A4 to be the jack-of-all-trades. It has a base signature which is retained over all filter combinations. The midrange is always a tad recessed. You can alter the balance of the frequencies with the filters, although don't expect the A4 to ever sound neutral.

Pairing:

• 16Ohm and 120dB/mW makes for easy listening out of your smartphone
• High sensitivity, beware of hiss!
• Neutral and bright sounding DACs will be your best match

General observations:

• Midrange is slightly recessed*
• Soundstage is grand and does portray an "out-of-head" image
• Although more on the smooth side, imaging is quite sharp and accurate
• Holographic staging, lots of blackness between instruments
• Extension on either side of the spectrum is quite good
• Bass is always prominent, even with Blue(B) filters in place.
• These cost < 200$? Holy. Moly.

The inevitable. LZ A4 vs. FLC8s:

Departing from my usual standard, I will use this opportunity to compare these two Chinese rivals. Both are boasting a triple hybrid configuration and tunable sound. The FLC8s costing ~320$ with 36 possible combos and the LZ-A4 coming in at ~200$ and 18 combos. I originally planned to include the Trinity Master 4. Unfortunately it didn't make the cut, due to being reworked. (and outclassed)

Similar to the FLC8s, you have a base signature retained over all tuning filters. An inherent character of the sound, no matter the choice of filters. That being a slightly warm and fun signature, albeit slightly recessed in the lower midrange, sub 2kHz. No you won't get Harman neutrality with them, no you won't get Fitear/FINAL/any mid forward signature with them.

Some more words on the filters. Per logic of this graph, the filters are sorted and tuned by their difference in frequency cut-off. However, there is more to it than meets the eye.

The Filters - Balance and Perception:

I'll start with the [COLOR=387fff]blue[/COLOR](F) filters. The most treble heavy tuning and the one extending until 35kHz. (Hah! No Hi-Res sign of approval for you!) What one will immediately notice is the increased clarity, compared to the rest of the bunch. Like a veil being removed from the sound. (Not that the A4 sound veiled)

For one, the [COLOR=387fff]blue[/COLOR](F) filters are - filterless. They have no damping material inside the nozzle. This results in an increase of the treble quantity, in particular around the 6kHz and around 8kHz. Add the [COLOR=f61f1f]Red[/COLOR] back filters and you get quite the V-Shaped signature. They tend to be moderately fatiguing for my tastes, accounting for my weakness around 6kHz. Interestingly they have a somewhat forward 2kHz area, similar to the [COLOR=25c128]Green[/COLOR](F) filters. Due to this the A4 gets slightly bright sounding overall.

The [COLOR=000000]Blacks[/COLOR](F) are more balanced, in fact they will be (along the greens) my personal pick for best balance. My measurements do agree on that matter, with the aforementioned 6kHz and 8kHz spots now being more linear. They fit my personal preferences just right. Treble extension is identical to the [COLOR= 387fff]Blue[/COLOR](F) filters. Using [COLOR=000000]Black[/COLOR] and [COLOR=000000]Black[/COLOR] along the [COLOR=000000]Black[/COLOR](B)-[COLOR= 25c128]Green[/COLOR](F) combo will give you the best of both worlds and arguably the most natural sounding experience.

*[COLOR=25c128]Green[/COLOR] is where the asterisk from earlier on comes into play. They push the midrange around the 2kHz area forward. Below that, not so much. The christmas themed combo [COLOR= f61f1f]Red[/COLOR](B)-[COLOR= 25c128]Green[/COLOR](F) gives you something along the lines of an U-Shaped signature. The [COLOR= 387fff]Blue[/COLOR](B)-[COLOR=25c128]Green[/COLOR](F) is where the A4 gets the closest to Harman "neutrality". [COLOR=25c128]Green[/COLOR] and [COLOR=000000]Black[/COLOR] sound very similar, though. I don't believe most casual listeners will decipher many notable differences. Think of [COLOR=25c128]Green[/COLOR](F) as a less bright sounding [COLOR=387fff]Blue[/COLOR](F).

[COLOR=8b8b8b]Grey[/COLOR], [COLOR= f61f1f]Red[/COLOR] and [COLOR=c125a3]Pink[/COLOR] are pretty straight forward. Each new filter lowers the treble extension towards sub-zero levels. Grey is still enjoyable and is a mixture of green and black with lesser treble emphasis. [COLOR= f61f1f]Red[/COLOR] is too congested for my tastes. And [COLOR=c125a3]Pink[/COLOR]...

Don't get me started.

(You can find some of my measurements here.)

Anyway. Towards the Back.

The [COLOR= f61f1f]Red[/COLOR](B) and [COLOR= 000000]Black[/COLOR](B) filters sound quite similar. Both share similar qualities. They extrude very capable sub-bass, digging deep into low Hz territories. The Mid-Bass follows this trail. There is no annoying mid-bass hump and very little bleed into the mids. [COLOR= f61f1f]Red[/COLOR](B) has more quantity, obviously.

The [COLOR= 387fff]Blue[/COLOR](B) filters are slightly different compared to [COLOR= 000000]Black[/COLOR] and [COLOR= f61f1f]Red[/COLOR], not just in quantity. We get a shift towards the lower root of the bass, meaning more sub-bass compared to mid-bass. Alas the mid-bass sounds neutral. The Sub-bass does not. Unfortunately. [COLOR= 387fff]Blue[/COLOR](B) does take away from the perceived stage and space. I don't think it suits the A4 very well. I really like neutrality, but the A4 is the wrong IEM for the task.

There is also the option of using no backfilter at all. Sounds quite ludicrous, but it works incredibly well. Impact is around the [COLOR=000000]Black[/COLOR](B) and [COLOR=f61f1f]Red[/COLOR](B) filters, which in my eyes is the best in terms of naturalness. Another little extra is the increase in soundstage and percieved airiness. I was shocked at first. Couple that with something like the [COLOR=25c128]Green[/COLOR](F) or [COLOR=000000]Black[/COLOR](F) gives you a tonality similar to the Hifiman HE560. The only drawback is the reduced usability in terms of isolation and sound leakage. But it is so worth it!

Flexibility is good. I'd imagine most settling down on two to three combinations. My personal favorites being: None(B)-[COLOR=25c128]Green[/COLOR](F), None(B)-[COLOR=000000]Black[/COLOR](F) and [COLOR=000000]Black[/COLOR]-[COLOR=000000]Black[/COLOR]

In terms of technical ability, the A4 is flat-out amazing. The soundstage is very large - and while not the best in terms of airiness - sounds precise and focused. This improves by implanting either Black(B) or Red(B) into the shell, adding another extra layer of depth. Like mentioned earlier, removing the backfilter all togehter adds even more special prowess to the IEM. Very addicting!

Imaging is surprisingly accurate. Instruments are resolved in true to life fashion. While there might be more detailed earphones in this area (IBasso IT03, FLC8s), the A4 is certainly elite within the 200$ territory.

The A4 sounds rather smooth. There are no huge errors in coherence or phase. It does have some dips in the treble here and there.

Comparison time - LZ-A4 vs. FLC8s:

Neutrality: Blue(B) | Black(F) vs. Gray | Clear | Gray

For those looking after a neutral presentation. While the A4 has better soundstage, in particular depth, the FLC8s is superior in imaging. The FLC8s is better in terms of resolution, especially in the mids. It sounds sharper, more accurate and more resolving. Treble linearity is another advantage the FLC8s has over its counterpart.

Fun: Red(B) | Blue(F) vs. Red | Black | Gold/Green

The LZ A4 slams the FLC8 in tonality. The A4 is more of everything: More bass, less congested. The RBG combo of the FLC8s sounds very off to me. It lost the laser-like sharpness. It sounds impressive, but compared to the A4, comes across as flat and un-inspirational.

Final Words​

The LZ A4 is sublime. I prefer not to use too many hyperboles, but LZs newest monitor deserves every praise it gets. In terms of sound, these are at the moment the best sub $200 IEM on the market.

Oh, Trinity. Synonymous for Hype without Frontiers. Now releasing the second In-Ear in the Phantom line-up. The Phantom Master 4. Featuring two addtional Balanced Armatures for some extra sparkle. But is it truly masterful, like the name suggests?

Enter Phantom Master 4 by Trinity

Official Phantom Thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/796729/trinity-phantom-series-new-thread-worlds-first-push-pull-hybrid-iem

I bought the Trinity Phantom Master 4 in the pre-order period for ~125€. The Value rating is based on the full retail price of around 170€.
Manufacturer website: https://www.trinityaudioengineering.com/

Specifications:

• All aluminium CNC machined shells
• Worlds first push/pull hybrid (actually that title goes to the Kumitate Lab KL-REF)
• Impedance: 16Ohm
• Sensitivity: 108db/mW
• Frequency Response: 20-20000hz
• 2 x 7mm Titanium diaphragm drivers + 2 Balanced armatures
• 2 Pin detachable cables x 3 (included as standard) 1 x standard Trinity multi-braid 1 x memory wire multi-braid 1 x fabric cable with remote and mic
• 7 x tuning filters.
• OFC copper cables
• Huge accessory package: standard case, 6.3mm adapter, huge selection of eartips (S/M/M/L silicone, double flange, S/M/L Memory foam, Spinfit tips XS/S/M/L)

Accessories:



Accessories are done in typical Trinity fashion. We get our pastery-style box with the individual eartips enclosed in a layer of foam. The triangular pouch, containing the 5.3mm Adaptor, a 3.5mm L-Shaped adaptor, a shirt-clip and last but not least, the all important filters. The filters are preserved inside metal tubes. That is all good and dandy, but why are the silver filters not in one of their own? Bob doesn't like silver? Who knows. Another little gripe: The filters tend to get stuck inside the tubing. Nothing major, but nonetheless annoying.

The final compartment under the pouch reveals 3 cables for your personal enjoyment. Two braided ones, 1x with and without memory wire and a mobile cable with an included microphone and button functionality. Overall really nice. Still an uni-body solution for filters (like the FLC8s has) could be something to consider.

Build and Design:



The PM4 utilises a rather uncommon Dual-Push Pull Hybrid design, only seen elsewhere in the Kumitate KL-REF. However the Master 4 is surprisingly small. It's sized somewhere around the upper-end Shure models with some additional thickness. It measures around 1.6cm in width, 1.2cm in height and 1.0cm in depth with the nozzle adding another extra 1.0cm. There are no alternative sized filters this time, however. Although, I don't think many will need them anyway. Isolation is quite commendable and highly improved. While it still lacks behind some of the closed Balanced Armature IEMs in that regard, it is certainly good enough for most commuting.

Aesthetics are well done. My model in particular is the matt black variant, giving it a classy looking feel. It also seems that the PM4 has improved build-quality. The PM4 looks more robust compared to the smaller brother, the Phantom Sabre. The Phantom line are using a proprietary 2-pin design which is not compatible with the traditional UE 2-pin standard. Myself and many other have had some issues with that particular connector. In case of a problem or issue, please don't hesitate to contact @Bobtrinity via. PM or write an E-Mail to jake@trinityaudioengineering.com.

Sound-Analysis:

General observations:

• General signature is a fun U-Shape
• Soundstage is impeccable, Imaging is about average.
• Coherence is good, even in complex tracks.
• Sounds warmer compared to the rest of the line-up; more lower-mid emphasis.
• Very unforgiving with bad recordings
• THAT BASS!
• Weird sounding around 3.5kHz

Pairing:

• The Master 4 profits from amplification
• The Master 4 has a rather inconsistent impedance curve
• Low output impedance (< 1Ohm) gives it the best results
• Identical in drivability compared to the Phantom Sabre
• The Master 4 was tested with the Xduoo X3, the HifiMe Sabre 9018, various smartphones and an IFi Stack. All of which sounded ok.

Filters:



Using the Delta-Styled filters, gives the PM4 a choice of 7 options to choose from. Generally speaking, changes are not drastic. The filters are only affecting bass quantity and some upper-mid to treble response. I personally enjoyed the Gold un-dampened and the gunmetal filters the most. Purple is also in my personal circulation. Silver is too aggressive in the lower-registers, IMO.

> Gunmetal filter: The Gun-Metal filter is declared the neutral filter, though to me this is not quite the case. Not even close, actually. The Gunmetal option has the second most prominent bass-line of all filters. It sounds eerily similar to the gold dampened filter, albeit slightly less subdued in both bass and treble.

> Purple filters: The Treble filter. Again not true in the literal sense of the word. The purple variant has just the least amount of bass, shifting the overall balance quite a bit. I still think that the bass is somewhat north of neutral, with reverb and overall visceral nature taking a slight backseat.

> Gold filters: "Perfect balance between gunmetal and purple". This is my go-to filter for most applications (un-dampened). Bass is prominent, but not overbearing. Takes a good in-between spot for many genres.

> Silver filters: The most V-Shaped out of the bunch. These are bass monsters. Sounds good with modern genres. Still, too much for my taste.

The dampening smooths out the somewhat inconsistent upper mids and treble. However with the consequence of making it sound slightly congested. To me, the treble is the weakest part of the overall sound. Airiness and reproduction of detail is quite good. But at the cost of sounding artificial, with various peaks in frequency-response. Soundstage is the strongest part of the Master 4. It extends well beyond my head-space. I'd say it has the single best soundstage in its price-class. Depth in particular is fantastic. The Master 4 sounds very dynamic, with good amount of detail to back it up. Micro-details are noticable, but not prioritized. The Master 4 is more about emotion. Jazz in particular sounds absolutely fantastic. Still, the tuning sounds ok to good with most genres. Although, I wouldn't recommend the Master 4 for mastering purposes. They sound too colored.

Comparisons:

FLC8 (Red-Clear-Gray): [around 320$]

The Master 4 is overall warmer and more inviting sounding compared to the FLC8s. The FLC8s is less spacious sounding, but more precise in terms of imaging. Bass is much more evident on the PM4, with authority which simply cannot be matched by the FLC8s, albeit at the cost of sounding slighly bloated. Instruments are easier to depict with the FLC8s. Furthermore due to the smaller soundstage, the FLC8s has an easier time diving into the individual aspects of songs and music. The FLC8s has better detail-retrieval overall. The PM4 has more mid-bass and lower midrange emphasis, which makes it warmer and more "fun", whereas the FLC8s is generally more neutral and linear in presentation. My personal preference goes to the FLC8s. The PM4 has too many sonic weaknesses compared to the FLC8s, in particular in the upper-midrange to treble area. The FLC8s has better realism, more linearity and more technicality.

Phantom Sabre: [around 100$]

The Sabre is very similar in tuning. However the little brother sounds slightly less spacious and detailed compared to the Master. The Sabre has less emphasis on the lower-mids, making it appear more nimble. Treble sounds more linear on the Sabre, but has similar issues with peaks and dips. The PM4 sounds overall more U-Shaped, whereas the Sabre is more akin to the traditional V-Shape. The Master 4 is pretty much an all-around better Sabre.

Final Words:

So. Is the Master 4 any good? Yes. Very good. Considering the price of 170€. Definitely.
If you're looking for an all-in one package with an emotional and spacious sound, look no further. The Master 4 is your man.

Over the course of this year, I have noticed that my enthusiasm about buying new gear has become rather stagnant. Ever since I started my personal audio-journey in 2014 and many listening sessions later, nothing excites my now veteran ears anymore. To my surprise came FORREST and renewed my childish side with their announcement of the FLC8s. I have been following the FLC8 Thread for quite some time now. And while the FLC8s are available since November 2015, I never pulled the trigger. Until now...

Enter FLC8s by FORREST.

Disclaimer: I bought these on Shenzhen Audio for 269$. I'm not affiliated with FORREST or Shenzhen Audio in any shape or form.

About me:

Specifications:

• Type: Hybrid dual BA + 8.6mm Dynamic Driver
• Frequency Range: 20 Hz – 20 kHz
• Impedance: 11 ohm
• Sensitivity: 117 dB @ 1kHz 1mW
• Cable: 1.2m 4 core single twisted copper (replaceable)
• Jack: 3.5mm gold plated, straight jack
• Weight: Approx 14g with tips in place
• IEM Shell: Hi-gloss strengthened plastic

Accessories:





The FLC8s comes in a rather large box for an IEM. Don't be fooled however! This is not due to the IEM itself, but the quite stellar set of equipment and its very unique presentation. Using a folding mechanism reveals two compartments, both protected in thick blue coloured foam. The first layer contains the IEM, while the second layer retains the carrying case and filters with included tweezers. A+ FORREST!

The included metal carrying case, while not so transportable, will protect your FLC8s or IEM of choice against all kinds of hazards. That thing is literally undestroyable. Reminds me of those old Nokia Cellphones back in the day...

Opening up the carrying case reveals an airline adapter, a 3.5mm to 5.3mm adapter, a cleaning tool coupled with some tips. Everything you need.

The filter case is likewise solidly built and comprises a capsule with screw on top, and inside is a mould which has enough room to house 3 pairs of tuning bores, and 2 pairs of each of the ULF and LF tuning plugs.

Build and Design:




The FLC8S is made in a high gloss plastic shell, and at first glance you'd think it was made of polished coloured aluminium. Each earpiece is very ergonomic – designed to fit the contours of the ears, without feeling heavy or having sharp edges. The two piece plastic shell looks very sophisticated, coming in either blue or red colour.

Dimensions are on the moderate side with 18mm x 10mm x 18mm. The body is S-shaped, and the nozzle is perpendicular to the main body. I didn't encounter any major issues with fit, but I can envision it not being ideal for everybody's ear-type. Although it is a vented design (replaceable nonetheless), Isolation is actually above average for most In-Ear designs. Commuting is very acceptable with some adjustment to your listening volume.

The biggest shortcoming of the FLC8s is the included cable. While it has lost the big 7,5cm chunk of memory wire in newer revisions, it is still rather unruly and tangles a lot. Furthermore it has in probable amounts of microphonics, making it unsuited for heavy-duty activity.

Luckily the FLC8s features a very stable 2-pin connection. The sockets are raised, with the cable plugs fitting snugly over the top for added strength. The FLC8s uses the UE standard.

Sound-Analysis:

Filters - Usability and general Impressions:

The filters are divided in to three brackets:

• ULF - Ultra-Low-Frequency - Sub-Bass
• LF - Low-Frequency - Mid-Bass
• MF/HF - Mid and High Frequency

The experience which defined my time with the FLC8s. I love tinkering with things, but my fingers are pretty large (I can easily palm a Size 7 Basketball). The MF/HF filters are easy to replace by unscrewing them from the nozzle. However, inserting and removing the ULF/LF filters was frustrating and took lots of fiddling and patience. I even lost a black LF filter to the carpet - beware!




(For some proper measurements please refer to Brooko's review here)

General observations:

• Clean sounding with lots of micro-detail
• Imaging is precise and with good airiness
• Coherence is fantastic even with Red-Black filters in place
• No glaring sonic weakness
• Lower midrange is not affected by tuning
• Extension on either side of the spectrum is fantastic

Don't expect the FLC8s to be the jack-of-all-trades. It has a base signature which is retained over all filter combinations: A bright, but organic sounding In-Ear. It is not going to sound warm or even bassy. Think of it this way:

The FLC8s is not a tunable IEM with great sound. The FLC8s is a great sounding IEM with tuning options.

Pairing:

• 11Ohm and 114dB/mW makes for easy listening out of your smartphone
• Amping is absolutely not required
• The FLC8s profits from warmer sources

Some Filters combinations:




Red-Clear-Grey:

The RCG combo is my personal favorite and suits my preferences best with its slight U-Shape signature:

Bass:

• Overall very balanced sounding with some slight tilt towards the lower echelons adding some rumble to the mix.
• Neutral sounding mid-bass. Zero bass-bleed into the midrange.
• Highly detailed bass response, good texture.

Mids:

• Lower Midrange is slightly recessed, thus improves the spacial presentation.
• Organic sounding with some moderate brightness.
• Soundstage is moderately sized in all three directions. Appears spherical with center position.

Treble:

• 5kHz area is slightly recessed.
• Moderate rise around 7kHz, giving the FLC8s some sparkle without getting fatiguing

Red-Grey-Gold:

The RGG combo was the first combination I have listened to. I don't enjoy the Gold filters all that much. The RGG variant works well with modern genres.

Bass:

• Overall more impact with extra energy
• Focus on Mid-Bass. Plenty of bass. Although Bass-Heads might be left wanting.
• Retains the same clarity and coherence.

Mids:

• More upper-mid focus around 3kHz compared to the Grey filters
• Forward sounding female-vocals
• Soundstage appears to be smaller
• Overall brighter sounding

Treble:

• Identical sounding, but balance has shifted.
• Loses some airiness.
• Detail retrival is the same.

The green and blue filters are too extreme for my tastes. The former is too peaky in the 7kHz area , whereas the latter sounds too muted and rolled off. I can safely say that the FLC8s works with almost any genre and excels with classic in particular.

Comparison with the Trinity Phantom Master 4:

The Master 4 is overall warmer and more inviting sounding compared to the FLC8s. The FLC8s is less spacious sounding, but more precise in terms of imaging. Bass is much more evident on the PM4, with authority which simply cannot be matched by the FLC8s, albeit at the cost of sounding slighly bloated. Instruments are easier to depict with the FLC8s. Furthermore due to the smaller soundstage, the FLC8s has an easier time diving into the individual aspects of songs and music. The FLC8s has better detail-retrieval overall. The PM4 has more mid-bass and lower midrange emphasis, which makes it warmer and more "fun", whereas the FLC8s is generally more neutral and linear in presentation. My personal preference goes to the FLC8s. The PM4 has too many sonic weaknesses compared to the FLC8s, in particular in the upper-midrange to treble area. FORRESTs offering has better realism, more linearity and more technicality.

Final Words:

I really enjoy the FLC8s. For around 300$, you get an all-around package, which will keep you up at night for many months to come. While it is not perfect, the versatility you get for the asking price is well worth it. Flcforrestwei good job! Looking forward to the Celeste.

The Romanian based company Meze has earned quite a following over the last year. This comes to no surprise. Head-Fi and wooden headphones are easily compatible. Couple that with some pro-active marketing and voila: A match in heaven has been made. For instance, myself and many others were surprised by the Meze 99 Classics. Not only for its fun signature, but also for the technical prowess it exhibited. Now following the trail of success, Meze has released two new In-Ear Monitors: The Meze 11 Neo and Meze 12 Classics. The latter one being the focus for today.

Enter Meze 12 Classics:

Disclaimer: The Meze 12 Classics were send to me as part of their European Tour. I'm not affiliated with Meze in any shape or form.

Meze 12 Thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/824068/meze-12-classics-discussion-impressions-thread

About me:

Specifications:

• Frequency response: 16Hz - 24KHz
• Impedance: 16Ohm
• Sensitivity: 101dB (+/- 3db)
• Total harmonic distortion: < 0.5%
• Noise attenuation: up to 26dB
• Titanium coated 8mm mylar driver
• Copper-clad aluminum voice coil
• 3.5mm gold-plated jack plug
• 7N OFC cable, length: 1.2m

Build and fit:

The first apparent feature of the Meze 12 is the wooden shell. For 79$ you get a well-build earphone featuring the wooden cabinet in the back and an aluminium nozzle at the front. The back plate is also made out the same aluminium and has the Meze logo engraved on it. The nozzle itself is on the wider side of things with 5mm.

The 12 Classics uses a non-detachable cable with remote-line. Sadly the cable itself is rather stiff and tangles quite often. Furthermore the cable is very microphonic, rendering the earphone unsuitable for sports. You can wear the earphone over the ear, however I found that to be quite uncomfortable. Another little gripe is the lack of a neck clinch. While there is a shirt clip included, it is certainly only an half-assed solution.

General fit is excellent. The small (2.8cm x 1cm x 1cm) body is suitable for all types of ears. The lightweight construction is perfect for long listening sessions and will be ideal for almost everyone.

Accessories:

The earphone comes with a carrying pouch, the aforementioned shirt clip, 4 pairs of silicon tips and one pair of Complys. Standard affair at this price-point.

Sound-Analysis:




General sound-signature is a moderate U-Shape with punchy mid-bass and slightly elevated upper mid-range and lower treble. There is a distinctive dip in the area around 1-2 kHz, adding a sense of cleanliness to the general sound.

Bass is more akin to modern tuning with slightly recessed sub-bass and roll-off beginning at around 100hz going downwards. The bass tone will satisfy anyone but the biggest bass-head. There is a slight mid-bass hump, albeit it doesn't leak into the lower midrange. It has good reverb, but sounds a bit unnatural due to the not so great soundstage-depth.

Mid-range is articulate and slightly dry sounding. Male and Female vocals have a good sense of articulation, but in the case of male vocals can sound slightly distant. Clarity and Imaging is excellent for the price-point. Soundstage is good in width and height, but is lacking depth making the sound often unnatural.

The treble extends until around 12kHz before rolling off. It reaches its highest point at around 5kHz, which gives it a good airy feel. Detail retrieval is fantastic for the price. The 12 Classics has no sibilance to speak of: Areas of interest like 6kHz and 9kHz are well-balanced and never aggressive in execution.

Some observations:

• The Meze 12 Classics are benefitting from wide-bore or Comply tips. Wide-bores improve the soundstage-depth noticeably, whereas Comply make the overall signature slightly warmer and more inviting.
• AMPing is overkill. Warmer sources are recommended, but pretty much everything is working.

Comparisons:

LZ A2S (50$):

The A2S is a much warmer and more inviting earphone. It is pretty much the antithesis to the 12 Classics in signature with its lower midrange focused sound. Bass is fairly equal quantity, but the Meze appears to be slightly meatier and more impactful. The A2S is slightly better in terms of 3Dness, but lacks the imaging and much of the openness in comparison.

Treble is much better on the Meze in both emphasis and extension. Detail is slightly more emphasised as a result. It's quite ironic thinking about it: The A2S is the more woody sounding out of the two.

FLC8s - Red, Clear, Grey (329$):

At first glance this might look unfair, but they are pretty comparable in terms of signature. The FLC8s in the Red, Clear configuration is more sub-bass tilted, thus it makes out for a more true sounding U-Shape. In comparison the Meze has similar soundstage width, but gets utterly demolished in stage-depth. Openness is similar, but the FLC8s is superior in terms of imaging, yet is smoother. Bass quantity is more akin to the Grey, Grey filters, albeit similar in quality.

Trinity Phantom Sabre (150$):

The Sabres is more extreme in both end of the spectrum. It sounds more vivid in the upper end and has more bass-impact (from gold onwards). The competition from Britain has similar bass quantity when equipped with the purple or gun-metal filters. I found the Sabres to be smoother in the mid-range, even though the treble peaks are more noticeable. Staging is similar, but the Sabres have the clear advantage in Y-axis perception.

Final words:

The 12 Classics are another great release by Meze. Equipped with an open and fun, but well-balanced signature makes for an easy recommendation. At just 79$, even more so.

About me:

Preamble:

Brainwavz being based in Hongkong is quite known for its well set-up line of Accessories and IEMs. Back in the day, I was fairly active in modding my still beloved Fostex T50rp. The HM5 earpads and their Hybrid-version were a godsent for anyone looking at cheap and good sounding earpads at that time. Now, most stuff in their lineup is more handy than an absolute necessity, like the various stands and hangers. Today we're looking at one of the few examples in their line-up: The Krudul Duo Earphone Storage Management System Hanger or just Krudul. 15$ well spend? Or does the hanger fall off its expectations?

Enter Brainwavz Krudul Duo

(This Unit was sent to for evaluation and reviewing. I'm not affiliated with Brainwavz in any way. Consider some inherent and subconcious bias in this review.)

Build and Accessories:



The Krudul comes in a simple plastic box, with just the two hanger inside. No extras, no sticker, straight to the point. Unraveling the box reveals two (hence the Duo) hangers. Build out of solid aluminium both hanger can take quite a bit of impact. Finish and overall quality is well done, though I'd prefer a real logo over the Brainwavz branding. The Krudul is using a 3M VHB(tm) adhesive, which is covered with some red tape. As far as I know, all Brainwavz hangers are using this type of adhesive. Albeit it is definitely needed for bigger and heavier loads, I feel that it is quite mismatched and a little bit of an overkill.




So does it work?:

In short, yes. Of course what do you expect. The space accommondating the IEMs is large enough for two per hanger and maybe a couple of cables extra. No matter the weight, the Krudul remains safe and sound on almost any surface. It even stands its ground balancing some heavier headphones for that matter. It is very useful for not only IEMs, but various accessories. The biggest issue I have encountered however was when trying to remove the hanger. The 3M adhesive is almost overwhelming in terms of strength, which cause some of my wall to crumble (no joke!). So please, put the Krudul on something not too sensitive, like desks or metal surfaces. Another little gripe is the fact that the adhesive gets worn off quite easily, thus losing grip over time rather fast. So if you want to vary the positioning of the Duo, please beware.


(Krudul Duo vs. German "Altbau"-Wall)



Conclusion:

Bottomline, is the Krudul worth your well earned 15 Bucks? You could buy three pizzas with that money. In case you are not starving, yes! Seriously though, most won't really need such an accessory anyway. It's nice to have, works almost flawlessly and looks good on pictures. Beyond that, usage is rather questionable (duh!). For all impulse buyers, this is surely something you will need in your collection. For anyone else, why not?

About me:

Preamble:

Looking down at the vast landscape of Head-Fi and audio technology in general, I have noticed quite a few things over the past two years. Firstly, the crazy products, which sometimes defy common sense and secondly the people who are actually buying them. Now, I get that everyone is inclined on buying whatever they like, but it seems to me that people just don't know what they are using it for.
Maybe it is out of jealously or just my rational senses kicking in, who knows. Out of pragmatism, I have imposed myself with a "don't spend more than 300€ on a singular product" rule, which to this day still remains. However, this also means that I have never fully owned a truly "High-Fi" product. Now today, I will look at the M1Pro from Soundaware. A 750$ DAP. In this review, I will ask following questions:
1. What are the main differences between low and high-end DAPs
2. What do you gain/sacrifies buying such a product
3. How much difference is there in sound
4. Would I buy the M1Pro, personally?

For that reason I will thoroughly compare the M1Pro to the 100$ Xduoo X3. (review here)

Enter M1Pro

(This Product was sent to me for evaluation and reviewing purposes. I'm not affiliated with Soundaware in any way. Consider some inherent and subconcious bias in this review.)

Official Esther Thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/750875/soundaware-m1-pro-portable-player-with-proprietary-fpga-architecture-review-tour-started

Specs:



Build and Accessories:

Overall, you get the Esther, a USB cable + wall charger, a USB card reader, some stickers and the manual. I also got a 16Gb Samsung mSD card loaded with some sample music, although I'm not sure if the retail version comes with a card. In the review version, the wall charger is missing, although I got an extra coaxial cable as compensation. So keep that in mind. Another thing I found to be obscure was the lack of a case or pouch. While I can forgive this not being included with the Xduoo X3, I just cannot overlook the fact that it is missing here.



Build is excellent. The Esther is build out of a brushed aluminum casing from top to bottom. The texture feels quite pleasant without any blemishings or errors in production. With a weight of 175g and measurements of 115x55x15mm, it does feel quite substantial in my hands. The M1Pro tends to generate some heat when being used, although I never found this to annoying or hindering. However I don't recommend jogging or doing sports with the M1Pro. For obvious reasons.











I.O. is quite good. Soundaware’s offering has 11 buttons, which are all being distinct from each other, albeit somewhat cramped around the Play/Pause button. They feel slightly mushy while pressing down, though deterioration will not be an issue. The M1Pro features three 3.5mm (1/8’’) inputs adding flexibility for almost anyone. The bottom end features a Micro-USB port and a dual MicroSD slot. The dual SD-card slot is nice to have, though rather standard affair at this point.

The M1Pro features an IPS screen with decent viewing angles and very good brightness-levels. Colour reproduction is superb, typical of an IPS. The Hardware aspect of the M1Pro is near flawless, as the battery run-time comes just short of around 9 hours, which is slightly above average and much better than a rockboxed Xduoo X3, for instance.

User Interface:

Soundaware took the leap and created a firmware (Linux based) from scratch. To me, this is the area where Soundaware has to makes some improvements. The UI is quite sub-par, but does show some potential along the way.





I’ll start off looking at the Options menu. While adequate for most, I found the amount of options to be lacking. It does have most fundamental stuff like Language (though only English and Chinese), Screen-brightness and various settings for sound (Gain, Roll-Off, et al.). However compared to the vast interface of Rockbox it comes of as disappointing at best. For instance, adding new tracks are not auto-compiled into the storage, but must be added via. The Scan Music option. Now, the M1Pro has no big fundamental errors, but various small quirks which add up hindering the overall experience. My biggest gripe was with the playing mode of the player. After selecting a track you are launched into the playing mode, which has all information displayed. The Layout does look weird, I might add. Pressing the DOWN button changes the play-mode and pressing UP will display the album-art in it’s full glory. Sadly, this nice looking album-art locks the rest of the options and only displays the Title and Artist.
Not game-breaking per se, but it slows down the experience. And speaking of slow: Fast-Forward and rewinding is painfully slow. One second per 4.5 seconds of skipping. Maybe it’s just me, but I tend to rewind constantly. I like certain parts of tracks for than others. Streamlining and improving responsiveness is my biggest advice to the guys over at Soundaware.



Sound-Impressions:

Now here comes the best part. The Sound. On a technical level, the Soundaware is quite amazing.
I personally use almost exclusively low-impedance In-Ears, which obviously the player has no issue running to their fullest potential. I have been using the High-Gain option for most of my testing, even with more sensitive gear. Hiss was never an issue, albeit noticeable at start-up or when plugging in some IEMs. What impressed me the most was the capability of driving some seriously big names.
I plugged in my Fostex T50rp out of curiosity: And the results were nothing short of impressive. It had quite decent head-room remaining and sounded full-bodied. Same with the Sennheiser HD600.
Both pairings were ideal, because of the more “neutral” signature. While my Xduoo X3 can drive both Headphones to audible levels, it lacks dynamics and sounded quite bad in comparison. Now, I am not running high-impedance headphones from a portable DAP anyway, but if you fancy the options, the Esther might be something to look at. I was more inclined on knowing, how both differentiated when paired with my IEM collection:

The Soundaware M1Pro is warm sounding with good special capabilities, albeit not overly out of proportions. It reminded me of some older tube-amps I had listened to back in the day. Compared to the lower-priced competitor it does add some extra colouration to the sound, which I don’t really approve of. Extra dynamics were welcomed and overall sound more realistic to the more flat sounding X3.
But I’m speaking of a difference of a mere percentile. I’d honestly invest into the X3 and a 650$ IEM, rather than a Soundaware M1Pro and a 100$ IEM. The former will prove significantly better sounding.
I also tested some of the features, like roll-off and jitter, which I experimented with quite a bit. Unfortunatly, I cannot hear much of an audible difference. YMMV or course.



Final Thoughts:

A 750$ DAP. For anyone, but the most audiophile people out there will sound ludicrous. Including myself. There is a reason why I don’t invest more than 300€ for a single product. Because the law of diminishing returns kicks in. And it seems to be even more evident, when looking at the vast landscape of DAPs. I still remember the PONO player and this infamous review. The Soundaware M1Pro is quite similar in that regard, although miles better (and 2x more expensive). For anyone looking at the best bang for your buck is obviously not welcomed here. But for anyone else with a 750$ budget, I can whole heartly recommend the Soundaware M1Pro. A spacious sounding TOTL DAP with almost endless power to boot.

About me:


Preamble:

As you might know, I am always looking for the best bang for the buck. Until a while ago, my Smartphone (a Galaxy S3) was my daily driver for almost anything. Although, anything is relative in this case. I really only used it for making calls and listening to Music. Logically, I decided to invest into an DAP for some more flexibility. I was looking for a player which fulfilled following criteria:
1.: It must have decent modding capabilities. (Screen, Battery, UI)
2.: Battery should be atleast decent.
3.: It must take one or two hits to the ground.
4.: Reasonable Pricing.
Luckily, after just 5 minutes of search I found my unicorn. The XDuoo X3. A 100$ DAP with some of the best set of features in its class. Dual-Micro SD Slots, a OLED screen, 10 hour battery time, a great DAC unit. But obviously I was not entirely sold. I never buy into hype (*cough* ZhiYin QT5 *cough*), so I read the threads about some possible short-comings, which (to take it away) are quite a few.
However opting for the smaller brother X2 meant the lack of a second MicroSD-Slot and/or inferior sound-quality. All the other alternatives were around 50+$ more expensive, so I just took the leap and bought it off Aliexpress.

Enter XDuoo X3

Official Threads:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/782912/xduoo-x3-dsd-24bit-192khz-cs4398-chip-lossless-music-player
http://www.head-fi.org/t/803844/rockbox-xduoo-x3




Specs:

Power: 1500MAH 3.7V lithium polymer battery.
Processor: the king is smart chip JZ4760B
Operating System: LINUX
DAC chip: Cirrus Logic CS4398
Amplifier chip: one per channel rail-to-rail high-efficiency amplifier chip

Card support: maximum support two 128G TF / Micro SD Cards

Output power: 250mW (32Ω load)
Line out Output level: 1.5Vrms

Supported Formats:

DSD: DSD64
APE: 24bit / 192khz
FLAC: 24bit / 192khz
WAV: 24bit / 192khz
APPLE Lossless: 24bit / 192khz
CUE
WMA, MP3, AAC, ALAC, OGG

Frequency response: 20Hz ~ 20KHz (± 0.5dB)
Gain: + 6dB
Distortion: 0.001% (1KHz)
SNR: 110dB
Adapter Headphone Impedance: 8Ω ~ 300Ω

Battery Life time:> 10H
Charging time: <2H
Volume: 105.5 * 45 * 14mm
Weight: 100g
Color: Black, Silver, Gold

Build and Accessories:

The X3 is build out of an aluminium casing from top to bottom. Although the buttons are made out of plastic, overall build quality is excellent. Due to the small form-factor of around 10cmx4.5cmx1.4cm it is small enough to not get in the way. Accounting for the weight of only 100g plus sturdy build makes it an great DAP for on the run or in the gym. However it does generate some heat when running or charging, albeit it is only a small increase without further implication for user or player.

I.O. is plenty. We got 9 buttons, which are all distinctive from each other and easy to identify. Pressing each button creates a decent clicking response, which in my 3 months of usage hasn't deteriorated.
Moving to the top of device shows a Micro-USB port. Standard affair. Moving to the bottom reveals a 3.5mm (1/8'') input and line-out. Another mandatory affair. On the left is the Locking Slide, which does click quite audible and is satisfying to use, but annoying for anyone else within a 3 meter radius. The right side rocks the volume buttons, the Micro-SD card slots and a reset pin in case the X3 needs a hard-reset. Overall a solid package and everything I need. Great.

Accessories are a bit on the low side, however. Included are only a USB-Cable, a rather disappointing screenprotector and a manual. Futhermore third-party accessories are almost non-existant. Besides a little leather-pouch (which looks terrible), nothing else has been released thus far. Disappointing but somewhat expected considering the price-point.

The biggest downfall in terms of Hardware is the Screen and the Battery. While the X3 uses a OLED display (Which turns off #000000/black pixels entirely, in theory saving battery), it is lackluster. I actually like the low resolution, as I don't care about Album art. HOWEVER, it uses a terrible front-panel which dims the screen too much. Even in moderate sunlight the screen becomes unreadable.
There are DIY solutions to this problem, but the bright blue does cause quite a bit of strain for your eyes (why is there no option for changing the screen-colour?). Another gripe is the disappointing battery-management. With a 300x240p screen and a 1500mA capacity, run-time is only around 6 1/2h with moderate screen-on time. A far cry from the advertised 10h. I feel that these two quirks are holding the X3 off quite a bit.









User Interface:

(Note: I will only talk about Rockbox in this segment, as the default Firmware is quite frankly sub-par compared to Rockbox)

Installing Rockbox is fast and easy to do:

1) Download the bootloader (update-to-rockbox-xxx.zip) and rockbox system’s archives (rockbox-full-xxx.zip)

2) Rename update-to-rockbox-xxx.zip to update.zip and write to the root of the micro SD-card without unpacking.

3) Unpack rockbox-full-xxx.zip to the root of the micro SD-card. System folder .rockbox must be placed at the root of this memory card.
On Windows: (mSDCARD):/.rockbox
On Linux/Unix: /media/(mSDCARD)/.rockbox (Hidden files are disabled with some File-Manager; enable with CTRL-H)
Card must be formatted to FAT16 or FAT32 beforehand. Filesystems ExFAT, NTFS, EXT3/4 are not supported!

4) Install the SD-Card to the X3 slot number 1

5) Update your player. To do this, in the menu "Setting" select "Upgrade"

6) Profit

(One has to note that this is an unofficial port of Rockbox made by XVortex, hence there are some issues with stability)

After installing Rockbox you are greeted with a huge choice of options:

• Files
  
  Your file-manager for the most part. You access the SD-Card Storage from the Files options. Also your Playlists are saved here.
  
  
• Database
  
  Sorts your files via. flags. Has most relevant information displayed here.
  
  
  
  
• Resume Playback
• Settings
  
  What I really enjoy about Rockbox is the extensive ability to customize your layout. Furthermore it has all relevant settings for altering sound-properties.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Playlist Catalogue
• Plugins
• System
• Shortcuts

Thanks to the extensive libary of themes, custom fonts and icons making the U.I. your own is almost a necessity. There is no wasted space, everything is readable and information is plenty. Key-Mapping is sadly not possible, but the layout and most options are only 2 clicks away. For instance while playing a track you can access all options via. long pressing the PLAY/PAUSE. Killing the track via. short-clicking POWER is useful, though you have to either wait for the screen to auto-dim or use the lock slider for deactivating the screen.

The biggest strengh of the Xduoo X3 is the overall fluidity and speed, in which you can navigate. There is almost no lag to speak of. Even little things like fast-forward and rewinding are smartly done, with longer holds accelerating the process and decelerating when you reach the start/end of the track. In case you don't like this extra convience, disabling such controls via. the .cfg file is always an option and encouraged. Rockbox is vast.



Sound Impressions:

Drivability is quite good. As for someone who is exclusively using IEM, I have not encountered any issue with lacking volume. I have tested the X3 with my slightly modded T50rp and got moderately good results. It does sound under-powered, although volume is enough for most. What is more important to me is hiss, which often but not is somewhat apparant. Especially compared to the Soundaware M1Pro, hiss is notable when plugging in the earphone, although mostly disappears after music is playing. I recommend turning on High-Gain for all instances. Unless you want to drive something like a Hifiman HE-6 or similar, extra amping is not required.

Sound-Quality is certainly a improvement over my Phone. While the S3 is no slouch in terms of sound, the X3 does give my collection a certainly needed extra punch. There is not much coloration added with the X3. It sounds neutral, spacious and thanks to the extensive EQ settings of Rockbox can be tuned to your liking. While the aforementioned Soundaware M1Pro (750$) does add slightly more extra to the sound, difference is quite minimal. Maybe around 5%, which to me is almost negliable. Plus it leaves me with 650$ extra.



Conclusion:

Overall, the X3 is quite amazing. It does have a vast array of options and while it has various quirks holding it down, it never really bothered me too much. I do believe that Rockbox is the X3s saving grace. Without it you might want to consider something else. However all small things aside, the Xduoo X3 is one of the best options in the 100$ DAP realm.

Note:
I bought the Trinity Phantom Sabre in the pre-order period for ~75€. The Value rating is based on the full retail price of around 150€.
Manufacturer website: https://www.trinityaudioengineering.com/


Preamble:

First of all, welcome to another review here on Head-Fi.org. My name is Noel aka. FUYU, I'm 19 years old and a avid lover for everything technical.
While everything subjective, I like to explain in more rational enclosure with graphs and technical prowess. I care about facts and facts only, meaning no fancy 300$ cables and value by price-to perfomance.

As someone who is always on the hunt of the "best bang for your buck", looking for the right product can be tedious. Personally, I'm mostly active in the newly flourishing Chinese Threads and certainly there are many many contentors out there trying to take the crown for the best deal in audio history.
Although I don't condemn myself in stereotypes too much, Chinese vendors on Aliexpress are not really peaking in the Trust department. This time around I'm not showing you another chinese product, but rather something from the great little isle which is Great Britain. A small little project courtesy of Bobtrinity: Trinity Audio Engineering. A small little company, sparking hype unlike I have seen on Head-Fi.
This royal project has it all: Community-driven products, insane price-to-performance and customer service bar none. But is this really the case? Can their new release shake the audio-industry?

Enter Trinity Audio Engineering: Phantom Sabre.
Official Phantom Thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/796729/trinity-phantom-series-new-thread-worlds-first-push-pull-hybrid-iem

Specifications:

> Twin push/pull driver set up
> Impedance: 16Ohm
> Sensitivity: 108 +/- 3DB
> Frequency response: 20 - 20000Hz
> 2 Pin detachable cables x 3 (included as standard) 1 x standard Trinity multi-braid 1 x memory wire multi-braid 1 x Fabric cable with mic/remote/volume control
> 5 x pairs tuning filters in standard length for shallow insertion and long length for deep insertion.
> 6.3mm adapter, 11 choices of eartips (S/M/M/L silicone, double flange, M/L Memory foam, SPINFIT ear tips (SS/S/M/L), Trinity pouch

Accessories:

Under normal circumstances I'd combine the Accessories and Build part into one. But due to the absolute obscene amount of goodies included, I have to make an exception.
The Sabre comes in a moderately big package for an IEM, which has a convient magnetic clip for opening it. After revealing the first compartment, I thought I got something from a fancy pastery-store. It just screams chocolate box, which I didn't like too much as it has the individual tips enclosed in a layer of foam. Fiddling around took its time, but I eventually removed all the tips and the actual earpieces.
Moving on there also the all important triangular pouch. In itself its not really noteworthy, as it's not really big and identical to the MusicMaker pouch, though it does it job. Inside the pouch however, it gets interesting: We get 4 aluminum tubes, which contain the filters and another plastic bag which contains the red filters. I don't know why the red filters are not in a tube of their own, but it seems like Bob just hates red. I wish for a uni-body solution for carrying the filters, next time around. A rather unpratical solution, which seems like a compromise rather then a fully realised concept. Additionally there are a 1/8’ (3.5mm) to 1/4’ (5.2mm) adapter and another 1/8’ straight to 1/8’ 90° angled connector included. Nice and always useful. This should be a staple for every mid-to upper tier IEM. Period. In the final compartment under the pouch reveals 3(!) cables for your personal enjoyment. Two braided ones, 1x with and without memory wire and a mobile cable with an included microphone and botton functionality. Oh, and a shirt clip I never ever use.




Design and Build:

The Phantom Sabre utilises a rather uncommon Dual-Push Pull design, which is more commonly seen in bigger speaker-systems. One might predict a large body, but in reality it's actually smaller than most IEM designs. WIth a diameter of 1.5cm it easily fits into my ear without straining the outer parts of my concha. I really like the design and look. I opted for the Gunmetal colour giving it a distinctive industrial design.
The Sabre and Phantom line are using a proprietary 2-pin design which is sadly not 100% compatible with the tradtional UE 2-pin more commonly used in CIEMs. This limits the usage of aftermarked cables, which is surely a bummer for those feeling fancy about it. I'm not of these people, thus this is a non-issue for me, personally.
Isolation is pretty average. Due to the vented design it does not isolate as much as I like it to.
The filters are easy to change. Unscrew clockwise and vise-versa for adding the nozzle. Overall one of the best builds in IEM history, although the cable has some little quirks: For attaching it onto the connectors, you have to allign them with a little piece of plastic. Make sure it sits fully flush or it might causes sound to cut off. In case of a problem or issue, please don't hesitate to contact Bobtrinity via. PM or write an E-Mail to jake@trinityaudioengineering.com.




Pairing:

If you have read some of my reviews, you might notice a trend: Get a good source and that's it. Like almost all IEMs, you won't need an amplifier, unless you're crazy. But then again, alot of us are a bit lunatic, so keep that in mind. Non of my sources (Xduoo X3, Samsung Galaxy S3) had any issues whatsoever. You might get into some issues if your output impedance is to high. Other than that, just pop’em in and enjoy the musical fireworks.

Sound-Analysis:

Thanks to the dual-push pull design, the Sabre has excellent clarity and dynamics. Still, it is no neutral listen. Overall signature is more fun sounding, with good energy in the upper-mids. As the Filters have only an impact on bass, I will mostly use the Gold, Orange, Purple and Gunmetal/Gray filters for reference. I found the Red filters too boomy for my tastes, with an unnatural amount of reverb.
I personally had no clear favorite among the available options.

Soundstage and Imaging is fantastic. There is more than sufficient blackness in between instruments, due to the great depth in all three dimentions. Extention is very good in the lower registers, but looking at the other direction it is somewhat rolled off in the treble.
(From most bass-heavy to least: Red -> Orange -> Gold -> Purple -> Gunmetal)

> Orange filters: This is the most fun-sounding and will be my go to filter for running and sports. With the orange filters you definitely notice the moderately recessed lower-mid to mid-range. This causes the soundstage to widen and due to the great reverb and sub-bass extention sounds spacious and out of your head. Sub-Bass is crazy good, with close to perfect contrast between sub- and mid-bass. Neither is there any bleed into other frequencies, with a smooth transition between the frequencies.

> Yellow filters: The yellow filter is for some the most balanced option, though to me this is not quite the case. The signature retains it slight U-shape, although the decrease in Bass impact is quite noticeable. Reverb does take a slight backseat compared to the orange configuration, making it a bit more natural.

> Purple filters: The most neutral filters and my go to filters for most applications. Although the difference compared to the Gray Filters is pretty much non-existant, it has a slightly lower upper-end energy compared to the Gunmetal variant, which in certain tracks makes the purple filter sound a tad more natural.

> Gunmetal/Gray filters: The gray variant is what I'd consider the most treble heavy out of all configurations. The U-Shaped signature has now been transformed to something in the line of the traditional balanced signature with some more upper-mid energy. The low distortion of the dual-push driver work wonders here. Even though the contrast from bass to treble is increased in this config, it never sounds harsh or shouty.
The biggest strengh of the Sabres is its immaculate smoothness. Still treble-extention is only average.



Comparisions:

> Audio-Technica CKR9: Compared to the Sabre, the CKR9 has more forward mids. Soundstage is less wide and deep. Imaging is fairly similar. Bass quantity is comparible to the Gunmetal-filters, although the CKR9 has more sub-bass than mid-bass. Treble-extention is better on the CKR9, without going into sibilant territory much like the Sabre. The Sabre are tuned more fun and lively, while the CKR9 has a neutral signature. Detail-retrival is pretty similar with the Sabre having a slight edge, though it is easier to focus on these things with the more mid-centered signature of the CKR9.

> Audio-Technica CKR9LTD: Similar to the CKR9, but with more lower-body focus and a more even mid-range. It sounds more focused and instruments are more upfront. Soundstage is similar to the regular CKR9, but sounds slightly more intimate. Bass quantity is inbetween the Gold and Gunmetal filter. Rest is identical to the regular CKR9.

> LZ-A2S: The A2S is much much warmer, with a L-Shaped to downsloping signature. The Sabres sound much thinner in its mid-range. Bass quantity is in between the Orange and Gold filter, though more swaying to the gold ones. Treble extention is slightly superior on the Sabres. Sub-Bass is more emphasized on the Sabres, it's more punchy and quicker in decay and overall speed. The A2S falls slightly behind the Sabre in clarity. The Sabre is much better in detail-retrival. Soundstage width is similar, though the Sabre has better depth and height. There is more space inbetween instruments on the Sabre, aswell.

Final Words:

So, is the Sabre the holy trinity of price, performance and whatever the third might be? Almost. It has its slight quirks and you can definitely see some unrealised ideas here and there. But if you're looking for an all-in one package with fun, but detailed sound, look no further. The Sabre is your man. With an amazing price to performance ratio to boot.

Note: The LZ-A2S were given to me as a review-unit directly from LZ as part of a tour. A big shoutout to duyu for all the arrangments. I'm not affiliated with LZ in any way.

Preamble:

First of all, welcome to another review here on Head-Fi.org.
My name is Noel aka. FUYU, I'm 19 years old and a avid lover for everything technical.
While everything subjective, I like to explain in more rational enclosure with graphs and technical prowess.
I care about facts and facts only, meaning no fancy 300$ cables and value by price-to perfomance.

The IEM to start it all. The original LZ-A2 was a milestone for many of the chinese IEMs which came after it.
There was simply so much hype around it. A sub 100$ triple-hybrid that actually sounded good?
Unlike some earlier attempts like the TTPod T2 (now TFZ), it actually delivered. A superb little gem, which was sadly discontinued shortly after it's initial release. But since then, LZ and some other brands like MusicMaker gained a large following. For today, I want to look at another predecessor, the LZ-A2S. While just a dual hybrid, it comes at less than half the price of the current flagship. Still, this iteration of LZs sound takes it's value preposition to a whole new level.

Enter LZ-A2S

Official LZ Thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/800601/lz-a3-impressions-and-discussion-thread-and-also-for-lz-a2s-and-lz-a4





Specifcations:

> Drivers: 1 Dynamic Driver + 1 Balanced Armature
> Impedance: 16Ω
> Headphone sensitivity: 115dB/mW
> Frequency range: 10-30000Hz
> Cable: 3.5mm Standard
> Cable Length: 1.2m±5cm
> Weight: 20g
> Color: Gold
> Microphone: Yes, but optional
> Headphone plug type: 135°
> Accessories: Small pouch, various silicone eartips in S/M/L including a pair of foam tips and double flanges

Build and Accessories:

To start things off, build and accessories: Opening the packaging reveals the headphones and a little pouch, nothing else. There is just alot of useless space, which could have been used better. Oh well, I don't mind, but it is wierd to have so much empty space not being used to it's potential. I rather have a smaller, more compact packaging. Anyway, after opening the pouch and trying out the quite well balanced choice of eartips, including foam and double flanges, I settled for the biggest yellow core tips. Moving on to the earphones themselves: The A2S are decently looking and remind me of an turbine of some sort. The shape is quite ergonomic and feel very smooth on the skin, without any ruff or rigged corners. Unlike the current flagship, the LZ-A3, LZs newest edition doesn't have detachable cables. For some this might be a dealbreaker, but personally this is a much welcomed addition. The A3 had probably one of the most unusual shapes I've ever seen on a earphone, mostly because of the rather forced inclusion of the MMCX connector. It was fairly comfortable, but difficult to get a good seal with it as it was not made for deep insertion. With the A2S, this is a thing of the past. LZ has done a splendid work with the cable. It's super soft, doesn't tangle, has no microphonics whatsoever and has a solid Y-Split. While, I don't like the slightly (130°) angled 3.5mm termination, it has sufficient quality and feels sturdy enough for many months to come.






Isolation and Fit:

Isolation is slightly above average. The A2S is much more suited for outdoor-use, compared to the A3, which was rather weak in that department. Fitment is great. No issues in long time comfort. You can defintely wear the A2S in both over and down the ear. Full marks here.

Pairing:

If you have read some of my reviews, you might notice a trend: Get a good source and that's it. Like almost all IEMs, you won't need an amplifier, unless you're crazy. But then again, alot of us are a bit lunatic, so keep that in mind. Non of my sources (Xduoo X3, Samsung Galaxy S3) had any issues whatsoever. You might get into some issues if your output impedance is to high. Other than that, just pop’em in and enjoy the musical fireworks.

Overall Sound:

In case you're familiar with the A3, you are going to see many similarities. Some might consider the A2 a clone of the A3, sound-wise. And for good reason: It's smooth, relaxing, fairly spacious and equiped with excellent clarity. But, personally I find the A2S slightly superior to the A3. It has slightly better midrange coherency and treble performance compared to the A3.

Bass:

I'd consider the A2S to sound slightly L-Shaped. Although the Bass is definitly elevated, it is never overwelming. It gives the sound a warm and meaty base-tone. It is very clear, but not punchy or has large impact. It has an analog, tube-amp kinda sound. Very interesting decay. Natural and never obstrusive. Sub-Bass is also present, but it takes a bit of an back-seat in the presentation. Extention is good, but not excellent.

Mids:

While the A2S has a L-shaped signature, the midrange never loses it's presence. It is wonderfully present, without to many peaks or dips in it's presentation. It sounds super-smooth. Spacious and with good depth. Clarity is good and solid in its price-class.

Treble:

The treble is rolled-off, but not overly so. It's more in-line with the rest of the signature. It's relaxing, non-fatiguing and never shouty or aggressive. If you're treble-sensitive, you'll love these.

Soundstage:

Good width and depth, decent height. Seperation is not the best, but still around average in it's price-class. However it can sound very muddy with some badly mastered tracks.

Comparisions:

> LZ-A3: The bigger brother sounds more similar than different to it's smaller counterpart. The A3 has slightly better impact in the bass and has a tad better sub-bass extention. But the A2S trumps the A3 in it's more coherent sound and better mids and slightly more extended treble. Clarity is on par. But the A3 sounds more open and more balanced.

> MusicMaker TK11: Another Dual-Hybrid. The TK11 is V-Shaped, with much more aggressive treble and bigger bass-impact. In comparision it sounds hollow and fatiguing. Seperation and Soundstage is better on the LZ, where as the TK11 lacks much of the coherency of the A2S

Final Words:

LZ is back! And with the A4 just on the horizon, things are about to get better. For me the LZ-A2S is an absolute winner. It has replaced my LZ-A3 as my daily companion with it's comfort and more practical shape. And honestly I even prefer the A2S in the sound-department. Overall, I'd say that the LZ-A2S is a superbly balanced and addicting listen, with fantastic value.

Disclaimer: The Meze 99 Classics were send to me as part of their European Tour. Impression are based on around a week of intensive usage.

Preamble:

First of all, welcome to another review here on Head-Fi.org.
My name is Noel aka. FUYU, I'm 19 years old and a avid lover for everything technical.
While everything is subjective, I like to explain in more rational enclosure with graphs and technical prowess.
I care about facts and only facts, meaning no fancy 300$ cables and value by price-to perfomance.

Headphones, my old love. When I first started my Head-Fi journey, I was a avid fan and modder of the legendary T50rp, which at the time was my first "audiophile" purchase I've ever done.
And still at this day and time, my ZMF modded T50rp remains the only headphone in a rather small collection of audiophile products. Later on, my interests shifted to the world of IEM's.
Headphones never seemed to suit me: Either they were not comfortable enough as I have a rather large head or just not my cup of tea sound-wise.
However years later, a fine looking mix of brown and gold (actually the brown and silver version) sparked my interest once again.

Enter Meze 99 Classics

The Offical Meze 99 Thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/794593/meze-99-classics-discussion-impressions-thread


Specifications:

> Transducer Type: Neodymium Dynamic
> Transducer Size: 40mm
> Frequency Response: 15Hz - 25KHz
> Sensitivity: 103dB at 1KHz, 1mW
> Impedance: 32Ohm
> Rated Input Power: 30mW
> Maximum Input Power: 50mW
> Detachable Kevlar OFC cable
> Plug: 3.5mm gold plated; straight plug
> Variants: Walnut Gold, Walnut Silver, Marple Silver
> Weight: 290g
> MSRP: $309




Build and fit:

Overall build is excellent. Construction has been done marvelously. The Meze 99 is build solely with high-quality materials. No plastic involved.
Joints and construction are of high-caliber and as these are tour-units, possible longgevity-issues are highly unlikely to occur.
The Meze 99 utilises an auto-adjusting headband, which works flawlessly. There is no wooble even on my head as these headphone remain flush on my head, at any time.
While I'm a fan of industrial designs, the wooden cups and the metal construction are very well done. Only the ringing of the metal is slightly annoying, which happend quite often when touching the top of
doorframes for example. (I'm 1.92m/6'4'')
My biggest complaint with the Meze Headphones are the rather shallow cups, which cause discomfort after only a short period of time. It's unfortunate that you cannot change earcups on these,
possibly improving comfort and isolation in the process.


Not suited for those with jumbo-ears.


Accesories:

Acessories are plenty. You get a nice hard-case for transportation, a 3.5mm (1/8'') to 5.3mm (1/4'') adaptor, a airline-adapter, one 3m cable and a 1.2m cable with integrated microphone for mobile usage.
The cables are braided and as such have moderate microphonics.

Pairing:

The Meze 99 are generally easy to drive. As always, improving your audiochain will also improve your listening-experience. However these are absolutly fine out of any smartphone or DAP and require no
extra amping. I recommend a neutral source, as these headphones are more coloured.

Overall sound:




Overall sound is a fun and musical signature with emphasis on bass and an overall warm tonality:

> Bass:
The Bass is by far the most apparent of all the frequencies. It features a prominent bass-line consisting mostly of mid-bass around the 100-500hz area. Sub-Bass is also a slightly elevated, however lacking in comparision to the in my opinion slightly too loose mid-bass. In terms of quality the Classics are no slouch. Decay is almost always at it right place and feels really well implemented in the rest of the sound
spectrum.

> Mids:
At first listening I was quite suprised. I expected the mids to be in typical V-shaped fashion we're used on seeing. This is not the case. The mids are quite well done, with a emphasis in the lower mids and some in the upper mid area giving the Classics a dynamic and engaging sound-signature. Detail is very good, however slightly grainy and somewhat slibilant in the upper mids. (Although I'm quite sensitive in that area)

>Treble:
One of the best aspects of the romanian headphone. While it doesn't extend infintely, it does have decent extention. The treble is slightly smoothed off to not offend anyone. A good trade-off as lots of detail is still eminent.

>Soundstage:
If there is a aspect of the 99 Classics I'd like to congratulate the folks over at Meze for, it would be soundstage and seperation. Really well done. It came as a big suprise to me, as these are closed headphones.
It has great size in all three dimentions and at the same time remains crisp and with good "blackness" between instruments.

>Overall thoughts:
These are probably not the right bet for those seeking neutrality on the GO. However they spark a signature and smoothness almost anyone can enjoy. Thumbs up!

Final Words:

I'm quite suprised. Before receiving the Meze 99 Classics I was sceptical. Can a butic looking headphone move me away from IEMs? No, not quite. Still I enjoyed the Meze alot.
But that doesn't mean it's bad in any way. In reality, the opposite is the case. If Meze can fix some of the small issues, primarily the one's in the confort department I would definitly see myself
buying a pair or two. If you're looking for a fun and warm sounding headphone with lots of detail, look no further. The Meze 99 Classics combines style and sound unlike few headphones in it's class.

Note: The LZ A3 were purchased on Amazon for 149$ at the time:
http://www.amazon.com/LZ-A3-Definition-Headphones-Earphones/dp/B01CERWT4Q
 
 
 
Preamble:

 
First of all, welcome to another review here on Head-Fi.org.
My name is Noel aka. FUYU, I'm 19 years old and a avid lover for everything technical.
While everything subjective, I like to explain in more rational enclosure with graphs and technical prowess.
I care about facts and only facts, meaning no fancy 300$ cables and value by price-to perfomance.
 
Today we are looking at the LZ A3. The successor of the rather niche, but popular A2 Triple-Hybrid.
A <100$ IEM, which captured the hearts of many with it's bass-forward signature and great performance, especially for the price.
After the initial annoucement of a refresh, almost anyone (including myself) were stoked.
However, first impressions have been all-over the place. From masterpiece to total failure: Head-fi seems to be confused.
But trust me, the A3 are definitly worth your time. Although they are not quite straight forward as most other IEM's.
 
Enter LZ A3
The Official LZ-A3 Thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/800601/lz-a3-diy-triple-hybrid-impressions-and-discussion-thread
 

 

 
 
Specifications:
 
 
Type:                                  Dynamic + 2x Balanced Armature
 
Frequency Response:          15-24000Hz                
 
Sensitivity:                          120 dB/mW  
 
Impedance:                         16 Ohms 
 
THD:                                  <0.5% @1kHz
          
Weight:                              25 g
 
Cable:                                1.2 m, 135° angled jack, MMCX
 
Connector:                         3.5 mm gold-plated stereo mini plug
 
Accessories:                      12x silicone eartips (S/M/L), 1x Double Flanges, 6x Foam eartips and a protective carrying case (YMMV)
 
Wearing style:                    Down the ear; Over the ear
 
 

 

 
 
 
Build and Accessories:
 
I believe the best way to describe the LZ A3 is unique. That is true in the most literal way. The shells are composed out of an aluminium composite. (aka. the metal alloy you hear all so often in chinese advertising) What really stands out is the shape of the shell. A slightly rounded pyramidical form of some sort. (Or what ever this is supposed to be)
Trust me, at first glance you might believe this is absolutly not going to fit your ears, but luckily the opposite is the case. For almost anyone, I guarantee!
At further inspection, there are also some faint incravings, featuring a logo and the L/R markings.
Accessories are fairly average. While the presentation box is a nice touch, having such a large and clunky box seems more like an hinderance.
Inside however, things change quite a bit. Unboxing the box reveals a ton of extras. We got an assembly of tips ranging from foam to all sorts of silicon. Also included is a little pouch
and some ear-guides, which I don't really use personally, but they're nice to have regardless.
I do miss some more Double Flanges/Triple Flanges, however. I wish LZ would include a full-set of Double Flange tips, instead of just one medium pair. These tips do not only provide best fit and isolation, but also by far the best sound. Period.
 
Isolation + Fit:
 
Isolation is around average. As always YMMV.
As goes for the fit, they're somewhat tricky. Using them down the ear negates basicly almost all of the trouble, albeit the isolation lacks somewhat.
But over the ear, things get a bit complicated. Starting of with the cable, which quite frankly sucks balls. While the Y-Split and the connector is alright, everything above the Y-Split is quite horrible.
The cable due to it's minimal thickness doesn't stick around my ears to actually help with weight distribution. The MMCX jacks are mediocre at best. Fit is crucial with the A3s and the stock cable doesn't necissarly provide that. My advice: Get a new cable. You will thank me. 
But it doesn't stop here. Aforementioned tips play a crucial role in fit and sound. As such get some 3rd party Double Flanges in your size and you're good to go.
 
Pairing:
 
Low impedence, high sensitivity. Source pairing is tricky. General rule is a source with low output impedence and make sure it has a good DAC. Amping in most cases is overkill.
Using it from your Phone/DAP should suffice in most instances, but beware of hissing.
 
Overall sound:
 
Here comes the part were everyone seems to part ways. And for good reason. Changing tips and source can alter the signature in ways, unlike I've seen in any IEM.
General consensus is a L-Shape frequency response. And I agree fully to that statement.
What impressed me the most was the overall clarity and detail without going overboard with the treble.
 
Bass:
 
Bombastic. Crunchy, punchy and that sub-bass! My god this thing has some of the best bass I've ever heard in a IEM in both quantity and quality.
It doesn't protrude into any of the other frequencies and conveys a sense of space and inpact, unlike few others.
The A3 won't win any rewards for neutrality, but that is a trade-off I am willing to take. As a neutralo-head, this is my guilty pleasure.
 
Mids:
 
The mids are nicely laid out. Thanks to the right amount of balance and some amazing clarity, they never feel congested.
However due to the elevated bass lower mids are slightly more impactful. So If you exclusively listen to female vocals, you might be left a bit disappointed.
 
Treble:
 
Extension is quite good. Although the treble is rolled off to prevent sibilance. An easy route, but acceptable as I am sensitive to harsh higher frequencies.
Still, some more sparkle wouldn't have done any harm in my case.
 
Soundstage:
 
Impressive. Definitly above average. Instrument seperation is quite capable as well. Soundstage extends fairly even in all directions, with lateral stage being the widest.
 
Comparision: LZ A3 vs. MusicMaker TK11 (100$)
 
Bass: Fairly similar in quantity, but quality? Sorry TK11 you've got no chance.
Mids: The A3 sounds more resolving in detail and clarity. The TK11 has much more recessed mids.
Treble: This is were the A3 falls a bit flat. The TK11 is slightly more refreshing™, however at the cost of being a little sibilant. Detail retrieval is around the same, maybe slightly better on the A3s.
Soundstage: Both are really good. The A3's stage is a bit larger in both width and depth. Instrument seperation is dead even.
 
Conclusion:
 
The LZ A3 is a great earphone. Such great value and sound comes at the cost of some quirks, however. If you want to get the most out of the A3 get some extra tips and a new cable while you're at it. 
If you're looking for a capable warm sounding earphone, look no further. The LZ A3 will definitely meet your needs.

Note: The MusicMaker TK11 were purchased on Aliexpress for 71$ at the time.
http://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/2015-Newest-HCK-A1-Dynamically-And-BA-Double-Unit-Headphone-HIFI-Fever-In-Ear-Earphone-DIY/1825606_32576911059.html#!
 
 
Preamble:

 
First of all, welcome to another review here on Head-Fi.org.
My name is Noel aka. FUYU, I'm 18 years old and a avid lover for everything technical.
While everything subjective, I like to explain in more rational enclosure with graphs and technical prowess.
I care about facts and only facts, meaning no fancy 300$ cables and value by price-to perfomance.
 
Today's review is about one of many chinese IEMs, which have recently flourished over at Aliexpress and Taobao.
They feature very capable specifications at a highly competitive price, however unknown to most.
Since the advent of the Balanced Armature, many manufacturer have entered the competition. And thanks to
relative easy tuning and open access to established designs and modifications, it comes to no suprise that we are seeing
such competition from outside the more known brands.
 
Enter MusicMaker
Official MusicMaker/HCK thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/796505/hck-a2-appreciation-impressions-thread-dual-ba-and-dd-hybrid/
 
Specifications:
 
 
Type:                                   Dynamic + Balanced Armature
 
Driver Diameter:               10mm Dynamic
 
Frequency Response:    15-30000Hz                
 
Sensitivity:                         120 dB/mW  
 
Impedance:                      32 Ohms 
          
Weight:                              8 g
 
Cable:                               1.2 m, straight jack
 
Connector:                       3.5 mm gold-plated stereo mini plug
 
Accessories:                    16x silicone eartips (S/M/L), 8x Foam eartips (S/M/L) and protective carrying case (YMMV)
 
Wearing style:                  Down the ear; 
 
 

 

Build and Accessories:
 
Starting off, after unpacking the little carring pouch (and picking up all the little plastic packs from the ground), one can see a somewhat simple looking earphone.
Two colours are available (Red or Black) and as such don't expect any crazy looking design. It's minimalistic and it works.
The TK11 build is remarkablely sturdy, thanks to it's lightweight aluminium construction and OFC plated cable.
Speaking of the cable: It's almost perfect. While it's not detachable, it doesn't tangle, has a proper build Y-Split and boasts
a solid looking 1/8"-Jack (3.5mm). Some may complain about the cheap plastic chin slider, I don't.
Accessories are no slouch either. Provided are a gazillion pair of tips (and don't forget to order extra tips, just in case; 5 Bucks gets you covered with enough for anything)
featuring Foam tips (S/M/L) in 4 colours and Silicon in both wide and narrow configuration in pink, black and translucent (S/M/L). An extra pair of earguides are also included.
 
 
Isolation + Fit:
 
Isolation is actually not bad. As a matter of fact, it's above average. The shells are minimalistic and pop right into your ear, albeit a bit fiddely. Again YMMV.
Due to the low obtrusiveness, one can insert the TK11 fairly deep, which results in a isolation of around -10 to -18dB in most frequency areas.
Sports or any activities are a non-issue and due to it's low profile design, windnoise is minimal. Sharp edges or joints are non-existent, hence comfort
is not hindered and wearing fatigue is almost non-relevant. (Overall weight is 8g per piece)
 
 
Pairing:
 
High sensitivity, medium impedence. It's easy to drive. No Chord Hugo required. As always, improving your audio-chain will also always improve your listening experience.
My Samsung Galaxy S3 has no issue in terms of volume, neither has my Schiit Modi2/Magni2 Stack. I'd recommend using a neutral/dry/analytical source, though beware of sibilance.
 
 
Sound:
 
The classic V-Shape. Comsumer, widespread tuning. Enjoyed by most. Hated by many. And in this case, very well executed.
While the V-Shape is definitly there, it is more laid out. Bass is boosted by ~8-9dB mostly in sub-bass and the treble has one 8dB spike at ruffly 4kHz and one more at around 8kHz
Overall SQ and performance is really tip-dependent. My favorite combo are either foam eartips or the KZ "Whirlwind" eartips (http://www.aliexpress.com/item/KZ-3-Pairs-L-M-S-In-Ear-Tips-Earbuds-Headphones-Eartips/32333783387.html#!)
Speaking of overall SQ, one can describe the TK11 as highly resolving, but fun sounding earphone, easily outclassing many IEMs within the 5-250$ range.
 
 
Bass:
 
If you come from a more neutral IEM, prepare to get blown away. The DD does use it's air-moving capabilities very well.
However it's not all about quantity, but rather quality. It is tight, extends all the way to 15hz and never feels unsatisfactory.
Although it excells in both quality and quantity, it's not quite basshead-level, which gives the TK11 are more balanced feeling.
 
 
Mids:
 
Mids are slightly ressesed, but not in a bad way. The overall quality and resolution is quite remarkable.
 
 
Treble:
 
After looking at the design-page over at the MusicMaker page, i was worried. First of all, I have slight issue with sibilance. Secondly the IEM uses a "naked" BA, with no
acustic tubing and external filters. Thirdly I had no idea what BA was being utilised. (In this case, Knowles)
As such, I expected sibilance. And to spoil all the fun, there was sibilance. Luckily, it wasn't as bad. Actually it was minimal and only noticeable in some tracks.
Beyond that, treble perfomance is outstanding. Details are present au massé. But even though treble is highly detailed,  it remains natural and doesn't sound "metalic" or unrealistic in that regard.
 
 
Soundstage:
 
Soundstage width and depth are above average. Overall staging is more oval and extends more into the lateral space. Instrument seperation is quite capable. And thanks to the elevated treble,
instruments have good seperation and placing in the music.
 
 
Comparision: MusicMaker TK11 vs. Fidue A83 (Triple Hybrid)
 
These two IEMs sound like twin brothers. Without A/Bing them, I'd almost believe that they are identical:
 
Bass: Almost identical. The Fidue has slightly more autority, due to more mid-bass. Beyond that? Pretty much the same.
Mids: The Fidue sounds slightly more resolving. The TK11 has similar detail-retrieval. Close call, I'd say Fidue.
Treble: This is were the TK11 falls a bit flat. The Fidue is slightly more pleasent. (Even though the Fidue has some harshness issue of it's own)
Soundstage: Both are really good. The Fidue's stage is a bit larger in both width and depth.
 
Comparision: MusicMaker TK11 vs. LZ A1 (Discontinued; Dual Hybrid)
 
Another V-Shaped IEM from China. But at only half the price.
 
Bass: The MK11 is overall more refined, less mid-bass, tighter execution. Slightly more detail.
Mids: Pretty similar, once again. The dip on the LZ A2 is around 1-2kHz, however. No clear winner
Treble: I believe they use the same BA in both models. Yet the TK11 is less spiky and sibilant
Soundstage: Bigger on the TK11 in both width and depth. The LZ is more "in your head"
 
 
Conclusion:
 
71$...yes. A great price. Minimalist design. Great sound. Solid build. However not without it's quirks.
A solid contentor, even compared to the other chinese Hybrids, like the LZ-A2, the OnePlus Icon and similar IEMs.
It may be just a Dual Hybrid, but it's certainly the best I've ever heard.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Note: The Audio-Technica CKR9-LTD were purchased on eBay for 119$.
         The overall value is based on current streetprices (250-300$)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
About myself:
 
First of all, welcome to my first review on Head-Fi and first proper review ever.
My name is Noel aka. FUYU, I'm 18 years old and a avid lover for everything technical.
While everything subjective, I like to explain in more rational enclosure with graphs and technical prowess. (No graphs available this time, however)
I care about facts and only facts, meaning no fancy 300$ cables and value by price-to perfomance. 
Ironicly, today's review surrounds a more butique Earphone, a collectors item. Reminissent of Fireworks, this japanese gem engulfs itself in a shining coat of red and golden colour.
But is it just a nice shell, or can it deliver a sparking performance, worthy of a real japanese hanabi?
 
Let's find out...
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Specifications:
 
Type:                                Dynamic
 
Driver Diameter:                13 mm x2 (Push-Pull configuration)
 
Frequency Response:        5-40000Hz       
            
Maximum Input Power:      200 mW
 
Sensitivity:                       110 dB/mW  
 
Impedance:                      12 Ohms 
          
Weight:                            12 g  
 
Cable:                              1.2 m, Y-type
 
Connector:                       3.5 mm gold-plated stereo mini plug, L-shaped
 
Accessories:                    silicone eartips (XS/S/M/L) and protective carrying case
 
Wearing style:                  Usually down the ear; Over-ear by inverting L/R
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 

The Box is rather uninspiring, but pratical in it's own right,

Backside with the spec sheet and some explanation of the Dual-Push-Pull system.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Build and Accessories:
 
Taking off the Earphone for the first time, invokes a sense of good craftsmanship. The earpieces look quite remarkable, a bright and vivid red colour featuring a gold Audio-Technica logo look fantastic.
While some prefer the more industrial look of the regular CKR9 and CKR10, no one can deny the beauty of such state of the art products.
The build is almost as equally sophisticated. There are no visible inperfections and the aluminum housing is joint properly.
Even though the earphones have no detachable cables, overall build spawn no future worries about possible degration. (Thanks to a big cable-relief)
The Cable itself terminates into a 3.5mm (1/8 Inch) L-Jack. Solid at first glance, however prone to tangle and with no chin slider can get messy.
 
Accessories are the weakest part. Provided tips come in 4 sizes (XS, S, M, L), though no other variety (like widebore/double-flange, etc) are included.
As a matter of fact, the included tips themselves are of cheapest grade and utterly unsatasfactory.
In addition a little carrying case is found but equally lackluster in quality.
With all-due respect to Audio-Technica, provided Accessories are sub-par at best. (considering the MSRP)
 

Looking good, huh?

I heard you like L-Plugs? Me too.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Isolation + Fit:
 
Isolation is quite ok, obviously nothing compared to offerings in the likes of SHURE or even CIEMs. For everyday commuting some may have to adjust their volume level.
Luckily aforementioned tips are average in isolation. But using good tips will most likely inprove in that area. As always YMMV.
Fit is quite interesting. Compared to the regular CKR9/10 the nozzle has been slightly angled, which in my case results in a good fit. In addition, the pieces only weight 12g each
and with a comfortable shallow insertion wearing-fatigue is almost non-existant. However doing sports is not recommended, unless you invert L/R and wear them over-ear. Again YMMV.
 

Pop'em in and enjoy the magical musical fireworks.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Pairing:
 
As the spec-sheet indicates the ATH CKR9-LTD are quite easy to drive, wheter you use a dedicated amp or your average smartphone of choice.
However there is a quite audible hiss with my Samsung Galaxy S3 (WM1811), due to it's high sensitivity. A clean source is highly advised.
After pairing it to my Schiit Stack (Modi 2 Uber, Magni 2 Uber) the hiss was gone, though no noticeable improvement in SQ was noted.
 
Sound:
 
Well, here we are. The moment of truth. After reading a lot of hype and being someone who prefers a lean/balanced sound, I was....irretated...and relieved.
 
Bass:
 
While the (spoiler) overall sound is very balanced, bass is the suprise of the show. Extention is very good with only a minor lift (like 2dB max.) in sub-bass.
Quality is absolutly phenomenal, with the most detail I've heard in the 5-400$ price bracket.
There is absolutly no bleed into the lower mids and thus remains very clean.
Bassheads may be left wanting, but I find the bass to be close to perfect in quantity, being very realistic and impactful when the track calls for it.
 
Mids:
 
Mids are in typical Audio-Technica fashion. Ahm, not really. But they are great nontheless!
With no prominent lift in either Male-Vocals nor Female-Vocals mids are non-fatiguing and throughout balanced.
Micro-details are plenty. Excellent.
 
Treble:
 
The Treble was quite interesting in a more positive way. As for someone with sensitive hearing, I expected a seemingly bright and overly accentuated lift in the upper-treble.
(Comparable to something like the older CK TOTL, that **** hurt my ears...)
First impressions, phew, no silblence here!
Suprise, Suprise the treble is well extended and quite well at that (to no suprise with the 40kHz bragging rights), but somehow it felt a bit more polite or rather slightly smoothed over. (Imagine IM-02)
Details are good, but not the greatest I've heard. Overall relaxed and enjoyable. Great.
 
Soundstage:
 
Soundstage width is above average, it lacks the vastness of let's say, Fidue A83. However it compensates with a good sense of depth creating a more "circular" shaped stage.
Instrument seperation is also very capable, top-notch in this price-bracket
 
Comparision: CKR9LTD vs. Fidue A83
 
Bass: The CKR9 wins over the Fidue in quality, while the Fidue trumps it in the quantity thanks to it's slight V-shape.
Mids: This one is quite unfair at first glance, but even though the Fidue has slightly recessed mids, both are similar quality wise.
Treble: Winner A83, but not by much. The CKR9 are less energetic, though slightly metallic sounding. Although the Fidue's are too hard on my ears.
Stage: Width is better on the A83. Depth is better on the CKR9's. Instrument seperation is slightly better on the CKR9's.
 
It is to be noted that the comparision to the Fidue's is just off the top of my head. (I sold them ~1 month ago)
So, is the Fidue superior? Not to my ears, it is a matter of preference and sound signature. Want a fun, slightly V-Shaped signature? Go Fidue. Want a balanced, lean signature? Go CKR9.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Conclusion:
 
At the end of the day, have we a earphone capable of running rampage with it's vivid colours and crazy atmosphere? Not really. What we got here is a earphone drawing you near it's great
balance and detail, letting you observe a vast number of things within the music.
Interesting technology and a unique design may not be without it's flaws, but attracting nontheless.
It is no firework in the traditional sense, but rather like the emotion to look for it endlessly. A well-rounded piece of technology, in both asthetic and performance.