Hello everyone, and welcome back to The Neighborhood! I really appreciate you joining me today to take a look at a very special item that was sent to the channel for review and evaluation. The Konus Audio Digitale 2000, which was provided to the channel by Gestalt Audio Design. Let’s get inToit!​

So, the Digitale 2000 has a pretty simple design. It’s essentially a small metal box, with a small red power indicator on the top, three small feet on the bottom, a selector switch on the front, two possible inputs on the back, and one set of single-ended RCA outputs on the back as well. It uses the same metal chassis that all the Konus products seem to use and measures 7.5 x 7.5 x 3 inches tall. By the way I was sent the Konus integrated speaker amplifier and phono as well, which I am also in the process of testing and will review in the future. But we’ll focus only on the Digitale 2000 for now.



Anyhow, this DAC only accepts USB and coaxial S/PDIF, so it’s not going to work for those that want a bit more flexibility. It also only outputs 16-bit PCM. I was told that it would only do Redbook, or 16/44.1, but Roon was able to down convert to 352.8 kHz on some tracks (at least over USB), so it seems that it is capable of higher sample rates, just within the 16-bit spectrum. So, this is a simple DAC for people that don’t mind this type of approach. It also was a design choice by the manufacturer to optimize for the best sound for one particular codec. I’m a bit internally conflicted by this really, as I tend to prefer to be able to have all the codec options rather than being limited to only a few; or in this particular instance, one bitrate. But, in the case of the Konus Audio Digitale, I find myself willing to give it a pass for this, as it is impeccably implemented, and sounds insane!



Seriously, this may be my new favorite DAC! In terms of its sound, it’s got musicality and flow for days. Listening to it, my brain just turns off and accepts whatever it feeds me, and I want more, more, and more. Its detailed, and delicate where it counts, but appropriately dynamic when called upon to be so. It is not a DAC that wows one with overaccentuated artificial precision, but instead it has an accurate amount of detail. If anything, it sacrifices a small amount of ultimate resolution for realism. Instruments feel like they’re in the room with you, as if you could close your eyes and see the live performance straight in front of you. If it’s not the most natural sounding DAC that I’ve heard, it’s definitely one of them! Moreover, I found the Digtale 2000 to be agreeable with practically every device I paired it with, and it excelled with virtually every genre of music.



The stage has a really good depth and dimension to it, and the overall presentation is rather holographic. Like other Konus Audio products, it’s a solid stat device, but almost sounds like sophisticated high-end tube product. From this standpoint, one might consider that acquiring a Konus product is like obtaining an analog tube sound without any of the fuss.







Like I’ve already mentioned briefly, in addition to the Digitale 2000, I also have the Vinyle 1000MC Mark III phono stage and Integrale 2000 integrated amp in for review as well. And I won’t spoil those reviews other than to say that Konus Audio has a rather detailed, but analog feel to its house sound, and each device punches well above its weight, size, and price. Its MSRP in the US is about $4300 dollars, and even at that high of a price tag it’s still a relative value in terms of its sound and performance. There’s also a DIgitale 1000 that’s $1000 dollars cheaper that I hope to review and compare one day as well.



But the 2000, is Konus Audio’s flagship level DAC, and you can tell from the way it sounds. But nothing is perfect, so I do have a few critiques. One is that on some tracks the treble can come across as a bit soft, but then I play a different track and think “I wouldn’t want any more top-end than this…” So, this is somewhat of a non-criticism as well, as I wouldn’t want a high-end DAC to ever go overboard in harshness or sibilance.



My other major critique, is that the Konus isn’t the most resolving out there for its amount of money. My Gold Note DS-10 Plus, with its external PSU-10 power supply, does best it from the standpoint of ultimate resolve, and has a bit more of a leading edge to it compared to the Konus as well, but the Konus is also more than resolving enough for its price, and has enough resolution still to wow its listener while still accomplishing its other tasks. With that said, the Konus’ resolution probably beats the Gold Note’s without its separate power supply, which also tacks a hefty price onto the cost of the DS-10; bringing it close to the cost of the Konus.



A final minor criticism is that it has two sounds, a sound from its USB circuit and a sound from its coaxial input; which does sound slightly different. This is because there are basically two DACs housed in one Digitale; consisting of two physically and electrically separate pathways- intentionality constructed in this manner to optimize the sound for each input. Overall, the SPDIF/Coaxial Input is a touch leaner, airier, less direct, sweeter and more mellow compared to the USB input. While this does provide some sonic flexibility, in the event you’re only using one of the inputs in a given system, the other DAC is basically going unused. This seems like a bit of a waste to me, and I’d rather buy a Digitale with only the USB if it could save me some. Perhaps that could be an option for Konus to consider for the consumer’s wallet in the future? Although, with that said, including the coaxial input does kind of future proof the purchase in the event USB ever becomes obsolete for some reason. So, there’s that.



In the end, the Konus Audio Digitale 2000 is a fabulous DAC. It’s simple in its design, but sophisticated and nuanced in its sound. Given that it’s basically two DACs in one, you can tell that the sound designer really cares about signal purity and the integrity of his circuits. While I struggle to accept that it operates at only one bitrate, I also understand that it performs one task and does it exceptionally well. I really like that the DAC’s designer has chosen to intuitionally limit the number of tasks that it is responsible for and done so for one singular purpose, to produce the best sound possible.







I’m seriously tempted to get a Konus, and save a monthly charge by dropping Tidal HIFI Plus for Tidal HiFi which only streams in 16/44.1. At a savings of only $9 dollars a month, it would take a while to justify the cost of it the Konus, but its also relatively future proof, so it seems to be a sensible decision... at least in my mind… Am I right? Should I join the Redbook only crowd? Let me know your thoughts in the comment section below!

Check out the link for the review on YouTube below:
YouTube Review

Hello there, and welcome back to The Neighborhood! We’ve got the Truthear X Crinacle Zero Red in the house for review. I was lucky enough to get this one in a few weeks early so I could get my thoughts out to you as soon as possible. So let’s get inToit!










This In-Ear-Monitor is what Crinacle and others have been referring to as “Project Red” for the last number of months. Essentially this is an update or retune of the original Truthear X Crinacle Zero. The tuning here is somewhat new, but the build is nearly identical other than improved voice coils and reworked crossovers according the Crinacle himself. It’s the same plastic shell, same case, same set of tips, same oxygen-free, silver-plated Truthear cable, and similar set of dynamic drivers on the inside: a 10mm PU and a 7.8mm LCP. But rather than blue, the faceplate of the Zero Red is, you guess it, red, with a sparkly striated pattern rather than the swirl of the original. Also included in the box is an impedance adapter labeled “Bass+,” that, you guessed it, raises the bass. I preferred the IEM without the Bass+ adapter, but even with it, it’s less bassy than the original Zero, and there’s less bass bleed into the mix.










But let’s quickly get into the sound, as, as exciting as the red colored shell of this one is, I’m sure you’re here for the sonics. Like its predecessor, the Zero Red mostly follows the Harmon Target. But compared to the original zero the bass slopes more evenly and appropriately (with less of a midbass bump and more subbass), and the upper mid-range and early treble are less forward. The outcome here is a more even sound signature overall that is detailed, smooth, slightly warm and simply a pleasure to listen to. It may not be the most resolving thing under the sun, but for price of $55 dollars, this is an excellent option to consider.













Even with the Bass+ adapter, its tuned absurdly well, and with this adapter you can kind of dial in your bass preference level. I mean, maybe you’re a closet basshead? There’s no judgement here… With that said, the bass does lack some detail, as most things do under $100 dollars these days. Critically, it’s not richly textured and rather one-note-ish; and often comes across to the ear as the same note at that. Maybe in the next “Project Green” version of this IEM they will make use of a more capable low-end driver than the one that was used in both of the previous iterations. I’d be willing to pay a bit more for that…













The mid-range is represented well-enough, with the early mid-range taking a backseat to the later midrange. Nevertheless, the mid-range is more integrative and cohesive sounding than the blue Zero. It’s never shouty, harsh or sibilant. There’s a mildly lush and velvety characteristic to the mids of the Zero Red; which is warmly flavored, but universally enjoyable across both track and genre.










The treble could be better. The Zero Red follows a recent trend; dipping itself between 8 and 10K to avoid harshness and treble fatigue. It rebounds later for a sense of air, but I would have liked for the treble slope more smoothly and evenly throughout its frequency response. Even so, I’m sure this tuning approach was implemented intentionally, so as not evoke the wrath of the treble sensitive, as this is a in-ear-monitor tuned for the many rather than the few.














Soundstage, layering, detail and separation impress for the price, but instrument distinctiveness does suffer at times due to similar tonality across instrumentation. The soundstage image is somewhat step-backed, but still somewhat large in its scope and scale: like looking down on the stage from a second story overhang in an auditorium. My expectations regarding placement are met, and I find the overall experience and auditory image to be rather organic.










So, I think Crinacle took his time tuning his Project Red this time, and it shows. This is definitely my favorite Crinacle collaboration IEM since the FiiO Eclipse: FHE. It may not be as capable in its detail as that IEM, but its certainly tuned well. Releasing at $55, I think a lot of people will be happy with its purchase. In the price-range, it’s a warmer, more musical offering compared to the competition, such as the Tin HiFi T2 DLC and TRN ST5 that I recently reviewed. My personal favorites around the $50 dollar price-point continue to include: the Jade Audio EA3, HZSound Waist Drum, and the Moondrop Lan; but the Moondrop Jiu, who’s review will be out soon, is also no slouch either- coming in at only $26 dollars. I’ll also continue to recommend IEMs like the HZSound Heart Mirror Pro and the Aria Snow Edition, for just a few bucks more, but the Truthear Crinacle Zero: Red will now also be among the other suggestions.

FiiO R7 Integrated DAC/Amp/Streamer: a capable all-in-one?​

Hi everyone, and welcome back The Neighborhood! Today we’re looking at the FiiO R7 thanks in part to MRS, or Mark, over at Super Reviews. I really thank him for supporting this channel and sending this unit in for review! Let’s get inToit!









So, I was instantly attracted to the FiiO R7 when it first came out. You see, I’m a sucker for DACs which implement ethernet, as I stream with Roon, and this offers me a ton of versatility in my home. I just find that ethernet, generally, also just transmits a less corruptible audio signal, so I’m always in favor of using it where and when I can. Unfortunately, there aren’t many DACs under $1000 that feature it. So, when this FiiO released with a Roon Ready touch screen interface at a price of $699, I was excited. It also sports a THX AAA 788 amplifier with five gain stages, 3.6W of output power, and a variety of balanced and unbalanced outputs for headgear and other devices. It can be used as a fixed line out, a preout, a headphone out, or both a preout and headphone out at the same time; selectable via the lower knob on the front of the unit. But be advised, plugging in a headphone in preout/headphone out mode does not disable the preout functions from the back of the unit. The top knob adjusts the volume from left to right, and enters and output selection screen when held down. It also wakes the device up from slumber with a single press, and returns to the home screen with additional presses.









To use this device with Roon, one has to enter a separate application from the “Input/Mode selection” screen. I would have liked to be able to enter Roon and begin playback automatically from devices such as my computer or phone, as I can do this with my Gold Note DS-10, but on the R7 the Roon Ready application has to be running for the device to be recognized. It was also somewhat clunky to switch to a different output mode from the Roon Ready application, as other output modes had a built-in icon that you could access via the touchscreen, but from the Roon Ready application, the only way to access the selection screen was via a long press and hold of the top knob. Overall, I just found the software to be a tad bit confusing, un-user-friendly, and somewhat clunky in its general execution. For example, there was an observable lag towards the beginning of some tracks at times, especially when the device would switch codecs from one to another. Perhaps the Snapdragon 660 can be optimized with further firmware updates by FiiO, but as things stand at the time of this review, the interface needs some work in my opinion. And I mean, FiiO is doing this. There were at least two firmware updates while I had the device in for testing for this review.







Speaking of codecs, the R7 makes use of the ES9068AS; which is cable up to 32bit, 384kHz PCM, DSD2256, and decodes and renders MQA. There’s even an all to DSD mode for those that prefer send out a cedec that is converted to all DSD all the time.










Regarding power-handling. I found that the due to its five stages of gain, I had no problem running sensitive IEMs and most high impedance cans. But, the internal, dual THX AAA 7788+ amplifiers were not powerful enough to drive my 600 Ohm DT880 Special Edition, even balanced, but were strong enough to drive the 470 Ohm Japanese r70x, as well as, a number of other 300 Ohm headphones; such as the Sennheiser 6xx and 8xx. In testing sensitive IEMs like the Orchestra light and the KZ ZSX, the R7 produced a black background on low gain, but I could still observe some noise floor if the gain was not on the lowest setting.












But diving deeper into the sound, its here where I have the biggest my biggest gripes with the R7. Does it sound bad? No, no it doesn’t… I mean it sounds pretty good, but does it sound $700 dollars good? No, not really… Generally speaking, it lacks emotion at times, and there is some particular, peculiar, mild harshness, grit, and grain to the sound, which is most glaring in the upper mids. Both vocals and guitars were noteworthy offenders.









This was particularly evident and troublesome on more revealing gear. Using the R7 as the DAC, feeding into an integrated Circle Labs A200 amplifier, driving a set of Wolf Von Lagna Sons- this is a very revealing system, and it was fairly obvious that the FiiO R7 was the weak point in the chain.









It may not be a fair comparison, as it is currently at least twice the price of the R7, even when on sale, but my Gold Note DS-10 smashes the sonic performance of the FiiO. And, it’s not even close! Now the Gold Note screen is not a touch screen, and it cannot display album art like the FiiO can, but it functions better with Roon, and sounds much better than the FiiO otherwise.









With the Wolf Von Lagna Son field coil dipole speakers putting on a show, as they tend to do, there was no harshness coming from the DAC of the Gold Note, while midrange and treble harshness were clearly evident coming from the R7. Honestly, I was genuinely let down by the performance of the R7 to a certain extent. I had hoped that it might at least keep up with sonic performance of my old SU-8, which is a much cheaper $200 DAC from SMSL, but although the R7’s performance was closer to that DAC, if I had to pick between the two, I would still likely take the SU-8 based on sonic performance alone.









Using the R7 at the review desk with my Cessaro Mini Wagners; which is another revealing speaker powered by my Sprout 100, I had to put the Darkvoice 336 in the chain as a preamp to add some tube goodness and tamp down the harsh character of the R7’s upper mid-range. And don’t get me wrong, the harshness here with the R7 might pass many people’s listening tests with an acceptable rating, but in the end, it’s a deal breaker for me, and its simply just not good enough to remain in my system for the long-term.









I also tested a number of high-end headphones I own or had into the channel for review, including the Rosson Audio RAD-0, the Meze Empyrean, and the Arya Stealth. The mellow, warm character and easy to drive nature of the RAD-0 made it a patricianly good match for the R7, as it also curbed some negative aspects of the sound profile; which we’ve already discussed. The Arya Stealth, being a bit more transparent was not generally as pleasant on the R7 as it is on other devices. It really displayed the problems that I have with this device and it fatigued me to listen to it for prolonged periods of time. I will note; however, that it sounded significantly better sounding with the R7 employed purely as a DAC; driving the Arya Stealth with the 789. The Meze Empyrean was also able to mask some of the blemishes in the sound quality, here or there, but I’ve also heard it sound much better. Of particular note, the bass here was a bit boomy and bloomed on occasion- going overboard on particular tracks.









Now FiiO does make an external power supply that works in conjunction with the R7, but despite trying to obtain one from both Apos Audio and FiiO themselves, I was unable get one in for this review in the end. Apos could not source them, and FiiO wouldn’t send one into the channel for a reasonable price. My hope is that the power supply could both clean up the sound of the R7 and improve its ability to drive higher impedance cans, but without the power supply here for comparison I could not accurately say either way.









Positively, the tonality of the THX amps were some of the most neutral that I have come across. Yet while it’s a tad bit warmer and fuller compared to the 789, it’s also a bit less exacting, less separative, not as spacious sounding, and comes across with less articulation within the presented soundscape.









But I guess for an all-in-one unit, it comes close to matching the performance of separates. And on less revealing, lower-tiered gear, the R7 kept up much better. Nevertheless, I have placed it in my main head-fi system, and lived with it as my main DAC for a few weeks for the sake of this review. But, when this review is over with, I won’t say that I will be sad to see it go. Still, with FiiO’s power supply; which I wasn’t able to test, and some additional firmware updates, I might be convinced to change my mind in the future, as its performance was potentially close to being good enough to stay. Its just not quite there as it stands. Maybe the R7 MK2 will be better?

Check out my YouTube Video of the FiiO R7!

HI everyone and welcome back to The Neighborhood. Today, for the first time, the channel is taking a look at an IEm withy DSP, terminating in a type-c connection. Is this the wave of the future? Let’s… get inToit!










So, this is the Jiu by Moondrop, and it may look eerily familiar. Essentially this looks a Moondrop Chu, with an in-line microphone that terminates in a type-C connection. Which means you can plug it right into your phone, and there’s no need for an additional DAC or amplifier to get it up and running. Speaking of getting it up and running, I used it both on a computer and on my phone. Off my computer this thing operated rather seamlessly. I was able to use discord, engage in video calls, and listen to music using my player of choice, Roon. Unfortunately, I didn’t have nearly as much luck with my android phone. Although music and video playback was without issue, using discord and even taking phone calls bugged this thing out. My voice and the voices of others came across digitized, so the DSP in the DAC of this thing isn’t always user friendly. This was a bit of a letdown, as the in-line microphone and small $25 dollar price tag of the Jiu suggest that it could be used as an everyday carry, in multiple use case scenarios, but the execution in android at the moment falls flat. Perhaps Moondrop can release a firmware update for the Jiu to fix this in the future?










I’m also going to knock the Jiu a bit, because it uses the same tangle-prone cable as the Chu and comes with only Moondrop Spring ear tips. I did not have as much of a sound problem with the Spring ear tips on the Jiu as I did with the Chu, but I much prefer Moondrops original black silicone ear tips to the Spring ear tips from both fit and sound perspectives. My preferred tips for the Jiu were Softears UC Eartips, but at a price of $18 dollars, that’s probably a big ask for this set. Tri Clarion Tips were also nice at half the price.










So, let’s go ahead and get inTo the sound. Does this just sound like the Chu with a different termination. No, it doesn’t! This is definitely an optimized version of the Chu. Although they seem to utilize the same driver, housing, and wire, the DSP technology appears to be doing some work! Overall, the Jiu is a lot smoother sounding, without any of the peakiness or mild harshness or shoutiness that the Chu exhibited. The bass of the Jiu is also tighter and more integrative. The Chu sounded really good for $20 dollars at the time, and the Jiu sounds even better for a mild price increase.










If I had one criticism of the sound, it would be that there’s a tinge of roundedness to the presentation of the notes that results in a smoothing affect to the sound overall. With that said, it is a pleasant sound, and I’m not sure if most people will notice or care about this in the end. This effect is slight, and, for $26 dollars, I shouldn’t complain too much, as these excel way beyond their price point.










The Jiu has a certain musical quality to it. The bass keeps up with most in-ear-monitors under $80 dollars or so. Its pretty even sounding, with more of a sub-bass emphasis than Chu had- which had more of a mid-bass push. The mid-range is sufficiently present, with a slight elevation in the presence area compared to its other Moondrop counterparts. The treble lacks early brilliance, but rebounds after 12K or so. I would have liked to have heard more representation from 8-10K.










Nevertheless, imaging is excellent and technical capabilities are great for this low price. I took particular note of its ability to distinguish between various instruments in the soundscape and separate out individual notes. Its soundstage width and height are just above average, but there is surprisingly good depth to the image. The timbre here is mildly dark, alluring, and somewhat warm, but, even so, each note cuts through well to the ear.


Compared the Moondrop Lan, the shell of the Jiu is also a fair bit shorter than the LAN, but a bit deeper in its profile. The Lan also comes with a detachable cable, but no built in DSP DAC, and boasts a standard 3.5mm connection instead. One would need an additional external device like the Atom 3 to get the Lan driven similarly well. Sonically, the Lan is drier, crisper, and weightier in its expression; with additional air, brightness, and a certain guttural quality to its output, while the Jiu is beyond entrancing- smoother and more liquid sounding with extra bass emphasis under 100 hertz. While I personally think the Lan is the superior experience, as it is more detailed and resolves slightly better, many people; after a more normative sound, may prefer the Jiu.










All the same, the Jiu is certainly an upgrade to the Chu. Those that are after more of a “no-fuss,” “plug-and-play” situation will surely be drawn to the Jiu. Someone who complains about having to use and external dongle DAC with their smart phone may find the Jiu more appealing than a traditional in-ear-monitor and all the “extras” that go with it these days; although I found its inability to be used for communication purposes off a cell phone a bit perplexing and frustrating to say the least. Not to mention, one is limited by digital volume with the Jiu. Still, the Jiu is easy to use otherwise, and has a safe and pleasant sound overall that works well with various genres of music. For $26 dollars, its sure to impress the budding audiophile, and make an excellent gift for those that may want a taste of this hobby.

Check out my YouTube Review of the Moondrop Jiu!

Hi all, and welcome back to The Audio Neighborhood! We’ve got the Meze Advar into the channel for review. This is a relatively new IEM from Meze that comes in at $699 dollars. The price is steep, but it is constructed well. Nevertheless, can the sound keep up? Let’s… get inToit!





Like I said already, the Advar is a relatively new edition to Meze’s IEM line up, and it is constructed well. I reviewed the Rai Solo from Meze a while back, and I’ll place a link to that review here for those that are still intersted in that one as well.


*click here for my prior Meze Rai Solo review!





Like the Rai Solo, the Advar also uses a MMCX connection, which allows for the IEM to swivel in one’s ears so that they can achieve a more comfortable fit. The cable is composed of a silver-plated copper, and terminates in a straight, 3.5mm plug. The preformed ear hooks, although aggressively curved, are quite comfortable, and the braided cable is generally soft to the touch, without taking on any form of memory from use. I’m glad Meze ditched the memory wire that some of their older cables came with.





The shell houses a 10.2mm dynamic driver that Meze claims is true to their house sound. The driver material is not mentioned in any of the promotional materials, and I find this a bit suspect for an IEM in this price range. Nevertheless, the stainless-steel shell is gorgeous; however, and ergonomically sculpted to fit precisely and comfortably in the ear. I was originally worried that the stainless-steel housing would weigh too much, and have a tendency to fatigue the ear or sag within it; however, this IEM is seriously tiny, and any weight disappears in my ears when in use. The deep chocolate colored paint job has a glossy, enameled look to it, which seems thick and potentially durable to wear. Gold accents are utilized throughout. The Meze logo is painted in gold on the side, the nozzle is gold, and the MMCX connecters- and the covering for the port of the driver is gold as well. The overall aesthetic is sophisticated, luxurious, and pleasing.





As part of the Head-Fi tour which provided the Advar to the channel and made this review possible, Meze included a 4.4mm upgrade cable. For all intensive purposes it was similar to the stock cable in terms of build, just terminating in a balanced, straight, 4.4mm connection rather an unbalanced, 3.5mm one. By the way, both cables were 1.2 meters in length. The box also included a leather, hard-shell case, 5 pairs of Final Type E ear tips, a MMCX removal tool, a cleaning tool, and a user manual. In the course of my testing, the included Final Type E ear tips were my preferred tips for this set, and I didn’t really feel much of a need to swap them out. I also didn’t really notice a heck of a lot of difference in the performance from the single-ended cable to the balanced one, and would probably just stick with the cable that came out of the box if I were to purchase this set for myself.





The sound, both is, and isn’t commiserate with the price of the Advar. The Advar does keep up with other IEMs around the $700 price point and below, but I still think the Advar is somewhat over-priced regarding its general resolution and level of detail. What I mean is that I recently reviewed the Moondrop Variations, and the Advar isn’t quite the articulative set that one is. It also wasn’t as mid-forward or richly detailed in the mids as the Final Audio B3 was when driven off a proper source. The Advar does have pretty good detail for a single dynamic though, it’s just not going to keep up with standout electrostatic drivers or BA’s in a head-to-head listening session. Where the Advar does excel with its presentation is in the melodic and delicate nature of its detail. In comparison to the B3, it’s note weight is thinner in the mid-range, and its treble is less consistent in its extension. The bass weight of the Advar is more appropriate, dynamic, and definitely engages the listener more; however.





Returning to sourcing, the Advar is also much more sensitive to run in comparison to something like B3, which is uniquely insensitive for an all BA-driven set. On high output impedance amplification, I picked up more hiss on the Advar than B3, and more than I would have expected for a single dynamic. With that said, it’s also not the most sensitive set either, and I could not detect the hiss for the most part during playback, but again, it was just more than I would expect from a single dynamic. This could be rectified with an IEMatch from iFi on both the Gold Note DS10 Plus and the Geshelli Archel Pro, but this also seemed to dull the Advar’s energy a bit. In the end, I ultimately went back to just running them unadulterated off these devices, as I preferred their presentation that way. But, it was dead quiet when driven off the the Drop THX AAA 789, the Hiby FC3, the Periodic Audio Rhodium DAC, and other playback devices of a more standard affair. Even so, the Advar did scale notably with higher-tiered amps and DACs; even if it didn’t often expose poorer reproduction equipment. In other words, the Advar was impressive to listen to off of just about every device, but still showed noteworthy gains when paired well and driven appropriately.





Another strength of the Advar came from its staging. Uniquely, the stage here is eerily spherical; depicting as much depth as it does height and width. I wouldn’t describe the stage as huge, but its above average and has a good dimensional quality to it. Although the center image is sharply in focus at all times, peripheral detailing could haze-up upon occasion. This included peripheral vocals, which were notably fuzzy or more non-descript at times compared to the main vocals. The Advar could also become confused and cluttered on busier tracks, even though it showed great separation on most tracks- especially simpler ones. Transients were mostly excellent, but mildly sluggish in its character, here or there; which was particularly apparent amongst frequencies in the low-end. Instrument distinctiveness and placement was simply outstanding; however. Listening to the Advar, I felt like I was on the stage with the instrumentation, and could take a walk around each instrument’s player; like I was in a slow-motion music video or something. The stage is “sneaky good” on the Advar, and I think this will be a subtle characteristic, which will attract a lot of listeners to purchase it.





Tonality is mildly warm, and somewhat subdued, with a striking, refined and almost indirect punch to the impact of its notes. In this way, it is in alignment with Meze’s house sound- especially their more traditional presentation. Yet there’s also just the slightest bit of reverb and a certain delicateness that is usually only found in Meze’s more expensive gear. The general performance brings to mind the descriptors: alluring, balanced, and romantic. It is captivating, charismatic, and relaxing; smooth and soothing. I could listen to the Advar for hours.





In terms of the sound profile, it is rather interesting. To the ear, things sound mostly even upon first listen, but after some time, and in comparison with other IEMs, one begins to notice certain subtleties; which won’t be for every listener, but also give the Advar its unique voice and character.





The bass digs decently deep, but rolls decidedly after 37 Hz or so to my ears. There’s still a decent amount of sub-bass and low-bass presence, but it’s also notably lower in presence in an IEM who’s bottom-end is already a step behind most of the mids and treble. It also doesn’t quite have the low-end resonance, push, or punch of other Meze products. The bass here is striving more for balance than dominance. Low-end dynamics are audible and informative, but more assistive than the star of the show. Still, the bass is refined, warming, lush, looming, mildly woolly, and chocolatey. Its presence is just lacking a wee bit; here or there, but then again, so are the dynamics, at least, to a certain extent. It’s also not the most detailed bass in the world, but there’s just enough detail to keep up with the rest of the presentation. I’d characterize the overall bass performance of the Advar as harmonic and assistive- like adding a low-G-string tuning to a Ukulele. If you don’t know what I mean by this, have a glance at some videos on YouTube to find out more.





This mids on the Advar are also well executed, but early mids (before 2.5K Hz or so) suffer in comparison to central and upper mids. So, while a “sucked-out” effect does occur in the early mids to a mild extent, this also creates breathing room for the bass to trail off; so there is minimal bloat to the overall sound. Even so, some will find early mids lacking on this set, as the biggest dip on this set occurs in this region of the Advar’s sound. Nevertheless, overall detail and clarity of the mid-range should not be questioned, as its overall sound is smooth, detailed, and informative to its listener.





The treble is smooth and articulate too. I will point out that there is a pretty steep dive at 9K, but this doesn’t appear to overly detract from the treble’s capability. But that as it may, it does sound elegantly rolled because of it, and more mellow than brilliant. With that said, there is also quite a bit of energy in the presence and early brilliance regions, and a pretty large hump in the air region with an apex around 15K. This adds more excitement than air to the ear; however, and doesn’t go so far as to sound aggressive in anyway- keeping these both listenable and engaging for long-listening sessions. Another way to put this would be to say that the air is sneaky, but not prominent.





But, to wrap things up, the Meze Advar is a superbly constructed, well-thought-out IEM, that’s as pretty to look at, as it is to listen too. I received the Advar as part of a Head-Fi review tour, and they arrived just as beautiful and unspoiled as if they hadn’t been handled by 5 other people previously. As such, I expect that they will be a rugged set as well for those that need rough rider in this price range.





Speaking of the price, this is a luxury product, and as such, you’re paying a bit of a luxury tax with the Advar. Even so, it does sound great! And it is now one of my IEM’s around its price. With that said, given the sound quality here, I’d expect to pay a bit less- even considering the Meze luxury tax. If one could snag an Advar for between $449 and $549, it would be a hell of a deal, and definitely worth it at that price-tag, even if I think it’s a bit overpriced as it stands. To put it in perspective, these are competing more with IEMs around the $500 dollar price bracket- with IEMs like the Final Audio B3 and Moondrop Variations rather than more expensive sets. But, don’t fret, as there may be hope for a potential price drops on these in the future. If history is any indicator with their in-ear- monitors, Meze has tended to release their IEMs at a higher price initially and then offer their customers deals later on in some form or another, at least, every now and then. So, keep an eye out for a deal, as, at $699, I’d say this would have to be the particular sound for you to take the plunge on this one.





In sonic summary, the Advar’s sound sets a darker mood. It’s warm and it punches deeply. Yet, the Advar is also mellow and smooth- with enough air and energy to maintain interest, but not so much so as to dissuade longer listening sessions. For a pleasing single dynamic, it’s definitely one to keep an eye out for, especially for those that love the Meze house sound.

Check out my YouTube video of the Meze Advar!

Harmonic Dyne Athena: add it to the collection?​

Hello there everyone, and welcome back to The Neighborhood! Today we’re looking at the Harmonic Dyne Athena thanks to Linsoul! The Athena is a $179 dollar headphone that’s taking the world by storm, so let’s get inToit!



The Athena is largely a plastic build, but somehow feels sturdier than the Harmonic Dynes that I looked at before with wood and metal incorporated into the builds. The only metal I noticed to these was in the slider mechanism of the headband and some screws that hold everything together. A large cloth covered pad cushions the head below the headband, and this doesn’t appear to be memory foam but it was comfortable nevertheless. The pads might be memory foam; however, instead of a cloth covered, they are covered in what appears to be a faux suede material; which might get a bit hot in a non-cool environment. Even though I live in a desert, the pads ultimately added to the comfort in my air-conditioned room, and I’ll also note that there was plenty of space within them for my average sized ear. From looking at other reviews prior to receiving these, I was worried that these might be on ears, but they most assuredly are over ears, and I think there will be more than enough room for most wearers. The clamp was also very comfortable and neither too intense or too slack.



With regard to the cups, these are semi-closed backed, as they have a solid backing to the cups, but small vents around the lower edge of the cups and a larger vent on the top edge. As a result, these basically have open back performance with regard to sound coming in and out of them. So, I don’t love the isolation here entirely, but if you’ll be listening primarily in a solitary listening environment, then you won’t mind this. Positively, the cups have a large rotation to their swivel, and lay flat on a desk when swiveled away from the listener. They won’t lay flat if swiveled in the other direction; however. In terms of their weight, they are neither too hefty nor notably light in their construction. They weigh much more than the ThieAudio Ghost I recently reviewed, but weight a bit less than the Beyerdynamic DT177XGO. The advertised weight is only 320 grams, but they do feel a bit bulky on the head- almost like a ZMF.



The cable is also a wee bit bulky, especially with its metal hardware in mind, but it does match the weight and somewhat clunky feel of the headphone overall. A quarter inch to 3.5mm adapter is included, but it terminates in a 3.5mm jack and initiates in two, dual-poled 3.5mm plugs. The weave is nice, and the material almost feels like paracord, but I’m sure it’s not. Its Y-split well-done, and it remains free from tangles with repetitive use. A cable tie is also provided to help with portable use, as is a velvet bag- but not a hard case, which could have been a nice addition.



So, the sound… Well first of all, these required an absurd amount of break-in. Out of the box, they were a bit loose and bloomy in the low-end. I went so far as the swap out the pads to Brainwavz Sheepskin Rounds, and I enjoyed the sound much more. However; before finalizing my thoughts, I swapped back to the stock pads after a few weeks of play, and decided that they had come around, and now sounded great as well. The bass had evened out, was less diffuse, and any bleed mostly gone.



Timbre is warm, rather lush, somewhat dark, and its note weight is both thickened and heavy. Yet, many aspects of the sound still cut through well. For a closed back headphone, the stage is also decently large, and exceeds expectations. Resolution and clarity isn’t top-end in terms of its performance, but it does scale notably well. These peak with their sound capabilities when driven off the Tron Antares, but also sounded excellent on the Hidizs DH80S. For under $300 dollars the pairing with the latter was a notable value proposition, and I enjoyed it immensely. The stage of this pairing was simply something else, and large and vast in its dimension. And even though these are listed at 34 ohms, they also performed well off the Darkvoice 336 OTL. I’ve been experimenting with different tubes on my Darkvoice as of late, and a Hytron 6SN7 and GE 6GAS7 were excellent tubes in combination with the Athena.



But let’s get into the sound profile, because although I enjoy the Athena, and think that it’s not only stupendous fun and a tremendous value, its also not without its faults. The bass relies more on a subbass push than anything else. General bass definition could be better, and I could deal with a bit more presence from the upper bass regions as well. The descriptors soft and squishy come to mind in describing the low-end performance of the Athena.







The midrange is a bit of a mixed bag. Generally speaking, the mid-range cuts through well despite its moody character, but the lower midrange performance was not up to task on certain tracks. Bands like Van Halen highlighted a notable reduction on guitar parts that a normally front and center on a number of their songs. Male vocals also could suffer at times, and were not as representative in the mix as the female counterparts. Even so, tracks that did not rely as much upon an early midrange presence performed admirably well on the Athena



The treble is best described as relaxed, but well extended. There isn’t a ton air here, but there’s enough for anyone who isn’t a treble head. There are also some notable dips after 8K and beyond, but I mostly found the treble well-represented enough without venturing into any harshness, intensity or sibilance.







Overall, I think the Athena is a winner! It’s my favorite headphone to have come out of Harmonic Dyne yet! Priced at around $179 dollars, these are a steal and a must have for almost any headphone collector. Its presentation is musical, unique, warm, romantic, enjoyable and inviting. They sound excellent off almost any source, and they scale well too. Just make sure you break them in for at least a few weeks before making up your mind about them. The Harmonic Dyne Athena is sold by exclusively Linsoul, and I’m certainly happy that they support my channel, and were able to send over a set for this review.

Check out my YouTube Review of the Harmonic Dyne Athena!

The Orchestra Lite… We’ve been waiting for an IEM to come along like this one for a while, and for $250 dollars, this changes everything! Let’s get inToit!



If you pick up the Orchestra Lite, what you get is a beautiful-built, all-balanced-armature unit- featuring two custom ultra-tweeters, four midrange B.A.’s, and two large subwoofer drivers for the lows. The crossover and the drivers themselves are visible through the clear resin shell, which utilizes a flush 2-pin connection. The cable these come with is nice and soft, and the included tips all sounded good making very slight adjustments to the sound. I would have liked to have seen a metal chin sinch rather than the plastic one and a modular termination included for balanced power delivery; but these don’t really require any power, yet they are influenced by source tonality. General timbre and note weight are neutral, but comparatively thinner and leaner off something like the 789, dead neutral off the Hiby FC3, or somewhat thickened and warmed off the iFi 6XX Signature amplifier. The shell itself has a very balanced weight to it (neither too heavy nor too light), and size, although somewhat chunky, is less so than something like the Blessing 2. It fits well within my medium-sized ear cavity, and I like the green swirled faceplate that I was sent by Linsoul, but there’s also an option for a swirled iridescent blue if you prefer.



With regard to sound, go back and watch almost any other review of the Blessing 2 by practically any internet parrot artist; I mean “respected reviewer,” and that misinformation will likely be more applicable too, and more informative of, what to expect with the Kiwiears Orchestra Lite. The stage here isn’t notably large, but not overly restricted at the same time. So, the stage is not really the reason to pick up this set. Still, the Kiwiears Orchestra Lite performs technically well within its somewhat constrained soundscape. Separation is deceptively decent, depth reasonably respectable, and image distinction good. Transient reproduction is also relatively natural for an all-BA set. Dynamics are somewhat soft and therefore might be lacking to some, but more acceptable compared to an IEM like the Blessing 2, even though that set has a dynamic driver-driving its’ bass.



So why pick up the Orchestra Lite? Well, off the right source, detail and clarity here are off the charts for $250 dollars. You hear things in recordings with these that only more expensive sets reveal. Even so, this is a bit of a double-edged sword, as the Orchestra Lite does expose impoverished recordings, poor mixes, and track inaccuracies. Nevertheless, these are an excellent entry point to higher fidelity in-ear-monitor sound, and a definite upgrade path from an IEM like the TRI Starsea. The level of clarity here is beyond the Moondrop Kato and closer to the Variations. And when we get to comparison’s we’ll be taking a look at this bad boy in comparison to one of my favorite IEMs: the Final Audio B3... So, stay tuned for that!



If the Orchestra Lite is lacking detail anywhere, it is in the bass; however. This is BA bass… And although its good BA bass, BA bass does often lack some detail and body compared to a dynamic. Still, there is just enough bass quantity and detail here for me to be happy, even if bass heads surely wouldn’t be. The Orchestra Lite kind of chugs along to the beat- providing just enough low-end warmth to add both substance and character. The sub-bass is not overly representative, but the Orchestra Lite did surprise me on certain tracks, and even kept up well with unexpected genres like rap. So it does decently when called upon to do so. Nevertheless, bass guitars could sound thin at times, and I wouldn’t call the bass of the Orchestra Lite overly expressive in either its personality or clarity.



The mid-range is always clear though, and slightly forward in its character; in general, leading to a more intimate observation of the sound. Despite its intimacy, sounds layer atop each other well, and sonics rarely, if ever become cluttered. Distinctiveness of individual sounds is a noteworthy characteristic of the mid-range on the Orchestra Lite, and this includes vocals which are always well-centered in the middle of the sonic landscape- prominently featuring for both male and female voices alike, although certain low-timbred male vocalists suffered on occasion- like Christ Stapleton, who’s voice was not as accessible I would have expected on a number of tracks. Even so, peripheral details were well developed, detailed, and consistently popped out to my ear.



The treble was less consist; however. While it should satisfy most, truth-through-treble seekers might find the Orchestra Lite somewhat lacking in its later treble and air. The upper-end extension, although fairly natural in its presentation, does roll off rather audibly, and the tail of the treble does lack representation exponentially as it extends out past 10K or so. People who find the persona of later treble emphasized sets irritating will likely have little to complain about with the Orchestra Lite, as there is generally enough treble material presented here without ever mistakenly going overboard or over the line with its brilliance. In other words, I never found my ear stretching to listen for additional treble information, but I could have done with some additional air and extension.



In comparison to one of my other favorite IEMs, the Final Audio B3, the Orchestra Lite is more restricted in its soundscape and not nearly as expansive. It’s also a bit more intimate and forward in its character, but more separative in its approach. Detail, resolution and clarity are similar between the two, but micro details appeared to pop out more on the Orchestra Lite, while the B3 was more coherent in its styling. The bass on the B3 was also generally less thin, more full-bodied, and additionally representative across the lower range of the frequency response. General note weight was also a bit more robust despite the B3 having only 2 drivers compared to the Orchestra Lite’s 8. The Orchestra Lite is also more sensitive to both drive and more influenced by amplifier tonal character than the B3 is; changing its tonal character more like a chameleon from the neutral line from source to source.. Both benefit from a bit of power, but the Orchestra Lite’s stage became larger in comparison to itself when being driven by balanced sources, while the general presentation of the B3 was more consistent not matter its source type. So, the Orchestra Lite is a bit of a different in its presentation, but at least keeps up with the more expensive set in a number of ways.



Overall, at $250 dollars, the Orchestra Lite is an incredible value for the money. It’s revealing and detailed in a manner that plays like more expensive competition. It may not have the biggest soundstage, and its treble extension may be limited, but it articulates technically well within its provided listening space. And even though I’ve done my best to provide you all with some good images of this set, it’s even prettier to look at in person than it shows up on film, and comes with a nice accessory package to accompany its solid build. At the price, it will most likely be my #1 recommendation for some time, that is until something better comes along. In order to get notified of such a set, make sure to subscribe and click that notification bell in order to get alerted when I upload videos. Subscribing to the channel doesn’t cost you a thing, and it really helps The Neighborhood grow so that I can continue to deliver high quality content to you all. It also really helps this video get distributed to all those that may benefit from it if you like it and watch it completely. Lastly, check out the links in the description below for other Neighborhood access locations, and give me a follow there as well. And with that, I’m out… for now…

Thanks for watching inToit Reviews! Don't forget to LIKE and SUBSCRIBE to help the channel grow! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDhV3KByLSY2roqZ2aQ0XKg

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/intoitreviews/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/IntoitReviews
Discord: https://discord.gg/tePQKfT

Check out the Review on YouTube: The Best Audio Review Reviews the Kiwi Ears Orchestra Lite on YouTube!

Hey everyone! Welcome back to InToit Reviews. It’s Your Friendly Neighborhood Reviewer here, and today we’re going to be looking at the Shozy Neo CP. I don’t know if I’ve heard a Shozy IEM that I haven’t liked yet. For what they are, the Form 1.1, Form 1.4, and Rouge are all pretty unique and fulfill niches within the audiophile marketspace. But what about the Shozy Neo CP?

Let’s get InToit!



So before we get started, let me give a big “Thank You,” and shoutout to Farsil The Wizard for sending the Neo CP into the channel for review. Farsil knows that I was pretty excited for the Neo CP since I discovered its existence. Why? Well, unlike Shozy’s other offerings that I have reviewed at the channel, which have all been hybrids. The Neo CP is only constructed of three balanced armatures. I tend to like BA only driven sets when they do a good job of handling the low end, and offer a natural tone. And while sets like those may be a scarcity, I had hopes for the Neo CP given what I have heard from Shozy to date. But, we’ll get to how the Neo CP preforms when we talk about the sound.

Check Farsil The Wizard at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq4oZDBAZABMTPdIFHi8IxA

For now, let’s start things off with the build. Like I’ve already said, this is a 3 BA set, which are encased in a resin shell with an MMCX connection. The shape of the shell is reminiscent of Shure IEMs, and it mostly fits comfortably in my ear depending upon tip selection. With most tips, my ear had plenty of clearance, but with larger tips, the back curve of the IEM might rest up against my posterior concha, towards the anthelix. Even so, this wasn’t much of a bother, but it did make the fit more awkward when utilizing tips of this variety.



Uniquely, the BA’s in this set are resign encased, and sound tubes are utilized to deliver sonics to and through the stem. This is a technic generally, reserved for more expensive IEMs, so this was nice to see. This set also comes with two sets of metal, screw-on filters to adjust the sound to your liking. We’ll get into the impact of these different filters on the sound, when we get to that portion of the review. The colorway of the shells is described by Shozy as being clear, red and blue, but in actuality these look more like a clear shell with metallic, pink and teal, BA’s showing underneath.

The cable terminates in an unbalanced 3.5mm connector, and like I’ve already said, utilizes MMCX connections at its initiation points. And, this may be the best cable I have ever received in the box with an IEM a touch and play perspective. It is soft to the touch, remains free from tangles with use, and seems like it would come with a much more expensive IEM. This is the type of cable that should have come with the Shozy Rouge.



Beyond the cable and the filters, the Neo CP’s package comes with a variety of tips and the standard, black, Shozy carrying case that also comes with the Form 1.1. Like in the case of the Form 1.1 and the 1.4, one thing to know about the included tips is that, while you get a large amount of choice in terms of type of tip, you do not get many choices in terms of size, as it only comes with what appears to be super small, small, and medium varieties included for a number of different tip types, including the double-flanged silicones that I liked on the Form 1.4, and also would recommend for this set. Other, third-party tips that I enjoyed on this set were ePro Horn-Shaped Ear Tips, and JVC Spiral Dots- the latter of which was my preference for what I’m going to call the “laid-back” filter, while the double-flanged silicones or my preference for the “intense” filter.

So, in general, this is what I would call a “neutralish” set, with each filter acually pushing the tone of this IEM towards either side of the neutral line. In other words, the “intense” filter was quite a bit brighter than the “laid-back” filter, which has a warmer tone in comparison.



Nevertheless, this is a mid-forward set, overall, no matter the filter. But, the laid-back filter is smoother and more cohesive, especially in the mid-range, while the intense filter is more audibly “W-shaped,” with greater vocal separation and presence, greater bass percussion, and heightened treble in comparison. While, the intense filter should be seen as a more average presentation in the grand scheme of things, it is also notably leaner and more piercing in comparison to the laid-back filter, which has a thicker and smoother tone.

With more specific regard to the treble, graphs available online show that there is a relatively early roll in the treble, as things begin to drop off steeply at around 8K. I would suspect that these graphs were measured with the more laid-back filter, but I was unable to verify this in the course of this review, as these graphs also do not list which filter the measurements were taken with. Notably, I will say that there is decreased brilliance and air because of its roll off, but there is also more noticeable in the laid-back filter in comparison to the intense filter.



However; no matter the filter, there is some BA harshness, grain, or grittiness, which negatively impacts clarity and resolution for this set on the whole, and also dates it within the audiophile marketplace. Nevertheless, I find the laid-back filter more gritty, and the intense filter more harsh in its upper mid-range and treble presences.

The stage is also somewhat different between the filters. The laid-back filter provides a more spacious, natural sounding stage with good depth, height, and width to it, while the intense filter is more narrow, and less cohesive overall. In other words, switching to the intense filter seemingly shrinks the stage.



Consistent between filters, these IEMs are straight-up, imaging monsters, and they have decent decay, good transients, and excellent peripheral details. But, with that said, I find the overall presentation of the laid-back filters most certainly the enjoyable between the two sets. On this set of filters, image placement is accurate, instrument distinction impressive, and image separation sufficient.

With that said, where this IEM really suffers is in the low-end. The bass is rather one-note, lacks detail, and often lacks presence, even on its more intense set of filters where the bass has greater impact and pressure. But, no matter the filter, the bass comes across at least somewhat compressed, and neither macro nor micro dynamics are particularly strong points on this set. And it’s not just the bass that suffers from compression, but whole the sound profile, at least somewhat, in general.



It may sound like I am being too harsh on the Neo CP. And honestly, I don’t want to be, because ultimately this is a good IEM, even despite its faults. Having said that, its price is too high, and its level of resolution and clarity is insufficient to justify not only its price, but also its place in the audiophile marketplace at this stage in the game.

This IEM screams that it is outdated. With regard to resolution, these are akin to something like the TinHiFi T4 at best (which is commonly $79), which falls in between the Form 1.1 and the Form 1.4, being better than the 1.1, but having less detail and clarity compared to the 1.4; and don’t get me started on the Rouge.

For the money at $165, I don’t think these do anything that the Rouge doesn’t do significantly better at $180. And while, I understand that the Rouge is $15 dollars more expensive, and you will need to buy both tips and a cable, it is still worth it in my eyes to invest in the Rouge instead of the CP. So, unless you’re allergic to a solid, linear low-end, I can’t imagine recommending these over the Rouge to anyone, in any case. In my eyes, by releasing the Rouge, Shozy has effectively made the Neo CP irrelevant amongst its own IEM lineup. I just wish they would give the Rouge the Neo CP’s cable. And, with that, I’m out… for now…

YouTube Review of the Shozy Neo CP by InToit Reviews:

InToit ReviewsYouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDhV3KByLSY2roqZ2aQ0XKg
InToit Reviews Twitter: https://twitter.com/IntoitReviews
InToit Reviews Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/intoitreviews/
Join the InToit Reviews Discord Server: https://discord.gg/tePQKfT
Become a Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/intoitreviews

Hello All!

Welcome back to the Neighborhood. Today we are taking a look at the HIFIMAN 400i 2020. I have yet to get around to reviewing the Deva, and that review will come out shortly (before the end of 2020, I promise), but when I first saw the 400i 2020, I was very interested in it because I love the sonics of my 4XX and adore the form factor of the Deva. The Deva just fits my head nearly perfectly. What I am trying to say, is that I was hopeful that the 400i would be just as comfortable as the Deva, and potentially sound just as good, if not better than both that headphone and my HE4XX. So, did this headphone rise to the challenge, or did the 2020 moniker curse these cans like it has everything else this year?

Let’s get InToit!



Getting started with the build, I do prefer aspects of this build to previous iterations of this headphone. The headband is nicely padded and wrapped in a nice leatherette material. The yolks do not swivel, but there enough play in the adjustment mechanism to get a good fit and seal, and I think this will generalize to most people’s domes. While the yolks appear to be made out of a metal or dense plastic, the cups are grilles are for sure plastic. The grilles appear to be exactly the same as the ones from the HE4XX, but the cups are significantly cheaper feeling, even if they are lighter in weight. In general, in comparison the HE4XX this is a notably lighter headphone than the HE4XX from drop, and weight is more evenly distributed across one’s head as well.



The pads on the 400i 2020 seem to be of a hybrid, Focus A variety, and comprised of both leatherette and velour with plastic ring backing. They are fenestrated leatherette on the inside, solid leatherette on the outside, and velour for the portion that rests against your face. These pads are somewhat known for being easily damaged when removed, and I’m not a huge fan of velour in general, but from a sonic perspective I found them quite enjoyable, and softer sounding than the Dekoni Elite Sheepskin variants that I experimented with over the course of this review. I also noted that like the Dekoni pads, the stock pads that come with the HE400i 2020 were also slightly more angled. This is a deviation from the HE4XX, which, came with slightly, less-angled, Focus A pads with terrycloth rather than fenestrated leatherette inside, instead. Furthermore, I found that this pad adjustment by HIFIMAN seemed to not only help out with the sound, but also the fit. My final conclusion regarding these new stock pads, was that the 400i 2020 pads sounded more similar to the HE4XX with Dekoni pads than it did to the original HE4XX without them.



The cable that comes with the HE400i 2020, is one of HIFIMAN’s newest cable types and comprised of a somewhat, stiff cable wrapped in a black, braided material. Like the newer variants of the HE4XX, it initiates in a dual-poled, right and left, 3.5mm connectors and terminates in an angled 3.5mm, unbalanced connection with a quarter-inch adapter. But, despite some chintziness here or there, especially with specific regard to the cup material, the HE 400i 2020 does, nevertheless, feel more polished as a whole in comparison to its prior iterations. And, it is lighter weight, in the end, as well.



With regard to the sonics, let me get this out of the way and say that the HE400i 2020 sounds remarkably similar to the HE4XX. So much, so that they’re virtually indistinguishable. I’ve already reviewed the 4XX, but I’ll place that review in the description below for your reference, in case you were interested.

Generally speaking, both the 4XX and 400i 2020 are excellent planarmagnetics, especially for the money. Like the 4XX, what you get with the 400i 2020, is a neutral headphone with a heightened treble presentation, for the most part; but, I will also note that, with the newer pads, the 400i 2020’s treble appears less aggressive to my ears compared to my memory of the stock HE4XX.



General resolution, detail, clarity and sparkle are great for both sets- especially for the price. Like the 4XX, the 400i 2020 punches well above its price-class. Bass extension is sufficient, and like its predecessors, these also hold up relatively well to EQ; but what you miss out on here vs. other planarmagnetics is a surplus of slam and dynamics. Not to say that either of these qualities are bereft in these cans, but they are certainly less present than other, more-expensive planars by a few Db or so, even despite the fact that they actually have decent bass extensions. Having said that, dynamics are soft, subtle, and detailed enough to appease most listeners in my opinion. And while bass detail is also not mind-blowing either, it is definitely respectable for the price, and adds to the enjoyability factor for these sets.

The midrange is also enjoyable in these sets. They have enough presence, but they are less than perfectly flat around 2K, and as a result, vocals may be perceived as less forward, a tad laid back, and more “in the mix” than others may like, say in comparison to something like the reference, HD600 series from Sennheiser. Nevertheless, I think most would actually prefer this presentation for most music, as most “normies” that I have listen to my headphones prefer the overall presentation of the 4XX to that of the Sennheisers.



The treble is the "Achilles’ Heel" of these sets for some, as they find them too bright. However, I find that on the right amp, with the right pad, the treble presentations of both the 4XX and 400i 2020 are much more tolerable than many tend to indicate. And while I recommended changing to Dekoni Sheepskin pads on the 4XX to tame its treble, the stock pads on the 400i 2020 are mostly fine, and I never really found it a necessity to change to pads here, because sonics never crossed the line into a harsh territory for me. I think the adjustment that HIFIMAN made to include fenestrated leatherette on the inside of the pads on the 400i 2020 may have contributed to a smoother treble presentation in its stock form. And while I don’t like to confuse treble for detail, as many other reviewers tend to do, I do think the heightened treble here in these sets does contribute to the detail retrieval capabilities of these drivers, in these particular cases. Nevertheless, like the 4XX, I tend to prefer the 400i on warmer, class A power with sufficient current. My general amp recommendation for the 4XX has been the Bravo Ocean, which is a class A amp with a tube-pre stage, and I’m sticking with that recommendation for the 400i 2020 as well.




I would describe the soundstage for these as generally spacious with greater width than depth. Depth is decent, but in comparison to something like the Sundara, the 4XX and the 400i 2020 lack some depth of field to their staging, which results in a more 2D sound field compared to the 3D sonics and layering capabilities of the Sundara. Any distinctions in imaging, transients, and decay, I feel were more attributed to pad type than to the headphones themselves, and general imaging, decay, and transient performances are stellar in each set.



With regard to pad experimentation, while I ultimately do not think switching pads for the HE400i 2020 is as necessary of a process as it is for the HE4XX, I do prefer the HE400i with the fenestrated Elite Sheepskin Pads from Dekoni, while I prefer the HE4XX with non-fenestrated Elite Sheepskin ones. Having said that, while, I will save my auditory comparisons with the Deva for that review, I will say here that I preferred the pads of the Deva most from a comfort perspective out of all the headphones discussed in this review.




In terms of other, specific, distinguishing characteristics between the HE4XX and the HE400i 2020, I will say that the HE400i is faster, slightly leaner in presentation, and mildly drier and brighter in timbre. Because of this, I do find the 400i 2020 to be a tad more fatiguing to listen to over the course of time, but I will not label this headphone as fatiguing in general, so your milage may vary. In HIFIMAN’s lineup, I would say that the 400i 2020 sits somewhere in between the 4XX and the Sundara along a characterological continuum- a continuum which is based on auditory characteristics, and not necessarily based on either value or desirability.



And I also want to be clear, that these differences are rather trivial in the grand scheme of things. In terms of my recommendations, I would generally recommend both headphones, but I do have a small preference for the overall sound of the HE4XX due to its additional layers of warmth and liquidity. Having said that, separation, depth of sound, and instrument distinction goes the HE400 I 2020. The HE4XX seemed more musical and immersive, while the HE400i 2020 felt more slightly more articulate and defined.



So, from an auditory perspective, if you already own a 4XX, I would not rush out to replace it with a HE400i 2020 anytime soon, as the two sound more similar than they do different. Also, while the comfort is slightly better for the HE400i 2020 than the HE4XX (due to a lesser weight and more padded headband), I do not find the overall difference in comfort as significant as going from say the 4XX to the DEVA. Yet, if you value speed or want a slightly sharper presentation both with regard to tone and articulation, then the HIFIMAN HE400i 2020 might be, more uniquely, for you.

InToit Reviews YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDhV3KByLSY2roqZ2aQ0XKg

YouTube Review:

Original HE4XX YouTube Review:

InToit Reviews Blog: www.intoitreviews.com

InToit Reviews Twitter: https://twitter.com/IntoitReviews

InToit Reviews Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/intoitreviews/

Join the InToit Reviews Discord Server: https://discord.gg/tePQKfT

Become a Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/intoitreviews

Hi Everyone! Its Your Friendly Neighborhood Reviewer with InToit Reviews!
Welcome back to the Neighborhood!



Today we’re looking at, perhaps, the prettiest IEM to ever come through the channel: The Reecho and Peacock, Spring Day. What makes the “Spring” special is that it is a hand-painted IEM, and it also has a rather unique configuration, consisting of two dynamics and a single balanced armature. I particularly like the colorway of it- the swirl of blue and green, with hints of golden yellow is very striking!



With regard to fit and finish, the fit is very comfortable. The shell, which is also said to be hand-made, is of a nice size that is neither too large nor to small. The shape is ergonomic, and the stem is neither too long, wide, or shallow. There is a lip at the end of the stem to hold tips in place. Others have reported difficulties with the tips remaining secured to the stem, but I had no such difficulty with my set.



The difficulties with my set have to do with the cable and its connection to the IEM. While the 2-pin connector of the right IEM aligns at a 90-degree angle, the left connector’s 2-pin rests ajar; leaning to the left aggressively. While this might not seem like a big deal, it does affect how the left IEM rests in my left ear somewhat.



Additionally, while the look, fit, and finish of the cable itself is first class, it’s sound is not a good match for this IEM in particular. The cable that I chose was the silver and blue variant. With this cable, the Spring is overly aggressive in the mids, and can be sharp at times. I found a tripowin, zonie cable to be a better match for the Spring, as it produced much more even sonics. A brown, copper cable exists as an alternative option for the Spring, and while it may not look as pretty as the blue variant, it might sound better?

The Spring also comes a nice, brown, leather carrying case, a small carabiner, and a variety of assorted tips. While I found all variety of tips to be rather nice, the included clear silicone tips with the black bore sounded the most balanced and liquid for the Spring. In my opinion, they were the warmest, and best tonal match for this set.



Tip selection was particularly important with the Spring, as its signature changed greatly with tip selection, and, in general, its tonality lacked warmth and leaned towards a drier, more airy quality. These sound like Italian Pinot Grigio tastes.

Dat’ bass though... The bass is exceedingly well executed, and exceptional. With sufficient volume, this is one of the most appropriately dynamic IEMs that I have ever heard. Its dual dynamic set up more than likely contributes to this particular character. The mid-bass is punchy and its most present in the range, but there is also a perfect amount of sub-bass that lurks beneath the surface. Overall, although I can be emphasized at times, the bass is extremely natural sounding in my book.



Like the bass, there is also some upper mid-range forwardness and treble intensity that lurks in the grass and presents itself harshly on some recordings as well. These can test my limits with regard to both its highs, and its mids. Most of the time mid-range and treble presences are tolerable, but they do sound peaky to my ear on particular tracks, even if they do not really graph as such. I think that the highest peak at 2K and the additional elevation at 5K are what draw my attention mostly- although neither appears like it would be significantly elevated on a graph.

Forwardness in the mid-range was particularly evident on certain sources, as I found the Spring Day to be extremely source dependent. It simply did not sound good on overly stark devices. As a result, sources such as the THX AAA 789 were not a good fit for this earphone. The FiiO BTR 3K and the Gold Note DS-10 Plus were my favorite sources for the Spring Day. Each has their own mild flavors of warmth which were lent to the Peacocks most favorably.



In my listening, the soundstage on the Spring wasn’t particularly wide, but it did have some good height and a decent depth of field to it- despite other obvious limitations. One such limitation occurred with regard to the Springs limited sense of expansiveness, which seemed perpetually held bac, in its scope, by the restricted width of the sound field. Having said that, transients were notably terrific. Imaging was also accurate, and, notably, above average, while the auditory plane appeared rather flat as one would expect. Layering capabilities were enjoyable within the space it created, but separation, which, although sufficient on most music, did suffer on busier tracks, and sonics did appear to become jumbled with increasing musical complexity.

In contrast, vocal clarity and articulation was quite impressive. Although only mildly forward in nature, the Spring’s vocals were exceptionally precise, well separated, still appeared isolated from the rest of the mix. If you ever wanted to know exactly what an artist is saying on a particular track, this would be set to listen to it on, in order to figure it out.



Which brings me to my last point on the Spring. Others have claimed that the Spring presents a monitor-like sound, and outside of its mild aggression in the mids, I’d have to agree. For the most part, these did deliver sonics that were mostly monitor-like, but they were also true to the recording; for the better, or for the worse, that interpretation would be up to you. Like most other monitors I have auditioned, details were present and well articulated; however, general resolution was only good for the price, but not class-leading; and the Spring's dry, brisk, and airy presentation lent itself to some murkiness at times.

In the end, I do not want to sugarcoat it. There are some significant compromises to be found here; from the Spring’s limited sound-stage, to its tonality challenges and somewhat mid-forward nature, the Spring did leave me yearning for some additional musicality, in the end. Having said that, it is not a bad IEM by any imagination. It is mostly comfortable to wear, and it comes with a nice accessory package; even if I did not like the acoustics of the included cable variant that I selected, and I would ultimately recommend against it. Still, from a sound perspective, part of me almost regrets purchasing these, but they, nevertheless, image well, have terrific transients, and have a magically, dynamic low-end, which just sounds right to my ear. The vocal presentation is also executed exceedingly well to boot, and it is nice to have a monitor IEM in the collection. Those who prioritize vocals, a unique low-end, and a monitor-like sound may want to take note of the Reecho and Peacock Spring Day, even despite some of its aforementioned misgivings or other draw-backs to consider.



*Gold Note DS-10 available at: https://gestalt.audio/

InToit Reviews YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDhV3KByLSY2roqZ2aQ0XKg
InToit Reviews Twitter: https://twitter.com/IntoitReviews
InToit Reviews Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/intoitreviews/
Join the InToit Reviews Discord Server: https://discord.gg/tePQKfT
InToit Reviews Blog: www.intoitreviews.com

Hey everyone! Welcome back to the Neighborhood. It’s Your Friendly Neighborhood Reviewer with InToit Reviews. Today we’re taking a look at two earphones, the CCA C10 Pro and the KZ ZAX, which share many similarities, yet ultimately, in the end, are very different. The moral of the story is that slight adjustments can make all the difference.

So, let’s get InToit!



Disclaimer: Per usual, Linsoul has provided the products to me, but they have not tried to influence my review otherwise, and all views, comments, and opinions are my own.

KZ ZAX: https://www.linsoul.com/collections/all/products/kz-zax
CCA C10 Pro: https://www.linsoul.com/products/cca-c10-pro



So, let’s begin by discussing what these two IEMs have in common. CCA is a sub-brand of KZ, so these two earphones share a manufacturer. They’re also both hybrid IEMs consisting of a variety of balanced armatures and dynamic low-end driver. The ZAX tops out a 7 BAs and 1 DD, while the C10 Pro consists of 4 balanced armatures and 1 DD. More specifically, the low-end in each earphone is handled by a 10mm dual-magnetic, large, dynamic driver.



Other aspects of build quality are also very similar. The shells are composed of a plastic cavities and metal, alloy faceplates. The ZAX metal faceplate is comprised of Zinc Alloy, while the C10 Pro’s faceplate is composed of Aluminum. Both IEMs wear comfortably in my ear, but the ZAX’s corners are more rounded, and much, less sharp compared to the C10 Pro’s angular, somewhat pointy, edges. While the boundaries of neither earphone touch my ears, the sharp edges of the CCA may be uncomfortable for those who have more unique shaped ears whose outer ear may encroach more upon the metal faceplate.



Both earphones also sport KZ’s new, clear-style cables; which are softer to the touch and a general joy to use after years of terrible KZ cables. Each IEM initiates in a QDC connection, has an in-line microphone, and terminates in a right-angled unbalanced connection. However; the ZAX’s y-split and termination take a very traditional KZ shape, while the CCA’s cable’s y-split is more unique, and it ends in a conventionally rounded, right-angled termination instead. One thing to note, about this variance in termination, is that the CCA cable may fit more universally into 3.5 mm socket on phone or tablet cases, as I have had some fit issues with the shallow, angular termination of KZ cables in the past.



With regard to their global frequency responses, again, both earphones appear somewhat similar- at least on paper. In fact, after initial sound impressions, I could barely tell these two apart! However, after short, critical, listening sessions with each, it became very apparent that each set has its strengths and its weaknesses, and they, most likely, will appeal to different audiophiles.


(ZAX FR pictured on top; C10 Pro FR pictured on bottom)

Although slightly more detailed, the ZAX is also the more subdued of the pair. It is limited with regard to transients and decay. It is dark in the traditional sense, meaning that it lacks treble extension. Top-end intensity, brilliance, and sparkle is also simply lacking, which is surprising, as, given its moniker, as the “ZAX.” I expected the ZAX to be somewhat of a follow-up to the ZSX, which is a fairly intense experience- to say the least! Instead, the ZAX is somewhat lifeless in comparison. However; like the ZSX, the stage of the ZAX is pretty average, at best, and fairly restricted in its presentation for the most part. But unlike the ZSX, I find layering, distinctiveness, and separation inadequate for an earphone in this price-range. The ZAX is somewhat claustrophobic, lacking in air, cohesiveness, dimensionality, and generally cluttered on busier tracks.



The tone of the ZAX is mildly warm, but also on the drier and duller side of things. Timbre is subtly artificial, and largely, overly smoothed-over. Its bass is somewhat sloppy, and bleeds into the lower mid-range as it swells. Yet somehow, I still found the bass to be missing a certain amount of presence, even when it was acoustically elevated on a number of tracks. I’m not saying that the bass level lacks representation, the bass is simply just “lifeless,” I guess. And, when I think about it, it brings to mind the image of a flopping fish, out of the water, on a muddy river bank.



Additionally, the character of the mids are somewhat recessed, particularly in the lower mid-range, and they often lack sufficient energy to engage their listener. Of particular note, the lower mids simply drops out too much for me on these for me to derive any kind of enjoyment from listening to the ZAX.

I tried experimenting with tips for the ZAX, and while SpinFit CP100s were my preference, for this set, they far from save it. The included KZ Starline tips are a nice inclusion in the package here, as the are some of KZ’s nicer tips, but I ultimately found that they further darkened the sound, limited the treble, and contributed to the already lifeless, bloated bass.



In contrast, although it measures similarly, the CCA C10 Pro appears to be precisely elevated in its frequency response in just all-the-right places. While this set also suffers somewhat from limited, lower mid-range presence as well with certain music, I found it acoustically more tolerable to my ear than in the ZAX. In comparison, the upper mid-range is sufficiently forward, and peripheral details are excellent. Imaging capabilities are beyond average for the price-point- both with regard to imaging placement and instrument distinctiveness. Layer is also above average. I particularly enjoyed the C10 Pro’s layered presentation on Hailee Steinfeld’s “Hell Nos and Headphones.” The soundstage has a lot of depth to it, and even more width. Especially with regard to its peripherals.

Vocals isolate fairly well, and provider a good center image that is decently large in comparison the rest of the mix. They are neither too far forward, nor to far recessed- for both female and male vocalists.



The CCA C10 Pro might not be class leading with regard to details and resolution, and there is some mild treble glare, but they were right up there with the best of them, especially amongst KZ’s that I have tested to date. They are more detailed, and have greater resolution compared to the KZ ZS10 Pro, but are less detailed than a ZSX. Having said that, the CCA C10 Pro is less fatiguing, compared to the ZSX, has a more expansive soundstage, and is generally more pleasing in its presentation; which is more pleasant to listen to across a wider variety of music.



Unlike the ZAX, which appears disparate and somewhat unbalanced to my ears, cohesion is a strength for the CCA C10 Pro. Overall timbre is warm, but there is also pretty decent treble extension here. The treble presentation on the CCA C10 Pro possesses as a certain amount of air to it, which adds to its uniqueness in this price-range and enhances its enjoyability. Transients and decay are also excellent for the price-range. The CCA C10 Pro seems to delicately whisper in your ears on certain tracks. Nevertheless, I should note that the treble was a bit thin with stock tips, but this was easily rectified by switching to either KZ Starline or Final Type E Tips; the later of which I preferred best for this set.

The bass has a good amount of warmth to it, without ever really being overdone. Most of the time, the bass level is appropriate in its presentation, but it also can have surprising amount of extension to it, when it needs it, as its dig relatively deep at times as well. Yet, there is more mid-bass emphasis here than sub-bass, which is generally not my preference, but because of this, dynamics are punchy, impactful, and resolve relatively quickly.



In summary, the CCA C10 Pro is a great all-around earphone with good extension at both ends. It is smooth, bassy when it needs to be, and is restrained and tightens up when additional low-end is unwarranted. Its strengths lie it its open, airy, and articulate character. In contrast, the ZAX lacks treble extension and cohesion, is stuffy, and it blooms in an unpleasing manner. To my ear the more expensive KZ ZAX at $60 dollars is boring and lifeless, while the less expensive CCA C10 Pro at $41 is engaging and expressive. While I’m sure there is more going on here, I am left astounded, exclaiming in amazement; “What a difference slight bumps in the frequency response can make!”- at least in this case.

InToit Reviews YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDhV3KByLSY2roqZ2aQ0XKg
InToit Reviews Twitter: https://twitter.com/IntoitReviews
InToit Reviews Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/intoitreviews/
InToit Reviews Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/intoitreviews
InToit Reviews Blog Post: https://www.intoitreviews.com/post/...ro-a-tale-of-slight-and-important-adjustments
InToit Reviews blog: www.intoitreviews.com