Reviews by KillerLab
64Audio U4s Review
Prelude:
64Audio is probably amongst the most famed IEM manufacturers as of today. Not only are they are a popular brand amongst audiophiles, they also make custom monitors for some of the most renowned artists and producers out there. Personally I’ve tried the U12t, U6t, Duo, Fourté Blanc, yet, save for the U12t, none of them have truly impressed me. To me, their products mostly still stay within the realm of “luxury”. While their IEMs are actually all good, or even fantastic, they simply don’t have a high price-to-performance ratio. Even for the U12t, while it’s still amongst the best of the 185+ IEMs I’ve tried, it’s 2000 USD price tag is also too hard to swallow for me. Can the U4s, 64Audio’s newest and most inexpensive UIEM, change my thoughts on this brand and their products?
Unboxing:
64Audio’s unboxings are boring to a point where I don’t really want to take photos of them. IEM, in a plain, black magnetic-latched cardboard box, with a sleeve on top. Yep, that’s about it. Little presentation, little excitement. Just another day, another IEM box into the bin. Within its price brackets, I’ve seen a lot better. Take a look at the EA Gaea’s box, it at least has an entire face that is embossed in gold, having a fancy pattern resembling that of the Mother of Earth. Or the SoftEars Turii, which has a twisting mechanism that unlocks the IEMs, fitting the overall design theme. Or the Elysian Diva, which is neatly packed into a cube with multiple layers for you to explore. Heck, even some cheaper IEMs, such as the MoonDrop Variations and the Tanchjim Prism, have better organization and more interesting layouts. The worst thing is that the U4s shares literally the same box as the Duo, U6t and the Nio, while their high end IEMs (U12t, U18s/t, Trio, Fourté) share a larger, but equally boring box. At these high price points, I do think manufacturers should try making their customers feel like they’re getting their money’s worth. Unfortunately, 64Audio doesn’t make me feel like I just dropped 1100 USD on an earphone.
Accessories and Build Quality:
At least the accessories themselves are not bad. You get a 3.5mm “Black Premium Cable”, a leather case, 3 different types of eartips, 3 sizes each, apex modules (mX, m20, m15 is preinstalled on the IEM), a shirt clip and a cleaning tool.
The cable itself is relatively soft, but still kinks and has some microphonics. The y-split, and the termination shells are made out of aluminum, while the pin cases are made out of injection-molded plastic. No machining marks or imperfections are observed on the cable, making this a decent stock cable. My biggest gripe is only having the 3.5mm option at check-out, thus the end-user has to pay more to get a balanced cable. I even asked 64Audio directly whether it was possible to directly ship me a U4s reterminated to 4.4, the answer was unfortunately, no.
The three different eartips are regular silicone, TrueFidelity foam, and SpinFits. The silicone tips are worth mentioning for their atrocious design. First of all, it’s incredibly thin, so thin to a point where it constantly breaks seal (basically 7 out of 10 times I fit this, it doesn’t seal). Then the surface texture is also pretty poor. In those rare times I am able to get a good seal, I can’t use these tips for more than half an hour, when my ear canals start to feel warm. Back to the drawing board, 64 Audio. The foam tips are not bad, even though I can’t find any justification for their 15 dollar price tag (MoonDrop’s MIS-Tip T41 does basically everything these “TrueFidelity” tips do, but for half the price). The SpinFits are honestly the best match for 64 Audio UIEMs, not only are they able to fit the abnormally-long nozzles, the material and thickness are all well-controlled for a good fit and seal. Too bad that they don’t sell these smoke-grey CP-100s anywhere else
The stock case is made out of simulation leather, with nice handfeel. Unfortunately the build on this case isn’t as good as I thought. The 64Audio isn’t stamped in the middle, some of the threading is loose, the edges where the leather strips connect with each other feels a bit rough, and the case itself takes quite a lot of force to open. To the very least, I don’t think this is 49.99 USD levels of good.
The apex modules are made out of machined aluminum, are color-coded and have two rubber rings that seal it within the socket on the earphone. It is hard to believe that a tiny piece smaller than that of my pinky fingernail is worth 100 bucks retail, so try not to lose them! (Editor’s note 9/4/2023: I discovered that one of the m15 modules has a bent edge, not sure if this is due to usage or a manufacturing defect, but definitely do also be beware that these tiny aluminum barrels are quite delicate)
The earpieces themselves are crafted out of sandblasted aluminum, and have a “Slate Blue” paint along with a faceplate inspired by the “Muonionalusta” meteorite (in reality, they look very much like carbon fiber fragments). Personally I think the overall is quite sleek, but also a bit understated, as the faceplate patterns are not very visible, unless under bright light. But the build quality on the earpiece is a bit middling in my opinion, as I believe that build quality isn’t just the selection of materials, but the texture and evenness of the finishing. The part where the nozzle meets the filter is quite rough, as observable small pieces of plastic are sticking out. The faceplate cover is just slightly larger than the body, thus there is this gap at the seam. Rough machining marks are observed, especially at the transition between the nozzle and the main body. And this isn’t just a problem with my personal unit, both demo units I tried in the past have the exact same build issues stated above. I have seen 64Audio CIEMs, and they are quite impressive in terms of build, tidy internals, no observable bubbles within the resin, smooth polishing everywhere… Not sure why their UIEMs have build quality issues I totally didn’t expect at this price. :|
Overall, I can say that I am not impressed with the build of the U4s and its accessories, maybe even a bit disappointed.
Fit:
I might be amongst the only few people on the planet who don’t like the fit of 64Audio UIEMs. My ears are more wide than tall, thus am able to fit fat IEMs like the SoftEars Turii, Cerberus etc., MoonDrop Solis 2, the Vision Ears Elysium, EXT and the Oriolus Traillii with absolutely no problem. But 64Audio’s UIEM design touches my antihelix, causing slight discomfort over time. I think if they added a larger radius to the fillets around the edges facing the ear, these problems might be alleviated. Another potential point of concern is how the vent of the dynamic driver is at the top of the shell, thus due to everybody’s unique ear anatomy, some ears might block this vent and change the bass response. As always, try before you buy.
*Editor’s Note: 9/17/23, after swapping out to the Null Audio Epsilon cable, the fit of the IEM noticeably improved, no more antihelix fatigue. This is because the earhook on the stock cable is far too narrow, thus pulling the IEM into the shallower/narrower parts of my ear. By using a wider earhook (such as the Epsilon’s), the earphone now seats itself in the widest part of my ear, thus eliminating the sense of fatigue generated by the IEM pushing against the ear.
Equipment:
DAC/Amps: LP W2 & W4EX, Shanling H5, iBasso DX170, Tanchjim Space, ddHiFi TC44C (Blue)
Cable: MoonDrop PURE6 / Null Audio Epsilon (both terminated in 4.4mm)
Tips: Eletech Baroque, SoftEars U.C.
apex Module: (primarily) m15
The U4s is an earphone that is very easy to drive. Phone direct outputs can drive it well-beyond recommended listening levels, nevertheless, dongles.
Above is the Frequency Response, and Channel Matching of the U4s, generated by a Clone 711 Rig, tested at 104dB SPL. Green for Left, Red for Right. In general, the U4s sports fairly good channel matching with the Left/Right earpieces matching each other closely with a difference of <1dB for most of the audible range. The maximum discrepancy is at 16.13kHz, with a difference of 1.4dB, although treble measurements are not reliable. Thus, the listener shouldn't be able to discern channel imbalance during regular listening. This shows 64 Audio's high acoustic standards and quality.
Tonality:
Well, what is the point of any audio review without talking about sound quality?
On this front, at least, the U4s delivers.
And its most eye-catching, or should it be ear-catching, aspect is its bass. The U4s’ bass is nothing short of exemplary. It slams, it rumbles, it has decay, plenty of it, and to top it all off, you can change the bass response’s magnitude. Yet further analysis shows that the U4s is slightly different from most of the top-quality bass responses I’ve heard thus far. It is somewhat soft in that it doesn’t slam as hard, rather it makes this up with more rumble and growl, creating a somewhat more meaty and thick bass response. Yet, if too much slam is sacrificed for density, you end up with dirty bass, or even worse, a sense of bloat. The U4s is devoid of bloat by striking a delicate balance between the two metrics. And it has fantastic levels of control that makes every drum kick sound precise, detailed and earth-shaking. The U4s earns a full score of 10 from me for bass. It is not only amongst the best within its price point, it is amongst the best I’ve heard, and has a special flavor to it that just makes things even more interesting. (All based off the m15)
The bass response can be changed via the apex modules, which also change the isolation levels. The mX module (black) offers the least isolation and least bass, while the m20 module (silver) has the opposite. The m15, despite having isolation levels in between the two, has a bass response very similar to the m20 (about 1-2 dB less). Unfortunately, the m12 module that was featured in many reviews and early units, was not shipped to me (I think this might be an early-bird promotion item that was in limited quantities). But telling from frequency response graphs, it creates a bass response that is right in between the m15 and the mX. The mX module creates the cleanest sound out of them all, making the U4s sound like an IEM that is primarily focused on the upper harmonics. I can imagine that the m12 is similar to this, but has some extra energy in the low-end to balance everything out. The m20, despite with a seemingly-negligible 2dB increase, does actually create an even punchier bass, although its tradeoff is that notes may, at times, sound a bit fat or excessively large. While as a big basshead myself, I definitely do prefer the m15 or the m20, but having the option to choose what sound you like for what genre, is definitely a big plus, especially for an IEM that has a versatile sound signature to boot.
The mids on the U4s are a bit plainer in my opinion. While the lower-mids are relatively clean (and can be even cleaner if you use a less-isolating apex module), the upper-mids have an early peak at around 2.15 kHz, followed by a 3.3kHz dip. On first listen, the U4s sounded relatively natural to my ears, but further A/B testing and analysis made me feel like something was always slightly lacking. That something is transparency, not in the sense of raw detail retrieval, but of simply how vocals stand out from the rest of the mix. This does make vocals sound a bit dull, powerless and generally smoothed over. It’s not only the U4s, but many similarly-tuned monitors, such as the SA6 (OG & MkII), MEST MkII, and most other 64Audio UIEMs, exhibit these very traits. While I do understand why this tuning is chosen for the U4s and all the other monitors mentioned (to reduce shoutiness and create a more laid-back tone), I am not its biggest fan. 8 out of 10, as while it does sound neutral enough, it is not an embodiment of excellent nevertheless perfect mids for me.
The treble on the U4s is quite polarizing too. To put it simply, it is uneven. A peak at 4.5kHz, a dip at 5.5kHz, some elevation at 6 to 10kHz, then a massive treble spike at 16kHz. Yep, all of this makes the U4s stray far away from the descriptor: neutral. But beyond slapping generic terms to describe the U4s’ treble, it is quite hard to correctly pinpoint what it exactly does. The 4.5kHz peak adds some harshness to vocals, the 6-10kHz elevation and the 16kHz spike generates the sense of snap and pushes forward treble detail. Yet, the 5.5kHz dip kills sibilance, while the 12k – 14k basin does occasionally make the reverb of instruments sound a bit smoothened. However, there is no denial that the U4s has excellent extension, and thus a lot of air. It’s decay function is also interesting, in that there are some extra trails behind notes, despite its sharp attack, giving this refreshing treble texture that I have yet to hear in most other IEMs. To sum it all up, it is an interesting yet colored tuning, that can be fatiguing at times, 8 out of 10. People around me either love or hate this tuning. Those who love it say it’s because the sheer air and detail the U4s generates exceeds lots of expectations at this price point and for a single BA. Those who hate it say it’s because the treble sounds too unnatural, almost like broken glass shards: so excessively sharp to a point where fatigue turns into pain. As always, try before you buy, this might be the very sound you’ve been looking for, or might be one that is definitely not your cup of tea.
Timbre on the U4s is generally quite good. Despite being a BA-DD hybrid, I don’t hear a lot of the maligned BA timbre that plagues most IEMs of the same architecture. However, due to the significant treble peaks, the U4s’ timbre does have a noticeable metallic edge, especially for hi-hats. Another issue with the U4s’ timbre is coherency. While the bass is exceptionally meaty with lots of decay, the mids and treble have quicker transients and thinner note weight, thus making the sound feel a bit disjointed. Overall, the U4s retains a relatively good timbre, 8 out of 10.
The tonal balance of the U4s is not exceptional in that I don’t quite feel like every frequency band is complementing each other. It’s bassy, laid-back, and peaky all at the very same time. Yet, this is also why the U4s is unique. It is a daring IEM that pursues a sound that few have tried to implement, and it does it fairly well.
And it has the technicalities to back everything up.
Not one IEM from 64Audio’s lineup sounds compressed, and the U4s maintains this trend. I daresay that it handles dynamics even better than some of its more expensive brothers (namely the U6t, which I found to be a bit flat). Macrodynamics on the U4s are exemplary, notes sounds explosive and alive. I think this is partially because of its generous extensions on both ends. What’s interesting is that its midrange, despite being fairly recessed, still sounds relatively dynamic (as recessions often cause a decreased perception of dynamics). The U4s’ dynamics are interesting in its own way, of how it has this sense of excursiveness behind notes, which makes them sound slightly larger than life. Microdynamics are just as good. Microdetails are incredibly well-defined and have large gradations of volume. I presume that the tia treble has quite a lot of influence in the perception of said microdetails, as it presents high-frequency notes with an exaggerated sense of snap and crispiness. Overall, I am satisfied if not even impressed by the dynamic range the U4s is capable of presenting. 10 out of 10.
Excellent imaging is also a trait of 64Audio IEMs. Large soundstage, incredible layering and positional accuracy, great diffusal and height… the U4s has them all. However, I don’t think the U4s’ imaging performance is better than its 64Audio brethren. The U12t definitely pushes further on all of the aspects mentioned above, the Duo has more space between instruments, and the U6t has slightly better positional accuracy. Nevertheless, the U4s’ imaging performance is great, 9 out of 10.
Resolution is another strong suit of the U4s. Although its bass and mid resolution is particularly outstanding, the treble that is powered by the tia driver is incredibly detailed. All notes, especially percussions have excellent snap and definition. Yet, the tradeoff is that the treble can also be the most fatiguing part to listen to the U4s. Another observation I’ve made after tip-rolling, is that the deeper the insertion, the less treble detail, but at the same time, the smoother it gets, and thus, less fatiguing. I use a medium-shallow insertion which gets a lot of treble detail without overdoing it. The U4s’ resolution is competitive with other IEMs in its price bracket, even though its mid detail might be behind others. 9.5 out of 10, it is detailed enough for me.
Comparisons:
Effect Audio x Elysian Acoustic Labs: Gaea: out of the 185 IEMs I’ve heard, I still maintain that the Gaea is the best (that pool of 185 includes stuff such as the Trailli, Z1R, Phönix, U12t, Ronin, CP622B, Jewel, Rn6, Odin, Turii Ti, Loki, Trifecta, Fourté etc.) (I am still trying to find a chance to listen to the Storm and Elysian’s own Annihilator). The U4s definitely doesn’t hit my tonal preferences as close as the Gaea does, as it has a myriad of very minor tonal quirks that when added together, makes it sound slightly more colored. While the treble on both are all exceptionally well-extended and detailed, the Gaea’s doesn’t exhibit fatigue unlike the U4s. The mids on the Gaea are nothing short of beautiful, yet the U4s’ mids sounds a bit too laid back and somewhat dull. However, it’s the bass where the U4s eclipses the Gaea. The Gaea’s ultra-fast transients smears texture, while the U4s has lots of growl and rumble, bringing a much livelier, foot-tapping experience. In the technicalities department, the two start trading blows. Both are incredibly dynamic. The Gaea focuses more on microdynamics, while the U4s goes for macrodynamics. Both are very strong when it comes to imaging. The Gaea has outstanding layering and positional accuracy, while the U4s simply has a larger stage with better center imaging, height and depth. While the U4s’ resolution falls slightly behind that of the Gaea’s, it is no slouch. All in all, the U4s sounds like a wonkier, yet more exciting iteration of the Gaea’s mid/treble-focused sound.
SoftEars Twilight: Probably the hardest comparison I’ve come across, as these are two completely different IEMs. The Twilight is warm-neutral in that it has some treble roll-off, a massive soundstage, with slightly blunted transients to create a butter-smooth sound that I can listen for hours on end. The U4s has loads of upper-treble and sharp, well-defined transients. It is one of the last IEMs I’d associate warm and smooth with. I am someone who can wildly change their preferences, so I actually listen to both IEMs almost equally. On the non-sonic front, the Twilight’s accessories are better, the U.C. tips are great, the stock cable is terminated in 4.4, but comes with a 3.5 adapter, the leather case is built better, and the metal components have less flaws when compared to the U4s’.
Sennheiser IE 600: These two IEMs actually target a similar sound. Both are bassy, don’t have a lot of upper-mids, but have a peaky, yet very well-extended treble response. To top it all off, both are incredibly resolving and dynamic. However, I think that the U4s does most of these better than the IE 600. It’s bass is more prominent in the mix, its treble doesn’t induce sibilance, and is better technically (the IE 600’s imaging isn’t great, and its other aspects fall slightly behind that of the U4s). But do keep in mind, that now the IE 600 costs a bit more than half the price of the U4s (headphones.com sells this at 600 bucks, whereas the U4s costs 1100). Even though the presentation and accessories on both are all subpar, the IE 600’s shell fells quite unique and is better-finished than the U4s’.
MoonDrop Variations: I’ll maintain that the Variations still has amongst the most pleasing bass responses on the market as of today. I am more of a sub-bass person, so it hits my low-end preferences almost perfectly, perhaps only losing out to the top dogs, like the Z1R, in terms of control and speed. Against the U4s, I still think that the Variations has the upper hand. While the U4s does have a lot more mid-bass than the Variations, the Variations simply pounds a lot harder, and has ethereal levels of rumble, making it simply sound bassier, even if it doesn’t graph like so. The Variations’ mids follow MoonDrop’s traditional tuning, scientifically-boosted mids with maybe a dash of shout and thinness. The U4s’ is more of an antithesis of this, as it sounds a whole lot thicker and recessed. Then we move onto the treble. Even though the Variations’ treble is tokened by two 2nd-gen Sonion ESTs, they don’t sound quite like a true E-Stat, lacking in the airiness and detail I hear in over-ears, such as Stax’s stuff and the HE-90, even though it is a considerably smooth and fairly well-extended response, and is amongst the better EST implementations out there. Interestingly, the U4s sounds more like an E-Stat than the Variations, probably thanks to its tia driver, which generates that sense of air and detail the Variations lacks. In the intangibles, I do find the U4s to have generally better macrodynamics and treble detail retrieval, although I do think that the Variations has stronger positional accuracy. In the non-audio aspects, despite the Variations using a stainless steel faceplate and a solid resin body, it is significantly weightier than the U4s’ full aluminum shell (probably because 64 Audio uses thin aluminum). However, I did not observe any surface blemishes on the Variations, unlike the U4s.
64 Audio U12t: The U12t is amongst 64 Audio’s most well-known models, and amongst the oldest in their revised UIEM lineup. Many reviewers around me have given high praise to this model, especially for its all-rounder tonality, and top-class technicalities. Indeed, after hearing 2 different units and spending a few hours with them, I can conclude that the U12t is still a very strong contender in today’s high-end IEM market. The thing that struck me first was its surprisingly competent BA bass (often known for its soft and hollow attack, net-zero decay and lack of texture). As a basshead myself, it ticked most of the marks for a high-quality bass response, ultimately still lacking in a bit of decay and slam, but made up with its fantastic bass speed and resolution. The U4s’ bass essentially fixes the two aforementioned problems, giving it a meatier, denser bass response, but lacks the responsiveness I heard in the U12t’s BA bass. The mids are similar, but I think that the U12t’s vocals do pop out a bit more, probably because its bass isn’t as overly dominating to a point where it drags the listener’s attention away, unlike the U4s. Not to mention that the U12t’s midrange is amongst the most resolving out there. The treble on both are similar, but not exactly the same. I didn’t do a lot of very focused analysis on the U12t’s treble mostly because the 15-16k tia resonance peak was too distracting, the very peak a lot of 64 Audio UIEMs share. But from memory, the U12t’s treble was somewhat smoother than the U4s’. In terms of technicalities, the U12t is also steps ahead of the U4s, it has an even more expansive soundstage, better localization, and is significantly more resolving. The U12t is just better than the U4s in almost every way possible, yet also, costs near double the price. I am comparing the two not because I believe that the same customers that are looking at a U4s might buy a U12t, rather it is because I want to see how companies distinguish their products, from entry-level to high-end to flagship, and how they are able to justify the pricings/status, and on that front, I believe the U12t firmly justifies its status as one of the high-end models of 64 Audio.
64 Audio U6t: From memory, this was amongst the least-impressive 64Audio’s I’ve come across. Yes, it’s well-tuned, yes it’s relaxing and very easy on the ears, but the U6t sounds almost too flat. And that’s exactly why I think the U4s is significantly better than the U6t. It is a more versatile IEM in that it fits more genres, primarily due to its improved bass response, but also due to its tonal balance. My definition of tonal balance isn’t simply how good the overall tonality is, rather, it is how well each individual frequency band is and how they complement each other. In this regard, I think the U4s is more balanced than the U6t. The U6t doesn’t have a lot of bass (even though the FR suggests so), and isn’t as well-extended as the U4s, thus it creates this mid-focused sound, yet it doesn’t have quite a lot of mids to pull this signature off either, making it sound somewhat weird. The U4s has a slightly more recessed midrange, but has plenty of extension on both ends to make this type of sound signature work (V-shaped). In terms of tonality, I think the U4s is more preferable for my library. But in terms of technicalities, I think the U6t falls behind even more. Its dynamic contrast isn’t strong enough, oweing to its lack of extension. Its resolution isn’t as good as the U4s, probably due to its smoother treble and mid response which makes details harder to capture. Its staging is, however, better than the U4s, but not marginally so. The stage size, central imaging, and layering are all a small step ahead of the U4s. All in all, I don’t think the U6t is anyhow better than the U4s, despite its 200 buck price increase. In fact, I think its worse. My recommendation is: buy the U4s, its sounds better, looks better, and is cheaper.
64 Audio Duo: The Duo is an interesting IEM to the very least, unlike the U6t. It has a near-ethereal stage size, that outclasses most IEMs I’ve heard in its price category, including the U4s, however its tonality and the other technicalities don’t. Its resolution is more reminiscent of a 200-buck single-DD, its dynamics, while are good enough, still sound slightly compressed, its mids sound much more recessed than other 64Audios, its bass is great, but not on par with the U4s, and has the signature 64Audio tia treble (read: very spicy up top, but this time without a lot of resolution to pull it off well). While the Duo offers a cool faceplate design, and offers probably the golden isolation level of -12dB (just enough to not make you feel totally disconnected from the outside world), in terms of sound quality, the U4s is definitely the way to go.
64 Audio Fourté Blanc: Again, from memory, this is amongst the weirdest IEMs I’ve ever come across. The tonality of the Fourté Blanc simply sounds wrong. Its bass isn’t as impressive many other 64Audio IEMs like the U12t or the U4s, despite it being the Blanc’s marketing’s primary focus. To my ears, the 64Audio’s house bass sound sacrifices slam for meatiness and growl, but the Blanc’s bass goes down this path way too far. It doesn’t have slam, and due to its mild bass boost, doesn’t appear to have a lot of rumble either. Then the midrange… honestly, to this day, I am unable to really describe what I heard. It was just… awkward. There are unnecessary recessions that invokes this sense of hollowness and blandness. Whatever 64Audio is trying here isn’t working well for me. The treble at least isn’t as bad as the mids. It’s pretty bog-standard 64Audio tuning, myriads of treble peaks with the largest one being the 15k “tia” resonance. In general, the Blanc’s tuning is just confusing. It’s not particularly bassy, and has a mind-baffling midrange tuning, but at the same time, has a lot of treble? But at least the Blanc’s technicalities meet my expectations of a premium flagship. It has a stage that matches the moniker: “holographic” the closest, has top-tier resolution and good dynamics to back it up. Horrible tonality paired with endgame technicalities puts the Blanc in a very hard spot for me to assess. Enough of the Blanc mini-review, we’re here to compare it with the U4s. The U4s’ tonality is to the very least, listenable. It isn’t as bad as the Blanc. But in the technicalities department, the Blanc is definitely steps ahead of the U4s, yet this is expected when you are charging more than 3 times the price. New tia driver in place of a standard mid BA, “revolutionary” internal acoustic structure, updated internal wiring and solder, apparently better aluminum shells with ceramic coating, more premium cable, but 2600 USD more and with an eccentric tuning, I just don’t see it. Companies can do so well with their entry-level products, but then fall completely flat on their flagships that are supposed to represent their ultimate earphone tuning prowess. Do better 64 Audio, I hope that the next flagship isn’t a trainwreck like the Fourté series.
Prelude:
64Audio is probably amongst the most famed IEM manufacturers as of today. Not only are they are a popular brand amongst audiophiles, they also make custom monitors for some of the most renowned artists and producers out there. Personally I’ve tried the U12t, U6t, Duo, Fourté Blanc, yet, save for the U12t, none of them have truly impressed me. To me, their products mostly still stay within the realm of “luxury”. While their IEMs are actually all good, or even fantastic, they simply don’t have a high price-to-performance ratio. Even for the U12t, while it’s still amongst the best of the 185+ IEMs I’ve tried, it’s 2000 USD price tag is also too hard to swallow for me. Can the U4s, 64Audio’s newest and most inexpensive UIEM, change my thoughts on this brand and their products?
Unboxing:
64Audio’s unboxings are boring to a point where I don’t really want to take photos of them. IEM, in a plain, black magnetic-latched cardboard box, with a sleeve on top. Yep, that’s about it. Little presentation, little excitement. Just another day, another IEM box into the bin. Within its price brackets, I’ve seen a lot better. Take a look at the EA Gaea’s box, it at least has an entire face that is embossed in gold, having a fancy pattern resembling that of the Mother of Earth. Or the SoftEars Turii, which has a twisting mechanism that unlocks the IEMs, fitting the overall design theme. Or the Elysian Diva, which is neatly packed into a cube with multiple layers for you to explore. Heck, even some cheaper IEMs, such as the MoonDrop Variations and the Tanchjim Prism, have better organization and more interesting layouts. The worst thing is that the U4s shares literally the same box as the Duo, U6t and the Nio, while their high end IEMs (U12t, U18s/t, Trio, Fourté) share a larger, but equally boring box. At these high price points, I do think manufacturers should try making their customers feel like they’re getting their money’s worth. Unfortunately, 64Audio doesn’t make me feel like I just dropped 1100 USD on an earphone.
Accessories and Build Quality:
At least the accessories themselves are not bad. You get a 3.5mm “Black Premium Cable”, a leather case, 3 different types of eartips, 3 sizes each, apex modules (mX, m20, m15 is preinstalled on the IEM), a shirt clip and a cleaning tool.
The cable itself is relatively soft, but still kinks and has some microphonics. The y-split, and the termination shells are made out of aluminum, while the pin cases are made out of injection-molded plastic. No machining marks or imperfections are observed on the cable, making this a decent stock cable. My biggest gripe is only having the 3.5mm option at check-out, thus the end-user has to pay more to get a balanced cable. I even asked 64Audio directly whether it was possible to directly ship me a U4s reterminated to 4.4, the answer was unfortunately, no.
The three different eartips are regular silicone, TrueFidelity foam, and SpinFits. The silicone tips are worth mentioning for their atrocious design. First of all, it’s incredibly thin, so thin to a point where it constantly breaks seal (basically 7 out of 10 times I fit this, it doesn’t seal). Then the surface texture is also pretty poor. In those rare times I am able to get a good seal, I can’t use these tips for more than half an hour, when my ear canals start to feel warm. Back to the drawing board, 64 Audio. The foam tips are not bad, even though I can’t find any justification for their 15 dollar price tag (MoonDrop’s MIS-Tip T41 does basically everything these “TrueFidelity” tips do, but for half the price). The SpinFits are honestly the best match for 64 Audio UIEMs, not only are they able to fit the abnormally-long nozzles, the material and thickness are all well-controlled for a good fit and seal. Too bad that they don’t sell these smoke-grey CP-100s anywhere else
The stock case is made out of simulation leather, with nice handfeel. Unfortunately the build on this case isn’t as good as I thought. The 64Audio isn’t stamped in the middle, some of the threading is loose, the edges where the leather strips connect with each other feels a bit rough, and the case itself takes quite a lot of force to open. To the very least, I don’t think this is 49.99 USD levels of good.
The apex modules are made out of machined aluminum, are color-coded and have two rubber rings that seal it within the socket on the earphone. It is hard to believe that a tiny piece smaller than that of my pinky fingernail is worth 100 bucks retail, so try not to lose them! (Editor’s note 9/4/2023: I discovered that one of the m15 modules has a bent edge, not sure if this is due to usage or a manufacturing defect, but definitely do also be beware that these tiny aluminum barrels are quite delicate)
The earpieces themselves are crafted out of sandblasted aluminum, and have a “Slate Blue” paint along with a faceplate inspired by the “Muonionalusta” meteorite (in reality, they look very much like carbon fiber fragments). Personally I think the overall is quite sleek, but also a bit understated, as the faceplate patterns are not very visible, unless under bright light. But the build quality on the earpiece is a bit middling in my opinion, as I believe that build quality isn’t just the selection of materials, but the texture and evenness of the finishing. The part where the nozzle meets the filter is quite rough, as observable small pieces of plastic are sticking out. The faceplate cover is just slightly larger than the body, thus there is this gap at the seam. Rough machining marks are observed, especially at the transition between the nozzle and the main body. And this isn’t just a problem with my personal unit, both demo units I tried in the past have the exact same build issues stated above. I have seen 64Audio CIEMs, and they are quite impressive in terms of build, tidy internals, no observable bubbles within the resin, smooth polishing everywhere… Not sure why their UIEMs have build quality issues I totally didn’t expect at this price. :|
Overall, I can say that I am not impressed with the build of the U4s and its accessories, maybe even a bit disappointed.
Fit:
I might be amongst the only few people on the planet who don’t like the fit of 64Audio UIEMs. My ears are more wide than tall, thus am able to fit fat IEMs like the SoftEars Turii, Cerberus etc., MoonDrop Solis 2, the Vision Ears Elysium, EXT and the Oriolus Traillii with absolutely no problem. But 64Audio’s UIEM design touches my antihelix, causing slight discomfort over time. I think if they added a larger radius to the fillets around the edges facing the ear, these problems might be alleviated. Another potential point of concern is how the vent of the dynamic driver is at the top of the shell, thus due to everybody’s unique ear anatomy, some ears might block this vent and change the bass response. As always, try before you buy.
*Editor’s Note: 9/17/23, after swapping out to the Null Audio Epsilon cable, the fit of the IEM noticeably improved, no more antihelix fatigue. This is because the earhook on the stock cable is far too narrow, thus pulling the IEM into the shallower/narrower parts of my ear. By using a wider earhook (such as the Epsilon’s), the earphone now seats itself in the widest part of my ear, thus eliminating the sense of fatigue generated by the IEM pushing against the ear.
Equipment:
DAC/Amps: LP W2 & W4EX, Shanling H5, iBasso DX170, Tanchjim Space, ddHiFi TC44C (Blue)
Cable: MoonDrop PURE6 / Null Audio Epsilon (both terminated in 4.4mm)
Tips: Eletech Baroque, SoftEars U.C.
apex Module: (primarily) m15
The U4s is an earphone that is very easy to drive. Phone direct outputs can drive it well-beyond recommended listening levels, nevertheless, dongles.
Above is the Frequency Response, and Channel Matching of the U4s, generated by a Clone 711 Rig, tested at 104dB SPL. Green for Left, Red for Right. In general, the U4s sports fairly good channel matching with the Left/Right earpieces matching each other closely with a difference of <1dB for most of the audible range. The maximum discrepancy is at 16.13kHz, with a difference of 1.4dB, although treble measurements are not reliable. Thus, the listener shouldn't be able to discern channel imbalance during regular listening. This shows 64 Audio's high acoustic standards and quality.
Tonality:
Well, what is the point of any audio review without talking about sound quality?
On this front, at least, the U4s delivers.
And its most eye-catching, or should it be ear-catching, aspect is its bass. The U4s’ bass is nothing short of exemplary. It slams, it rumbles, it has decay, plenty of it, and to top it all off, you can change the bass response’s magnitude. Yet further analysis shows that the U4s is slightly different from most of the top-quality bass responses I’ve heard thus far. It is somewhat soft in that it doesn’t slam as hard, rather it makes this up with more rumble and growl, creating a somewhat more meaty and thick bass response. Yet, if too much slam is sacrificed for density, you end up with dirty bass, or even worse, a sense of bloat. The U4s is devoid of bloat by striking a delicate balance between the two metrics. And it has fantastic levels of control that makes every drum kick sound precise, detailed and earth-shaking. The U4s earns a full score of 10 from me for bass. It is not only amongst the best within its price point, it is amongst the best I’ve heard, and has a special flavor to it that just makes things even more interesting. (All based off the m15)
The bass response can be changed via the apex modules, which also change the isolation levels. The mX module (black) offers the least isolation and least bass, while the m20 module (silver) has the opposite. The m15, despite having isolation levels in between the two, has a bass response very similar to the m20 (about 1-2 dB less). Unfortunately, the m12 module that was featured in many reviews and early units, was not shipped to me (I think this might be an early-bird promotion item that was in limited quantities). But telling from frequency response graphs, it creates a bass response that is right in between the m15 and the mX. The mX module creates the cleanest sound out of them all, making the U4s sound like an IEM that is primarily focused on the upper harmonics. I can imagine that the m12 is similar to this, but has some extra energy in the low-end to balance everything out. The m20, despite with a seemingly-negligible 2dB increase, does actually create an even punchier bass, although its tradeoff is that notes may, at times, sound a bit fat or excessively large. While as a big basshead myself, I definitely do prefer the m15 or the m20, but having the option to choose what sound you like for what genre, is definitely a big plus, especially for an IEM that has a versatile sound signature to boot.
The mids on the U4s are a bit plainer in my opinion. While the lower-mids are relatively clean (and can be even cleaner if you use a less-isolating apex module), the upper-mids have an early peak at around 2.15 kHz, followed by a 3.3kHz dip. On first listen, the U4s sounded relatively natural to my ears, but further A/B testing and analysis made me feel like something was always slightly lacking. That something is transparency, not in the sense of raw detail retrieval, but of simply how vocals stand out from the rest of the mix. This does make vocals sound a bit dull, powerless and generally smoothed over. It’s not only the U4s, but many similarly-tuned monitors, such as the SA6 (OG & MkII), MEST MkII, and most other 64Audio UIEMs, exhibit these very traits. While I do understand why this tuning is chosen for the U4s and all the other monitors mentioned (to reduce shoutiness and create a more laid-back tone), I am not its biggest fan. 8 out of 10, as while it does sound neutral enough, it is not an embodiment of excellent nevertheless perfect mids for me.
The treble on the U4s is quite polarizing too. To put it simply, it is uneven. A peak at 4.5kHz, a dip at 5.5kHz, some elevation at 6 to 10kHz, then a massive treble spike at 16kHz. Yep, all of this makes the U4s stray far away from the descriptor: neutral. But beyond slapping generic terms to describe the U4s’ treble, it is quite hard to correctly pinpoint what it exactly does. The 4.5kHz peak adds some harshness to vocals, the 6-10kHz elevation and the 16kHz spike generates the sense of snap and pushes forward treble detail. Yet, the 5.5kHz dip kills sibilance, while the 12k – 14k basin does occasionally make the reverb of instruments sound a bit smoothened. However, there is no denial that the U4s has excellent extension, and thus a lot of air. It’s decay function is also interesting, in that there are some extra trails behind notes, despite its sharp attack, giving this refreshing treble texture that I have yet to hear in most other IEMs. To sum it all up, it is an interesting yet colored tuning, that can be fatiguing at times, 8 out of 10. People around me either love or hate this tuning. Those who love it say it’s because the sheer air and detail the U4s generates exceeds lots of expectations at this price point and for a single BA. Those who hate it say it’s because the treble sounds too unnatural, almost like broken glass shards: so excessively sharp to a point where fatigue turns into pain. As always, try before you buy, this might be the very sound you’ve been looking for, or might be one that is definitely not your cup of tea.
Timbre on the U4s is generally quite good. Despite being a BA-DD hybrid, I don’t hear a lot of the maligned BA timbre that plagues most IEMs of the same architecture. However, due to the significant treble peaks, the U4s’ timbre does have a noticeable metallic edge, especially for hi-hats. Another issue with the U4s’ timbre is coherency. While the bass is exceptionally meaty with lots of decay, the mids and treble have quicker transients and thinner note weight, thus making the sound feel a bit disjointed. Overall, the U4s retains a relatively good timbre, 8 out of 10.
The tonal balance of the U4s is not exceptional in that I don’t quite feel like every frequency band is complementing each other. It’s bassy, laid-back, and peaky all at the very same time. Yet, this is also why the U4s is unique. It is a daring IEM that pursues a sound that few have tried to implement, and it does it fairly well.
And it has the technicalities to back everything up.
Not one IEM from 64Audio’s lineup sounds compressed, and the U4s maintains this trend. I daresay that it handles dynamics even better than some of its more expensive brothers (namely the U6t, which I found to be a bit flat). Macrodynamics on the U4s are exemplary, notes sounds explosive and alive. I think this is partially because of its generous extensions on both ends. What’s interesting is that its midrange, despite being fairly recessed, still sounds relatively dynamic (as recessions often cause a decreased perception of dynamics). The U4s’ dynamics are interesting in its own way, of how it has this sense of excursiveness behind notes, which makes them sound slightly larger than life. Microdynamics are just as good. Microdetails are incredibly well-defined and have large gradations of volume. I presume that the tia treble has quite a lot of influence in the perception of said microdetails, as it presents high-frequency notes with an exaggerated sense of snap and crispiness. Overall, I am satisfied if not even impressed by the dynamic range the U4s is capable of presenting. 10 out of 10.
Excellent imaging is also a trait of 64Audio IEMs. Large soundstage, incredible layering and positional accuracy, great diffusal and height… the U4s has them all. However, I don’t think the U4s’ imaging performance is better than its 64Audio brethren. The U12t definitely pushes further on all of the aspects mentioned above, the Duo has more space between instruments, and the U6t has slightly better positional accuracy. Nevertheless, the U4s’ imaging performance is great, 9 out of 10.
Resolution is another strong suit of the U4s. Although its bass and mid resolution is particularly outstanding, the treble that is powered by the tia driver is incredibly detailed. All notes, especially percussions have excellent snap and definition. Yet, the tradeoff is that the treble can also be the most fatiguing part to listen to the U4s. Another observation I’ve made after tip-rolling, is that the deeper the insertion, the less treble detail, but at the same time, the smoother it gets, and thus, less fatiguing. I use a medium-shallow insertion which gets a lot of treble detail without overdoing it. The U4s’ resolution is competitive with other IEMs in its price bracket, even though its mid detail might be behind others. 9.5 out of 10, it is detailed enough for me.
Comparisons:
Effect Audio x Elysian Acoustic Labs: Gaea: out of the 185 IEMs I’ve heard, I still maintain that the Gaea is the best (that pool of 185 includes stuff such as the Trailli, Z1R, Phönix, U12t, Ronin, CP622B, Jewel, Rn6, Odin, Turii Ti, Loki, Trifecta, Fourté etc.) (I am still trying to find a chance to listen to the Storm and Elysian’s own Annihilator). The U4s definitely doesn’t hit my tonal preferences as close as the Gaea does, as it has a myriad of very minor tonal quirks that when added together, makes it sound slightly more colored. While the treble on both are all exceptionally well-extended and detailed, the Gaea’s doesn’t exhibit fatigue unlike the U4s. The mids on the Gaea are nothing short of beautiful, yet the U4s’ mids sounds a bit too laid back and somewhat dull. However, it’s the bass where the U4s eclipses the Gaea. The Gaea’s ultra-fast transients smears texture, while the U4s has lots of growl and rumble, bringing a much livelier, foot-tapping experience. In the technicalities department, the two start trading blows. Both are incredibly dynamic. The Gaea focuses more on microdynamics, while the U4s goes for macrodynamics. Both are very strong when it comes to imaging. The Gaea has outstanding layering and positional accuracy, while the U4s simply has a larger stage with better center imaging, height and depth. While the U4s’ resolution falls slightly behind that of the Gaea’s, it is no slouch. All in all, the U4s sounds like a wonkier, yet more exciting iteration of the Gaea’s mid/treble-focused sound.
SoftEars Twilight: Probably the hardest comparison I’ve come across, as these are two completely different IEMs. The Twilight is warm-neutral in that it has some treble roll-off, a massive soundstage, with slightly blunted transients to create a butter-smooth sound that I can listen for hours on end. The U4s has loads of upper-treble and sharp, well-defined transients. It is one of the last IEMs I’d associate warm and smooth with. I am someone who can wildly change their preferences, so I actually listen to both IEMs almost equally. On the non-sonic front, the Twilight’s accessories are better, the U.C. tips are great, the stock cable is terminated in 4.4, but comes with a 3.5 adapter, the leather case is built better, and the metal components have less flaws when compared to the U4s’.
Sennheiser IE 600: These two IEMs actually target a similar sound. Both are bassy, don’t have a lot of upper-mids, but have a peaky, yet very well-extended treble response. To top it all off, both are incredibly resolving and dynamic. However, I think that the U4s does most of these better than the IE 600. It’s bass is more prominent in the mix, its treble doesn’t induce sibilance, and is better technically (the IE 600’s imaging isn’t great, and its other aspects fall slightly behind that of the U4s). But do keep in mind, that now the IE 600 costs a bit more than half the price of the U4s (headphones.com sells this at 600 bucks, whereas the U4s costs 1100). Even though the presentation and accessories on both are all subpar, the IE 600’s shell fells quite unique and is better-finished than the U4s’.
MoonDrop Variations: I’ll maintain that the Variations still has amongst the most pleasing bass responses on the market as of today. I am more of a sub-bass person, so it hits my low-end preferences almost perfectly, perhaps only losing out to the top dogs, like the Z1R, in terms of control and speed. Against the U4s, I still think that the Variations has the upper hand. While the U4s does have a lot more mid-bass than the Variations, the Variations simply pounds a lot harder, and has ethereal levels of rumble, making it simply sound bassier, even if it doesn’t graph like so. The Variations’ mids follow MoonDrop’s traditional tuning, scientifically-boosted mids with maybe a dash of shout and thinness. The U4s’ is more of an antithesis of this, as it sounds a whole lot thicker and recessed. Then we move onto the treble. Even though the Variations’ treble is tokened by two 2nd-gen Sonion ESTs, they don’t sound quite like a true E-Stat, lacking in the airiness and detail I hear in over-ears, such as Stax’s stuff and the HE-90, even though it is a considerably smooth and fairly well-extended response, and is amongst the better EST implementations out there. Interestingly, the U4s sounds more like an E-Stat than the Variations, probably thanks to its tia driver, which generates that sense of air and detail the Variations lacks. In the intangibles, I do find the U4s to have generally better macrodynamics and treble detail retrieval, although I do think that the Variations has stronger positional accuracy. In the non-audio aspects, despite the Variations using a stainless steel faceplate and a solid resin body, it is significantly weightier than the U4s’ full aluminum shell (probably because 64 Audio uses thin aluminum). However, I did not observe any surface blemishes on the Variations, unlike the U4s.
64 Audio U12t: The U12t is amongst 64 Audio’s most well-known models, and amongst the oldest in their revised UIEM lineup. Many reviewers around me have given high praise to this model, especially for its all-rounder tonality, and top-class technicalities. Indeed, after hearing 2 different units and spending a few hours with them, I can conclude that the U12t is still a very strong contender in today’s high-end IEM market. The thing that struck me first was its surprisingly competent BA bass (often known for its soft and hollow attack, net-zero decay and lack of texture). As a basshead myself, it ticked most of the marks for a high-quality bass response, ultimately still lacking in a bit of decay and slam, but made up with its fantastic bass speed and resolution. The U4s’ bass essentially fixes the two aforementioned problems, giving it a meatier, denser bass response, but lacks the responsiveness I heard in the U12t’s BA bass. The mids are similar, but I think that the U12t’s vocals do pop out a bit more, probably because its bass isn’t as overly dominating to a point where it drags the listener’s attention away, unlike the U4s. Not to mention that the U12t’s midrange is amongst the most resolving out there. The treble on both are similar, but not exactly the same. I didn’t do a lot of very focused analysis on the U12t’s treble mostly because the 15-16k tia resonance peak was too distracting, the very peak a lot of 64 Audio UIEMs share. But from memory, the U12t’s treble was somewhat smoother than the U4s’. In terms of technicalities, the U12t is also steps ahead of the U4s, it has an even more expansive soundstage, better localization, and is significantly more resolving. The U12t is just better than the U4s in almost every way possible, yet also, costs near double the price. I am comparing the two not because I believe that the same customers that are looking at a U4s might buy a U12t, rather it is because I want to see how companies distinguish their products, from entry-level to high-end to flagship, and how they are able to justify the pricings/status, and on that front, I believe the U12t firmly justifies its status as one of the high-end models of 64 Audio.
64 Audio U6t: From memory, this was amongst the least-impressive 64Audio’s I’ve come across. Yes, it’s well-tuned, yes it’s relaxing and very easy on the ears, but the U6t sounds almost too flat. And that’s exactly why I think the U4s is significantly better than the U6t. It is a more versatile IEM in that it fits more genres, primarily due to its improved bass response, but also due to its tonal balance. My definition of tonal balance isn’t simply how good the overall tonality is, rather, it is how well each individual frequency band is and how they complement each other. In this regard, I think the U4s is more balanced than the U6t. The U6t doesn’t have a lot of bass (even though the FR suggests so), and isn’t as well-extended as the U4s, thus it creates this mid-focused sound, yet it doesn’t have quite a lot of mids to pull this signature off either, making it sound somewhat weird. The U4s has a slightly more recessed midrange, but has plenty of extension on both ends to make this type of sound signature work (V-shaped). In terms of tonality, I think the U4s is more preferable for my library. But in terms of technicalities, I think the U6t falls behind even more. Its dynamic contrast isn’t strong enough, oweing to its lack of extension. Its resolution isn’t as good as the U4s, probably due to its smoother treble and mid response which makes details harder to capture. Its staging is, however, better than the U4s, but not marginally so. The stage size, central imaging, and layering are all a small step ahead of the U4s. All in all, I don’t think the U6t is anyhow better than the U4s, despite its 200 buck price increase. In fact, I think its worse. My recommendation is: buy the U4s, its sounds better, looks better, and is cheaper.
64 Audio Duo: The Duo is an interesting IEM to the very least, unlike the U6t. It has a near-ethereal stage size, that outclasses most IEMs I’ve heard in its price category, including the U4s, however its tonality and the other technicalities don’t. Its resolution is more reminiscent of a 200-buck single-DD, its dynamics, while are good enough, still sound slightly compressed, its mids sound much more recessed than other 64Audios, its bass is great, but not on par with the U4s, and has the signature 64Audio tia treble (read: very spicy up top, but this time without a lot of resolution to pull it off well). While the Duo offers a cool faceplate design, and offers probably the golden isolation level of -12dB (just enough to not make you feel totally disconnected from the outside world), in terms of sound quality, the U4s is definitely the way to go.
64 Audio Fourté Blanc: Again, from memory, this is amongst the weirdest IEMs I’ve ever come across. The tonality of the Fourté Blanc simply sounds wrong. Its bass isn’t as impressive many other 64Audio IEMs like the U12t or the U4s, despite it being the Blanc’s marketing’s primary focus. To my ears, the 64Audio’s house bass sound sacrifices slam for meatiness and growl, but the Blanc’s bass goes down this path way too far. It doesn’t have slam, and due to its mild bass boost, doesn’t appear to have a lot of rumble either. Then the midrange… honestly, to this day, I am unable to really describe what I heard. It was just… awkward. There are unnecessary recessions that invokes this sense of hollowness and blandness. Whatever 64Audio is trying here isn’t working well for me. The treble at least isn’t as bad as the mids. It’s pretty bog-standard 64Audio tuning, myriads of treble peaks with the largest one being the 15k “tia” resonance. In general, the Blanc’s tuning is just confusing. It’s not particularly bassy, and has a mind-baffling midrange tuning, but at the same time, has a lot of treble? But at least the Blanc’s technicalities meet my expectations of a premium flagship. It has a stage that matches the moniker: “holographic” the closest, has top-tier resolution and good dynamics to back it up. Horrible tonality paired with endgame technicalities puts the Blanc in a very hard spot for me to assess. Enough of the Blanc mini-review, we’re here to compare it with the U4s. The U4s’ tonality is to the very least, listenable. It isn’t as bad as the Blanc. But in the technicalities department, the Blanc is definitely steps ahead of the U4s, yet this is expected when you are charging more than 3 times the price. New tia driver in place of a standard mid BA, “revolutionary” internal acoustic structure, updated internal wiring and solder, apparently better aluminum shells with ceramic coating, more premium cable, but 2600 USD more and with an eccentric tuning, I just don’t see it. Companies can do so well with their entry-level products, but then fall completely flat on their flagships that are supposed to represent their ultimate earphone tuning prowess. Do better 64 Audio, I hope that the next flagship isn’t a trainwreck like the Fourté series.
Attachments
Acoustune HS1750CU Review: Tastefully Flavored
Prelude:
Even in an age where many are striving for high driver counts and experimenting with various different combinations of driver types, few companies stay true to the “original” single dynamic driver design. Three such include DITA, Sennheiser (IE lineup), and Acoustune.
Acoustune, an IEM company founded in 2013 in Japan, also subsidiary of NDICS, parent company of Pentaconn. Not only do they adopt some of their sister company’s products, such as the 4.4mm plug and the Ear connector, they also showcase their own Myrinx diaphragm material and unique two-piece metal shell design. Many of their products are highly recognized and popular in East and Southeast Asia, such as their old mid-tier IEM HS1551CU, previous flagship HS1697TI, entry-level HS1300SS, current flagship HS2000MX (MkII), and their newest mid-level, and the star of the show, the HS1750CU.
I don’t know any Acoustune dealers in North America, or Europe (if you do, please tell me in the comments), so if you are in these regions and want to get one, you might have to get it from some dealer in Asia (Zepp & Co., DMA Audio, e-earphone etc.). The MSRP is ¥67,320 JPY, around $475 USD, but given that this price is for Japan (original country of manufacture), you are probably looking at a single-DD earphone worth between $550 - $600 USD on the international market.
Unboxing:
Acoustune’s unboxing experiences have a throughline: a paper sleeve that wraps around a black rectangular cardboard box. Inside that box we have a black metal storage case, and the IEMs, with another carrying case, cables and eartips inside. The only exceptions to this are the 1300SS (no metal case), the RS series, and the HS2000MX (uses a fancy wooden box instead of the metal case). The presentation and layout are really nothing special, in fact, I think there can be more work done here (more organized layout, special box texture etc.).
Accessories:
But the accessories themselves are actually good/great. The HS1750CU comes with a square fabric/leather carrying case with a magnetic flap, 6 eartips, their 8-braid OFC+SPOFC ARC51 cable, and the aforementioned metal case.
The metal case does remind me a bit of Noble’s flagships, of how they all come with a large case and a small case inside. However, I do think that the metal box Acoustune ships is much more premium than the plastic Nanuk 903 case Noble provides, and much more usable (that Nanuk case is fit more for an over-ear headphone than an IEM). I can fit up to 6 IEMs (with cables) into Acoustune’s metal case, or 4 IEMs plus a DAP, and can easily slide this into any backpack, making it the perfect box to bring to an audio shop or expo. The Nanuk 903 that Noble uses is far too thick to be backpack-able, leaving me with a question: is this much protection actually necessary? While Acoustune’s case may not be practical for people who have very few or have a lot of IEMs, it is a fantastic addition to my collection as a travel case for my favorite earphones (just 5).
The square carrying case is not the largest, yet not the smallest I’ve used. Most of it is constructed out of fabric, with some leather lining and a metal, branded plaque on top. Even though this isn’t the most premium case I’ve touched, it is sturdy enough and provides adequate protection for the IEMs themselves and the stock cable which it fits almost perfectly.
Speaking of the cable, it is quite chonky. It is an 8-wire OFC + Silver Plated OFC cable (each wire has a blend of both). Although no specifications list it, my guess for its wire gauge is around 26AWG. It is soft and pliable, with little memory retention. Very little complaints on the usability front, except for how the chin slider takes quite some force to move up and down, and that the cable itself is a bit heavy. The pins are Pentaconn Ear, making your aftermarket cable choices limited to manufacturers who take such orders, or ones that use swappable connector systems (i.e. EA ConX), or simply buy an adapter. The stock cable, the ARC51, is terminated in 3.5mm, and its aftermarket counterparts, the ARC52 and 53 are terminated in 2.5mm and 4.4mm respectively. Do note that the ARC51 doesn’t have earhooks, while the 52 and 53 do. Overall, the ARC51 scores passing marks for a stock cable.
Other accessories include a full set of 5 AEX07 eartips, 1 pair of foam tips (both stored in a matte black plastic case), a (faux) leather cable clip, and Velcro cable ties. The AEX07 eartips, unfortunately get hot inside my ears after some time. This characteristic is usually attributed to eartips using middling- to low-quality materials. Acoustune’s AEX70 (sold separately) has much better long-term comfort, as it has the same material as the JVC FX-10++ (my all-time favorite eartip). However, the eartip case and the cable clip are accessories that are very practical, yet often not provided. The SoftEars Twilight and the EA Gaea, IEMs I’ve reviewed in the past that are much more expensive than the HS1750CU, don’t have either of these.
Acoustune does provide a modest number of accessories, with most being useful or necessary. At this price point, I don’t think there is much more to ask for.
Build Quality:
No sugarcoating here, the HS1750CU is built excellently. The shiny copper parts have all been very well-polished, same with the aluminum shell, showing net zero surface imperfections when I unboxed it. The aluminum parts are also sandblasted, so fine to a point where my finger glides on it. There are very few aluminum parts I’ve touched that come close to this level of surface texturing (the L&P W2 might be the closest). The HS1750CU is what I call a benchmark for build quality, regardless of price. My HS1300SS also shares the same level of build quality, showing that Acoustune pays attention to every detail in all of their products. I can see why Acoustune’s “HS” earphones are all part of the “Master Series” as they are indeed masterfully crafted.
While the earpieces themselves are built excellently, the rest of the accessories are no slouch either. The y-split, pin and plug shells are finished with brushed aluminum shells, providing extra grip when you hold on to them. Per what my distributor told me, it also seems like the cable is machine-braided, as each braid is extremely tight and uniform to level I haven’t seen before in any hand-braided cable. The leather lining on the carrying case are ruler-straight, so are the stitches that hold it down. The large metal case also has no signs of surface imperfections, although I believe that the plaque is off-center (by a millimeter or so).
I’ll say that the HS1750CU’s build quality can be an independent reason to buy it. It has comparable, if not even better build quality than many kilobuck IEMs (damn your resin shells).
Fit:
The HS1750CU fits fairly well in my medium-sized ears, with no parts causing direct discomfort. However, it may not fit you because: 1. It takes up quite a lot of concha area and 2. It may push against your tragus as it has an edge sticking out at the bottom. And it’s 9.1 gram raw earpiece weight is definitely not making it easier to wear for smaller ears.
Another potential point of concern is the screws. The screw at the top, right next to the Ear connector, protrudes outwards significantly. It causes minor discomfort when you hold on to the earpieces themselves. The other two screws on the body also protrude outwards, however not to the same extent. This design flaw is not present on any Acoustune IEMs prior to the HS2000MX.
I’m quite a fan of Acoustune’s “Cyberpunk”/”Iron Man”-style design, but am not sure if eargonomics were a priority in the design process.
Equipment:
DAC/Amps: L&P W2, ddHiFi TC44C (Blue), iBasso DX170, Shanling H5
OTG Cables: ddHiFi TC05 (Type C), MFi06s (Lightning)
Sources: MacBook Pro 16”, iPhone 11 (Apple Music Hi-Res Lossless)
IEM Cable: Acoustune ARC53 (P-Ear to 4.4mm)
Eartips: JVC Spiral Dot FX-10++ (Size M)
Shown above is the frequency response and channel matching of the HS1750CU measured off an IEC-60318-4 clone coupler. The Bold Green line is my personal target, while Blue and Red stand for Left and Right channels respectively. The closer the Blue and Red lines are, the better the channel matching; the closer both lines are to the Green target line, the more “neutral” these IEMs sound (theoretically).
Tonality:
The 1750 can be described as a neutral-warm IEM, as while I don’t feel like the treble is lacking anyhow, the focus of this IEM is primarily on the mid-low frequencies, especially vocals.
The bass on the 1750 is very solid. It sounds much bassier than the 4dB it graphs with. There is adequate thump, slam and rumble. Yet the most impressive part of the 1750’s bass is its articulation. Notes are exceptionally well-defined thanks to its fast attack and decay. Yet its transient speed isn’t too fast to a point where sheer meat behind the bass is erased (unlike most BA bass I’ve heard). While this bass response won’t satisfy the most ardent bassheads, it is for sure one I can live with. 8 out of 10.
The mids on the 1750 is definitely not as bad as the graph shows. The mids do have an early pinna gain at ~2.5kHz of around 8.5dB, surely makes male vocals sound a bit thin. Yet its 4dB dip at 3.8kHz also reduces shoutiness for female vocals. On first listen, the 1750’s midrange does sound a bit wonky, relative to the scientifically-tuned MoonDrops. However, the 1750’s midrange texture is commendable. It has fantastic transient control, thus microdetails are resolved adequately without sounding too sharpened and unnatural. I also hear a slight hint of sweetness for female vocals, similar to that of the Tanchjim Oxygen’s. This might be due to dynamic drivers’ higher second-order harmonic distortion (the same reason why tubes sound sweet). The midrange on the 1750 is simply very well-done. 9 out of 10.
Treble is where the 1750 retains the “Acoustune” flavor: a big peak around 5.5k, with relatively good extension afterwards. Some say that this peak is tuned intentionally to emphasize instruments. Indeed it does that, however, at times I think it’s too much. The massive gain also boosts plastickiness, making this region sound thin and splashy. That aside, the 1750 has good extension upwards. I hear adequate amounts of air and enough crispiness to notes. The 1750’s treble is good, but I think if Acoustune reduced the Q-values of the 5.5k peak, it can sound even better. 7-8 out of 10
Timbre on the 1750 is generally good, even though it does sound somewhat thin and plasticky in the mids and treble. Where I think the 1750 does superb is in its coherency. Transients across the entire frequency range are basically the same: fast, but not too fast to a point where texture starts fading. 8 out of 10, I’ve heard better, but have heard a lot worse.
To sum it all up, the 1750 sports a very solid v-shaped tonality. It has adequate extension on both ends, and a generally good midrange to complement it. While it is definitely not perfect, I think some small tonal quirks at 600 bucks is tolerable.
Technicalities:
Technicalities on the 1750 are excellent. Dynamics, imaging, resolution, it has it all, in spades.
For dynamics, the 1750 does superb in both macro and micro. While many people may associate dynamics (primarily macrodynamics) with the amount of bass or slam an earphone has, upperdynamics harmonics also have macrodynamics. An earphone’s ability to accurately resolve sudden changes in volume is its explosiveness, is its macrodynamic ability, and I think that the 1750 is outstanding in this aspect, even in absence of a large bass shelf. Microdynamics are basically the opposite of macro. It is more about the minute shifts in loudness of microdetails. Often I use vocal inflections to measure microdynamics, as it is amongst the most apparent things I hear. And again, the 1750 does pretty well. All in all, the 1750 scores a 9 for dynamics, as I still think there are IEMs out there that are even more explosive and well-textured, such as the Gaea.
Even though the 1750’s stage width isn’t the largest I’ve heard thus far, it has excellent layering and positional accuracy, while also being capable of rendering height and diffusal. That is quite a lot of terms for imaging, so here’s a breakdown: width is basically how far instruments are away from the ear laterally. Layering is pretty self-explanatory. Positional accuracy involves both precise localization of individual instruments often in the background, and continuity between left and right channels (able to hear left-right pans correctly). Height is the vertical space an earphone can create. And finally diffusal is how the farthest instruments slightly blend into the background, making the stage sound like it doesn’t have a restricted border, thus creating that feeling of spaciousness. Initially the 1750 didn’t impress me, because it didn’t have a particular imaging aspect that struck me. Yet closer listening suggests that it is simply an all-rounder; there’s nothing much to fault about its imaging performance. 8-9 out of 10.
Resolution is probably where the 1750 truly shines. All notes are cleanly presented with adequate microdetails following thanks to its fast transients. Paired along with its excellent layering abilities, this lands the 1750 at around a high-9 out of 10, with that final point taken away simply because I’ve heard a few monitors that do have slightly more internal detail (Gaea, Fourte, Skyline, Phönix etc.).
Suffice to say, the 1750 comfortably seats itself amongst the “most technical sub-kilobuck monitors”.
Comparisons:
Note: the frequency responses shown below are the averages of 5 takes with varying insertion depths. The bold green line is the frequency response of the 1750, while the bold blue line is the frequency response of the compared earphone. Earphones that have only been demoed do not feature frequency responses, as I might not be in the right conditions to test them.
Sennheiser IE 600: In some ways the IE 600 and the HS1750CU are very similar. Both are highly resolving (the IE 600 out resolves the 1750 by being just a bit cleaner and brighter) and both are very dynamic (I might give the 600 an edge on macrodynamics). However, I’d say the 1750 has a better soundstage in terms of both width and layering. Tonality wise, the 600 is V-shaped with excellent extension on both ends, while the 1750 is flatter across the board, aiming for a slightly more neutral/warmer signature. On the non-sound front, the 1750 does provide a good set of accessories, while I basically didn’t use the 600’s tips, cable and case (they were all kind of bad). However, the 1750 is a medium-large IEM, while the 600 fits in literally all of my friends’ ears and many of them have very small ears.
SoftEars Twilight: If we say the 1750 is a warmer IE 600, then the Twilight is a warmer 1750. The Twilight has setbacks in extension and resolution, but is notably better in soundstage width, height, diffusal, timbre, and general ease of listening. Objectively speaking, the 1750 is a direct competitor to the Twilight, even though there is a 300-dollar price difference between them. In terms of the non-sound aspects, the Twilight takes up less concha area, but might push against your Inferior Crus. I believe that the 1750 is built just slightly better (the metal parts are extremely clean, unlike the Twilight’s Y-split, where two large machining marks were present). The 1750 also has better accessories. The Twilight is a good option for those who want to listen to music for hours on end, while the 1750 is better for those who want some more excitement.
Acoustune HS1300SS: When I first looked up the FRs on crinacle’s website, I thought that the 1300 and the 1750 would sound similar to one other. However, A/B testing shows that the 1750 is simply cleaner than the 1300, literally everywhere. Less mid-bass, lower Q-values in the high-mid and treble regions, less timbral grain, snappier in terms of transients, generally more resolving with more microdetails, and better positional incisiveness. Thus it is adequate to say that the 1750 is a direct refinement to the 1300. Do put in your mind that the prices of two 1300s roughly matches the price of one 1750, so it is up to you which one is worth more.
Acoustune HS1790TI: To be honest, I didn’t quite like both of the 1790TIs I demoed. The 1790 reduces both bass quantity and ear gain. However, the 1790 is not exactly a relaxing earphone to listen to, as the treble is basically identical to the 1750. Thus there is this weird mixture of flatness and aggressiveness, ruining the 1750’s good balance between each frequency. I didn’t find the 1790 to be anyhow more technical than the 1750 either. Unless if the 1790’s sound is exactly what you are looking for, I don’t think the 400-dollar price hike is justifiable.
Acoustune HS2000MX MkII (ACT05): The 2000 MkII’s tonality sits just in between the 1790 and the 1750, having the same midrange recession as the 1790, while retaining the bass performance of the 1750. Yet, I’d still prefer the 1750’s tonal balance. Tonal balance isn’t only about the amount of each frequency band, but also about how they harmonize with each other. The 1750 does this well in that the whole earphone sounds slightly aggressive, and that sensation is only created when there is adequate gain in all frequency bands. Both the 1790 and the 2000 MkII sound awkward because the mids are recessed, thus having parts that are aggressive, but also parts that are relaxing. Technicalities-wise, the 2000 MkII sounds ever so slightly cleaner than both the 1790 and the 1750. But beyond that, there is hardly any difference. Acoustune’s high-end products don’t seem to really surpass their low-end/mid-tier ones. They simply offer a slightly different flavor. Now the one thing the HS2000MX has that is totally unique is the ACT system. Unlike traditional systems which either change the damping values of filters or impedance of certain crossover routes, the ACT system allows the users to change the entire acoustic chamber, transducer included. This allows the earphone’s sound to change drastically. However, you do have to pay extra for each ACT capsule, and they cost about the same price as a brand-new 1750, some of which are even more expensive. Not to mention that the 2000 Mk II (ACT05) itself costs around 1.8k. I haven’t heard any of the other ACT capsules (01-04, 06 & 07), but given the 1790 and the ACT 05’s performance, I don’t think they’ll be significantly better than the 1750. Unless if you have say 3000 dollars’ worth of spare money, then maybe you can consider getting the full HS2000MX experience, all the capsules and the earphone, thus giving you the ability to freely change sound the way you want it. Otherwise save your money and get a 1750 and thank me later.
MoonDrop Variations: How does the 1750 stack up against probably my favorite 500-dollar IEM? To be honest, I think the Variations is just a small step ahead. It has better texture, more amount and control in its bass. And has a more natural midrange and treble tuning. While technical performance is mostly around the same level between the two. But as I’ve repeated a few times now, I still think that the 1750 has better accessories. The Variations’ stock case is too small unless if you used the stock cable, which had this uncomfortable plastic smell and came without a chin slider (booo). The 1750 came with a good case, another good case and a cable that is at least usable. I don’t have an outright recommendation for which to buy, so choose based on your preference.
SoftEars RSV: The RSV still remains as the best-tuned IEM out of the 185 IEMs I’ve listened thus far (haven’t heard the lauded Supernova yet). Thus tonality-wise, it indeed is just more natural and pleasing than the 1750. However, in terms of technicalities, I think the RSV is quite a big step behind the 1750. Be it dynamics, where the RSV exhibits macro and microdynamic compression, be it soundstage where the RSV has average layering and stage width, be it resolution, where the RSV simply doesn’t have a lot of internal detail to speak of. The RSV’s technical performance competes with 300-buck IEMs, not 600-buck ones. It’s an IEM held up totally by its impeccable tuning. For the non-audio aspects, the RSV does have a CIEM-ish fit (a.k.a deep fit), while the 1750 has a medium-shallow insertion depth. Both come with a modest set of accessories, but the 1750’s metal case is a bonus point for the 1750 (it was actually one of the reasons why I bought it). I’d go for the 1750 unless if having a dead-neutral reference tuning is a must.
DUNU SA6 MkII: Let me be frank, I don’t particularly like the qdc/64Audio sound, where there’s a 3kHz dip to prevent the upper midrange from being too strident. However, this takes away energy and sweetness from vocals, and in some cases, adds a layer of veil, making the upper harmonics sound somewhat wispy and soft. While I do think the SA6 MkII and the U4s are amongst the best implementations of this type of sound in the sub-kilo and kilobuck markets respectively, I still prefer the 1750’s tuning. Mids aside, I found the upper-treble on the SA6 MkII to be a bit spicy, and the bass generally lacking slam and articulation. Technicalities-wise, the DUNU SA6 MkII might be the most resolving IEM under 1000 dollars now, but I think it lacks the 1750’s great macro and microdynamics. I think these two IEMs land around the same level of performance. In terms of the non-sonic aspects, the SA6 MkII has a very large resin shell, its lighter, but takes up more concha area than the 1750. The SA6 MkII also has interchangeable plugs, allowing the user to select their preferred plug and replace one in case its worn out. The 1750 comes with the 3.5mm plug only.
FAudio Minor: I have not A/Bed the Minor with the 1750. But I did with the 1300. On FR, the Minor seems very similar to both Acoustunes, however, I don’t think I heard lots of resolution nor dynamics, which are aspects the Acoustunes perform commendably-well in. My impressions on FAudio’s Dark Sky is also similar, just an Acoustune without the technical chops that made Acoustunes good. Also, the design on the FAudios are simply boring (when compared to the Acoustunes). It is quite obvious which one I’d go for at this price point.
Conclusion:
When it comes to IEMs with colored tonalities, I always ask this one question: do these colorations make sense? And in the case of the 1750, it does. I understand why it is tuned this way, even though it is not neutral nevertheless perfect. The 1750 also has the technicalities to back it up, making it a strong contender for the best IEM under 1000 dollars.
Edit (2023/10/17):
After playing around with some filters, I came across this:
One of the filters, Tanchjim's (used on the Oxygen, Darling & Tanya), generated these frequency responses (one of the left is against the 1750 without a filter, the one on the right is against my target, blue for new frequency response with filter, green for compared response).
Filter completely kills the 5k and 2.5k peak (-5.6dB @ 5kHz, -3dB @ 2.5kHz), and adds slightly more bass (+1.7 dB @ 20Hz), generating a much smoother sound than before while retaining most of the technicalities (minor reduction in microdynamics though). The 1750 is now a whole lot more neutral and palatable, while still retaining a dash of spice up top to push out details as intended. Highly recommended to try this mod (if you don't have Tanchjim filters, either ask your distributor for some, or buy a Tanya, which supplies some spare filters). Take the filter and stick it to the nozzle (on top of the steel mesh), it’s that simple.
Prelude:
Even in an age where many are striving for high driver counts and experimenting with various different combinations of driver types, few companies stay true to the “original” single dynamic driver design. Three such include DITA, Sennheiser (IE lineup), and Acoustune.
Acoustune, an IEM company founded in 2013 in Japan, also subsidiary of NDICS, parent company of Pentaconn. Not only do they adopt some of their sister company’s products, such as the 4.4mm plug and the Ear connector, they also showcase their own Myrinx diaphragm material and unique two-piece metal shell design. Many of their products are highly recognized and popular in East and Southeast Asia, such as their old mid-tier IEM HS1551CU, previous flagship HS1697TI, entry-level HS1300SS, current flagship HS2000MX (MkII), and their newest mid-level, and the star of the show, the HS1750CU.
I don’t know any Acoustune dealers in North America, or Europe (if you do, please tell me in the comments), so if you are in these regions and want to get one, you might have to get it from some dealer in Asia (Zepp & Co., DMA Audio, e-earphone etc.). The MSRP is ¥67,320 JPY, around $475 USD, but given that this price is for Japan (original country of manufacture), you are probably looking at a single-DD earphone worth between $550 - $600 USD on the international market.
Unboxing:
Acoustune’s unboxing experiences have a throughline: a paper sleeve that wraps around a black rectangular cardboard box. Inside that box we have a black metal storage case, and the IEMs, with another carrying case, cables and eartips inside. The only exceptions to this are the 1300SS (no metal case), the RS series, and the HS2000MX (uses a fancy wooden box instead of the metal case). The presentation and layout are really nothing special, in fact, I think there can be more work done here (more organized layout, special box texture etc.).
Accessories:
But the accessories themselves are actually good/great. The HS1750CU comes with a square fabric/leather carrying case with a magnetic flap, 6 eartips, their 8-braid OFC+SPOFC ARC51 cable, and the aforementioned metal case.
The metal case does remind me a bit of Noble’s flagships, of how they all come with a large case and a small case inside. However, I do think that the metal box Acoustune ships is much more premium than the plastic Nanuk 903 case Noble provides, and much more usable (that Nanuk case is fit more for an over-ear headphone than an IEM). I can fit up to 6 IEMs (with cables) into Acoustune’s metal case, or 4 IEMs plus a DAP, and can easily slide this into any backpack, making it the perfect box to bring to an audio shop or expo. The Nanuk 903 that Noble uses is far too thick to be backpack-able, leaving me with a question: is this much protection actually necessary? While Acoustune’s case may not be practical for people who have very few or have a lot of IEMs, it is a fantastic addition to my collection as a travel case for my favorite earphones (just 5).
The square carrying case is not the largest, yet not the smallest I’ve used. Most of it is constructed out of fabric, with some leather lining and a metal, branded plaque on top. Even though this isn’t the most premium case I’ve touched, it is sturdy enough and provides adequate protection for the IEMs themselves and the stock cable which it fits almost perfectly.
Speaking of the cable, it is quite chonky. It is an 8-wire OFC + Silver Plated OFC cable (each wire has a blend of both). Although no specifications list it, my guess for its wire gauge is around 26AWG. It is soft and pliable, with little memory retention. Very little complaints on the usability front, except for how the chin slider takes quite some force to move up and down, and that the cable itself is a bit heavy. The pins are Pentaconn Ear, making your aftermarket cable choices limited to manufacturers who take such orders, or ones that use swappable connector systems (i.e. EA ConX), or simply buy an adapter. The stock cable, the ARC51, is terminated in 3.5mm, and its aftermarket counterparts, the ARC52 and 53 are terminated in 2.5mm and 4.4mm respectively. Do note that the ARC51 doesn’t have earhooks, while the 52 and 53 do. Overall, the ARC51 scores passing marks for a stock cable.
Other accessories include a full set of 5 AEX07 eartips, 1 pair of foam tips (both stored in a matte black plastic case), a (faux) leather cable clip, and Velcro cable ties. The AEX07 eartips, unfortunately get hot inside my ears after some time. This characteristic is usually attributed to eartips using middling- to low-quality materials. Acoustune’s AEX70 (sold separately) has much better long-term comfort, as it has the same material as the JVC FX-10++ (my all-time favorite eartip). However, the eartip case and the cable clip are accessories that are very practical, yet often not provided. The SoftEars Twilight and the EA Gaea, IEMs I’ve reviewed in the past that are much more expensive than the HS1750CU, don’t have either of these.
Acoustune does provide a modest number of accessories, with most being useful or necessary. At this price point, I don’t think there is much more to ask for.
Build Quality:
No sugarcoating here, the HS1750CU is built excellently. The shiny copper parts have all been very well-polished, same with the aluminum shell, showing net zero surface imperfections when I unboxed it. The aluminum parts are also sandblasted, so fine to a point where my finger glides on it. There are very few aluminum parts I’ve touched that come close to this level of surface texturing (the L&P W2 might be the closest). The HS1750CU is what I call a benchmark for build quality, regardless of price. My HS1300SS also shares the same level of build quality, showing that Acoustune pays attention to every detail in all of their products. I can see why Acoustune’s “HS” earphones are all part of the “Master Series” as they are indeed masterfully crafted.
While the earpieces themselves are built excellently, the rest of the accessories are no slouch either. The y-split, pin and plug shells are finished with brushed aluminum shells, providing extra grip when you hold on to them. Per what my distributor told me, it also seems like the cable is machine-braided, as each braid is extremely tight and uniform to level I haven’t seen before in any hand-braided cable. The leather lining on the carrying case are ruler-straight, so are the stitches that hold it down. The large metal case also has no signs of surface imperfections, although I believe that the plaque is off-center (by a millimeter or so).
I’ll say that the HS1750CU’s build quality can be an independent reason to buy it. It has comparable, if not even better build quality than many kilobuck IEMs (damn your resin shells).
Fit:
The HS1750CU fits fairly well in my medium-sized ears, with no parts causing direct discomfort. However, it may not fit you because: 1. It takes up quite a lot of concha area and 2. It may push against your tragus as it has an edge sticking out at the bottom. And it’s 9.1 gram raw earpiece weight is definitely not making it easier to wear for smaller ears.
Another potential point of concern is the screws. The screw at the top, right next to the Ear connector, protrudes outwards significantly. It causes minor discomfort when you hold on to the earpieces themselves. The other two screws on the body also protrude outwards, however not to the same extent. This design flaw is not present on any Acoustune IEMs prior to the HS2000MX.
I’m quite a fan of Acoustune’s “Cyberpunk”/”Iron Man”-style design, but am not sure if eargonomics were a priority in the design process.
Equipment:
DAC/Amps: L&P W2, ddHiFi TC44C (Blue), iBasso DX170, Shanling H5
OTG Cables: ddHiFi TC05 (Type C), MFi06s (Lightning)
Sources: MacBook Pro 16”, iPhone 11 (Apple Music Hi-Res Lossless)
IEM Cable: Acoustune ARC53 (P-Ear to 4.4mm)
Eartips: JVC Spiral Dot FX-10++ (Size M)
Shown above is the frequency response and channel matching of the HS1750CU measured off an IEC-60318-4 clone coupler. The Bold Green line is my personal target, while Blue and Red stand for Left and Right channels respectively. The closer the Blue and Red lines are, the better the channel matching; the closer both lines are to the Green target line, the more “neutral” these IEMs sound (theoretically).
Tonality:
The 1750 can be described as a neutral-warm IEM, as while I don’t feel like the treble is lacking anyhow, the focus of this IEM is primarily on the mid-low frequencies, especially vocals.
The bass on the 1750 is very solid. It sounds much bassier than the 4dB it graphs with. There is adequate thump, slam and rumble. Yet the most impressive part of the 1750’s bass is its articulation. Notes are exceptionally well-defined thanks to its fast attack and decay. Yet its transient speed isn’t too fast to a point where sheer meat behind the bass is erased (unlike most BA bass I’ve heard). While this bass response won’t satisfy the most ardent bassheads, it is for sure one I can live with. 8 out of 10.
The mids on the 1750 is definitely not as bad as the graph shows. The mids do have an early pinna gain at ~2.5kHz of around 8.5dB, surely makes male vocals sound a bit thin. Yet its 4dB dip at 3.8kHz also reduces shoutiness for female vocals. On first listen, the 1750’s midrange does sound a bit wonky, relative to the scientifically-tuned MoonDrops. However, the 1750’s midrange texture is commendable. It has fantastic transient control, thus microdetails are resolved adequately without sounding too sharpened and unnatural. I also hear a slight hint of sweetness for female vocals, similar to that of the Tanchjim Oxygen’s. This might be due to dynamic drivers’ higher second-order harmonic distortion (the same reason why tubes sound sweet). The midrange on the 1750 is simply very well-done. 9 out of 10.
Treble is where the 1750 retains the “Acoustune” flavor: a big peak around 5.5k, with relatively good extension afterwards. Some say that this peak is tuned intentionally to emphasize instruments. Indeed it does that, however, at times I think it’s too much. The massive gain also boosts plastickiness, making this region sound thin and splashy. That aside, the 1750 has good extension upwards. I hear adequate amounts of air and enough crispiness to notes. The 1750’s treble is good, but I think if Acoustune reduced the Q-values of the 5.5k peak, it can sound even better. 7-8 out of 10
Timbre on the 1750 is generally good, even though it does sound somewhat thin and plasticky in the mids and treble. Where I think the 1750 does superb is in its coherency. Transients across the entire frequency range are basically the same: fast, but not too fast to a point where texture starts fading. 8 out of 10, I’ve heard better, but have heard a lot worse.
To sum it all up, the 1750 sports a very solid v-shaped tonality. It has adequate extension on both ends, and a generally good midrange to complement it. While it is definitely not perfect, I think some small tonal quirks at 600 bucks is tolerable.
Technicalities:
Technicalities on the 1750 are excellent. Dynamics, imaging, resolution, it has it all, in spades.
For dynamics, the 1750 does superb in both macro and micro. While many people may associate dynamics (primarily macrodynamics) with the amount of bass or slam an earphone has, upper
Even though the 1750’s stage width isn’t the largest I’ve heard thus far, it has excellent layering and positional accuracy, while also being capable of rendering height and diffusal. That is quite a lot of terms for imaging, so here’s a breakdown: width is basically how far instruments are away from the ear laterally. Layering is pretty self-explanatory. Positional accuracy involves both precise localization of individual instruments often in the background, and continuity between left and right channels (able to hear left-right pans correctly). Height is the vertical space an earphone can create. And finally diffusal is how the farthest instruments slightly blend into the background, making the stage sound like it doesn’t have a restricted border, thus creating that feeling of spaciousness. Initially the 1750 didn’t impress me, because it didn’t have a particular imaging aspect that struck me. Yet closer listening suggests that it is simply an all-rounder; there’s nothing much to fault about its imaging performance. 8-9 out of 10.
Resolution is probably where the 1750 truly shines. All notes are cleanly presented with adequate microdetails following thanks to its fast transients. Paired along with its excellent layering abilities, this lands the 1750 at around a high-9 out of 10, with that final point taken away simply because I’ve heard a few monitors that do have slightly more internal detail (Gaea, Fourte, Skyline, Phönix etc.).
Suffice to say, the 1750 comfortably seats itself amongst the “most technical sub-kilobuck monitors”.
Comparisons:
Note: the frequency responses shown below are the averages of 5 takes with varying insertion depths. The bold green line is the frequency response of the 1750, while the bold blue line is the frequency response of the compared earphone. Earphones that have only been demoed do not feature frequency responses, as I might not be in the right conditions to test them.
Sennheiser IE 600: In some ways the IE 600 and the HS1750CU are very similar. Both are highly resolving (the IE 600 out resolves the 1750 by being just a bit cleaner and brighter) and both are very dynamic (I might give the 600 an edge on macrodynamics). However, I’d say the 1750 has a better soundstage in terms of both width and layering. Tonality wise, the 600 is V-shaped with excellent extension on both ends, while the 1750 is flatter across the board, aiming for a slightly more neutral/warmer signature. On the non-sound front, the 1750 does provide a good set of accessories, while I basically didn’t use the 600’s tips, cable and case (they were all kind of bad). However, the 1750 is a medium-large IEM, while the 600 fits in literally all of my friends’ ears and many of them have very small ears.
SoftEars Twilight: If we say the 1750 is a warmer IE 600, then the Twilight is a warmer 1750. The Twilight has setbacks in extension and resolution, but is notably better in soundstage width, height, diffusal, timbre, and general ease of listening. Objectively speaking, the 1750 is a direct competitor to the Twilight, even though there is a 300-dollar price difference between them. In terms of the non-sound aspects, the Twilight takes up less concha area, but might push against your Inferior Crus. I believe that the 1750 is built just slightly better (the metal parts are extremely clean, unlike the Twilight’s Y-split, where two large machining marks were present). The 1750 also has better accessories. The Twilight is a good option for those who want to listen to music for hours on end, while the 1750 is better for those who want some more excitement.
Acoustune HS1300SS: When I first looked up the FRs on crinacle’s website, I thought that the 1300 and the 1750 would sound similar to one other. However, A/B testing shows that the 1750 is simply cleaner than the 1300, literally everywhere. Less mid-bass, lower Q-values in the high-mid and treble regions, less timbral grain, snappier in terms of transients, generally more resolving with more microdetails, and better positional incisiveness. Thus it is adequate to say that the 1750 is a direct refinement to the 1300. Do put in your mind that the prices of two 1300s roughly matches the price of one 1750, so it is up to you which one is worth more.
Acoustune HS1790TI: To be honest, I didn’t quite like both of the 1790TIs I demoed. The 1790 reduces both bass quantity and ear gain. However, the 1790 is not exactly a relaxing earphone to listen to, as the treble is basically identical to the 1750. Thus there is this weird mixture of flatness and aggressiveness, ruining the 1750’s good balance between each frequency. I didn’t find the 1790 to be anyhow more technical than the 1750 either. Unless if the 1790’s sound is exactly what you are looking for, I don’t think the 400-dollar price hike is justifiable.
Acoustune HS2000MX MkII (ACT05): The 2000 MkII’s tonality sits just in between the 1790 and the 1750, having the same midrange recession as the 1790, while retaining the bass performance of the 1750. Yet, I’d still prefer the 1750’s tonal balance. Tonal balance isn’t only about the amount of each frequency band, but also about how they harmonize with each other. The 1750 does this well in that the whole earphone sounds slightly aggressive, and that sensation is only created when there is adequate gain in all frequency bands. Both the 1790 and the 2000 MkII sound awkward because the mids are recessed, thus having parts that are aggressive, but also parts that are relaxing. Technicalities-wise, the 2000 MkII sounds ever so slightly cleaner than both the 1790 and the 1750. But beyond that, there is hardly any difference. Acoustune’s high-end products don’t seem to really surpass their low-end/mid-tier ones. They simply offer a slightly different flavor. Now the one thing the HS2000MX has that is totally unique is the ACT system. Unlike traditional systems which either change the damping values of filters or impedance of certain crossover routes, the ACT system allows the users to change the entire acoustic chamber, transducer included. This allows the earphone’s sound to change drastically. However, you do have to pay extra for each ACT capsule, and they cost about the same price as a brand-new 1750, some of which are even more expensive. Not to mention that the 2000 Mk II (ACT05) itself costs around 1.8k. I haven’t heard any of the other ACT capsules (01-04, 06 & 07), but given the 1790 and the ACT 05’s performance, I don’t think they’ll be significantly better than the 1750. Unless if you have say 3000 dollars’ worth of spare money, then maybe you can consider getting the full HS2000MX experience, all the capsules and the earphone, thus giving you the ability to freely change sound the way you want it. Otherwise save your money and get a 1750 and thank me later.
MoonDrop Variations: How does the 1750 stack up against probably my favorite 500-dollar IEM? To be honest, I think the Variations is just a small step ahead. It has better texture, more amount and control in its bass. And has a more natural midrange and treble tuning. While technical performance is mostly around the same level between the two. But as I’ve repeated a few times now, I still think that the 1750 has better accessories. The Variations’ stock case is too small unless if you used the stock cable, which had this uncomfortable plastic smell and came without a chin slider (booo). The 1750 came with a good case, another good case and a cable that is at least usable. I don’t have an outright recommendation for which to buy, so choose based on your preference.
SoftEars RSV: The RSV still remains as the best-tuned IEM out of the 185 IEMs I’ve listened thus far (haven’t heard the lauded Supernova yet). Thus tonality-wise, it indeed is just more natural and pleasing than the 1750. However, in terms of technicalities, I think the RSV is quite a big step behind the 1750. Be it dynamics, where the RSV exhibits macro and microdynamic compression, be it soundstage where the RSV has average layering and stage width, be it resolution, where the RSV simply doesn’t have a lot of internal detail to speak of. The RSV’s technical performance competes with 300-buck IEMs, not 600-buck ones. It’s an IEM held up totally by its impeccable tuning. For the non-audio aspects, the RSV does have a CIEM-ish fit (a.k.a deep fit), while the 1750 has a medium-shallow insertion depth. Both come with a modest set of accessories, but the 1750’s metal case is a bonus point for the 1750 (it was actually one of the reasons why I bought it). I’d go for the 1750 unless if having a dead-neutral reference tuning is a must.
DUNU SA6 MkII: Let me be frank, I don’t particularly like the qdc/64Audio sound, where there’s a 3kHz dip to prevent the upper midrange from being too strident. However, this takes away energy and sweetness from vocals, and in some cases, adds a layer of veil, making the upper harmonics sound somewhat wispy and soft. While I do think the SA6 MkII and the U4s are amongst the best implementations of this type of sound in the sub-kilo and kilobuck markets respectively, I still prefer the 1750’s tuning. Mids aside, I found the upper-treble on the SA6 MkII to be a bit spicy, and the bass generally lacking slam and articulation. Technicalities-wise, the DUNU SA6 MkII might be the most resolving IEM under 1000 dollars now, but I think it lacks the 1750’s great macro and microdynamics. I think these two IEMs land around the same level of performance. In terms of the non-sonic aspects, the SA6 MkII has a very large resin shell, its lighter, but takes up more concha area than the 1750. The SA6 MkII also has interchangeable plugs, allowing the user to select their preferred plug and replace one in case its worn out. The 1750 comes with the 3.5mm plug only.
FAudio Minor: I have not A/Bed the Minor with the 1750. But I did with the 1300. On FR, the Minor seems very similar to both Acoustunes, however, I don’t think I heard lots of resolution nor dynamics, which are aspects the Acoustunes perform commendably-well in. My impressions on FAudio’s Dark Sky is also similar, just an Acoustune without the technical chops that made Acoustunes good. Also, the design on the FAudios are simply boring (when compared to the Acoustunes). It is quite obvious which one I’d go for at this price point.
Conclusion:
When it comes to IEMs with colored tonalities, I always ask this one question: do these colorations make sense? And in the case of the 1750, it does. I understand why it is tuned this way, even though it is not neutral nevertheless perfect. The 1750 also has the technicalities to back it up, making it a strong contender for the best IEM under 1000 dollars.
Edit (2023/10/17):
After playing around with some filters, I came across this:
Filter completely kills the 5k and 2.5k peak (-5.6dB @ 5kHz, -3dB @ 2.5kHz), and adds slightly more bass (+1.7 dB @ 20Hz), generating a much smoother sound than before while retaining most of the technicalities (minor reduction in microdynamics though). The 1750 is now a whole lot more neutral and palatable, while still retaining a dash of spice up top to push out details as intended. Highly recommended to try this mod (if you don't have Tanchjim filters, either ask your distributor for some, or buy a Tanya, which supplies some spare filters). Take the filter and stick it to the nozzle (on top of the steel mesh), it’s that simple.
Photo dump of the BC150B:
Mini-review:
Build Quality: 8/10. Excellent at this price. Very few machining marks observed on the y-split and pins, virtually none on the plug. Perfect braiding and uniform length. Glossy, silky smooth, soft and pliable insulation. The largest issue is probably the heat shrink strain reliefs around the pins, which are not cut perfectly. Plug and unplug feel of the 4.4mm plug is amongst the softest I've used, and the plug and unplug feel of the HD 800 S ODU pins are a bit rough (more so than the connectors on the stock cable).
Aesthetics: 9/10. Looks pretty nice with the HD 800 S, as the smoke-grey insulation and black metal parts reflect the color scheme of the said headphone (although I did customize the y-split, it is black instead of gold). Unique yet cool y-split design and elegant plugs and pins make things better. The word "generic" is not in ddHiFi's vocabulary. The 2-wire coaxial design gets to the point without being too extravagant or complicated, unlike most other cables. I wish more headphone cables are designed like this in the future.
Compatibility:7 9/10. Has pins for many common headphones on the market. According to ddHiFi, the flat 3.5mm fits MoonDrop (Venus), HifiMan, Focal (except Utopia) headphones. The long 3.5mm fits Meze's 99 and 109 Pro (and others that have long sockets). The HD 600, HD 800 and Focal LEMO (Utopia) fit their respective headphones. Unfortunately 4-pin mini XLR is not offered as stock (maybe customizable, I'm not sure), so Audeze, ZMF, Meze (Empyrean, Elite) headphones are currently not compatible. Also wished that there were more plug options, such as 4-pin XLR.
Editor's note 9/17/2023: ddHiFi did indeed release a 4-pin XLR edition of the BC150, and it's called the BC150XLR. They also have added A2DC and 2.5mm pins for select Audio-Technica headphones. However, there are still no options for 4-pin mini XLR pins
Sound:N/A. I don't believe in cable sound, so I won't talk about this. Ask other reviewers if you're curious. To me, cables are only that cherry on the cake that makes your entire system either look more premium, or to solve usability issues (such as length, weight, thickness, pliability).
Editor's note 9/17/2023: After a long period of consulting industry professionals and listening to cables myself, I now do think cables can change sound, but it's not an apparent or night-day difference. Here are some comments on the BC150B by me and a friend who has listened to my HD 800 S with said cable: general sound signature is more reminiscent of a silver cable (even though it is technically a silver-copper hybrid). Fast and clean and gives boons to imaging performance, increasing primarily layering performance. However, the cable does make certain headphones sound thin (decreased bass, more treble, with thinner timbre in general), which might not be what people are looking for.
Comparison:
HD 800 S Stock Cable (CH 800 P):
One of the reasons I went on a quest trying to find the best headphone cable for the HD 800 S is because the stock cable was far too long (3m) for my use case, playing music off a portable source. The BC150B offers three different lengths, 1.45m, 1.95m and 2.95m, with the former being my ideal length. While Sennheiser's build quality is excellent, I think the BC150's insulation feels smoother and more premium and the finishing on the plug is also finer. Design wise, although the stock cable does look best, the BC150B still looks fantastic when paired with the HD 800 S. With the CH 800 P selling at 300 bucks retail, I think the BC150B is a steal, as it offers more customization options and a premium design and build at half the price.
Overall: 8/10 = 4/5. I am genuinely surprised by how good the BC150B is, physically. It is well built, and from the cross-section diagrams, it seems like the insulations are thick enough to take a beating. With a unique coaxial design and appearance, it brings what high-end cables such as the EA Code 23, or the Eletech Inferno bring to the table at less than a fifth of the price. It's a true bang-for-the-buck headphone upgrade cable.
Build Quality: 8/10. Excellent at this price. Very few machining marks observed on the y-split and pins, virtually none on the plug. Perfect braiding and uniform length. Glossy, silky smooth, soft and pliable insulation. The largest issue is probably the heat shrink strain reliefs around the pins, which are not cut perfectly. Plug and unplug feel of the 4.4mm plug is amongst the softest I've used, and the plug and unplug feel of the HD 800 S ODU pins are a bit rough (more so than the connectors on the stock cable).
Aesthetics: 9/10. Looks pretty nice with the HD 800 S, as the smoke-grey insulation and black metal parts reflect the color scheme of the said headphone (although I did customize the y-split, it is black instead of gold). Unique yet cool y-split design and elegant plugs and pins make things better. The word "generic" is not in ddHiFi's vocabulary. The 2-wire coaxial design gets to the point without being too extravagant or complicated, unlike most other cables. I wish more headphone cables are designed like this in the future.
Compatibility:
Editor's note 9/17/2023: ddHiFi did indeed release a 4-pin XLR edition of the BC150, and it's called the BC150XLR. They also have added A2DC and 2.5mm pins for select Audio-Technica headphones. However, there are still no options for 4-pin mini XLR pins
Sound:
Editor's note 9/17/2023: After a long period of consulting industry professionals and listening to cables myself, I now do think cables can change sound, but it's not an apparent or night-day difference. Here are some comments on the BC150B by me and a friend who has listened to my HD 800 S with said cable: general sound signature is more reminiscent of a silver cable (even though it is technically a silver-copper hybrid). Fast and clean and gives boons to imaging performance, increasing primarily layering performance. However, the cable does make certain headphones sound thin (decreased bass, more treble, with thinner timbre in general), which might not be what people are looking for.
Comparison:
HD 800 S Stock Cable (CH 800 P):
One of the reasons I went on a quest trying to find the best headphone cable for the HD 800 S is because the stock cable was far too long (3m) for my use case, playing music off a portable source. The BC150B offers three different lengths, 1.45m, 1.95m and 2.95m, with the former being my ideal length. While Sennheiser's build quality is excellent, I think the BC150's insulation feels smoother and more premium and the finishing on the plug is also finer. Design wise, although the stock cable does look best, the BC150B still looks fantastic when paired with the HD 800 S. With the CH 800 P selling at 300 bucks retail, I think the BC150B is a steal, as it offers more customization options and a premium design and build at half the price.
Overall: 8/10 = 4/5. I am genuinely surprised by how good the BC150B is, physically. It is well built, and from the cross-section diagrams, it seems like the insulations are thick enough to take a beating. With a unique coaxial design and appearance, it brings what high-end cables such as the EA Code 23, or the Eletech Inferno bring to the table at less than a fifth of the price. It's a true bang-for-the-buck headphone upgrade cable.
Tanchjim Space Review
About Me:
Hi, I’m fugu (KillerLab). A student currently completing studies in Canada. I have been an audiophile for almost 2 years, although I have had interest in audio for a duration much longer than that. I love listening to J-Pop (yes, J for Japanese), J-Rock, OSTs, and occasionally, Electronic/Dance and Folk. My reviewing style (and the way I define certain terms) are largely inspired by crinacle and Precogvision.
Prelude:
I remember reading L7AudioLab’s (WolfX700) article on the Luxury & Precision W2 (CS43198), and claims that it is, by far, the best measuring dongle on the market. Soon afterwards, the market started to be saturated by more similar high-performance dongles, such as the MoonDrop MoonRiver 2, Dawn, Quloos MC-01, W2’s successors and our star of the show, the Tanchjim Space. Yet, the Space is amongst the cheapest “high-performance” dongles you can get, coming in at a cool 89.99 USD.
*A high performance dongle is hard to define, but for me it is: SINAD ~115dB (BAL), Dynamic Range/SNR ~130dB (A-weighted), low and linear IMD, ~-130dB Multitone, ~-150dB 12k FFT with little to no spikes, 4VRMS and ~200mW of output (BAL). I know that some audiophiles don’t believe how measurements correlate with sound quality, but to me, a good measuring DAC at least guarantees transparency and cleanliness, with low coloration, and those are things I want for my sources. If you’re interested in these measurements for the Space, see: https://www.l7audiolab.com/f/tanchjim-space/ (do note that the unit L7 tested is a prototype, not a production unit like the one I have).
Unboxing:
Even though unboxing experiences for these products (DAC/Amps) are often quite generic, I still think it’s important to address this, as an unboxing experience is the first impression of a product. It shows how much effort a company is willing to put into their products to make the user feel like they’re getting their money’s worth. And Tanchjim has done a pretty nice job here. The Space comes in their signature-styled package, a grey, patterned rectangular box with a white sleeve. Inside reveals the instruction manuals etc., and underneath that is the Space itself along with a dual USB-C cable and a USB-C to USB-A adapter, all neatly assorted in white/grey compartments. For DAC/Amps, this is actually one of the better unboxing experiences, as most other DAC/Amps come in a generic black/beige cardboard box with simple black foam cutouts.
User Experience:
The Space is actually really useful, in many ways. First of all, it’s incredibly small. The Space might as well be the smallest dongle that has a swappable cable system on the market right now. Secondly, it has its own volume control. It offers ~50 steps of volume adjustment (haven’t really counted this), which is much more accurate than the volume rockers on your computer/smartphone (those often have less than 15 volume steps). Tanchjim’s marketing material also says that the volume increments get smaller when nearing normal listening levels, to avoid the volume being either too loud or too quiet. I have no trouble powering any IEM with the Space. Gain is adjustable between High and Low, by pressing and holding the two volume buttons at the same time. Do note that the default gain is High, and the Space will always revert to this once disconnected then reconnected.
Build quality is great for the price: the Space sports a medium-fine sandblasted aluminum frame, with an acrylic board that shows the logic board, a nice design only few others use. The board also features a LED, which flashes blue once only when a device is connected. The volume button is not loose, unlike the MoonRiver 2, which is more than double the price, and has a good, tactile feedback. Even though there is a visible seam in the middle, running my finger along the sides shows that it is well-polished, to a point where the dongle feels like it’s a unibody construction.
The Space does exceed my expectations for a sub-100-dollar dongle, in terms of both usability and build quality, yet it is not perfect. Both the 4.4 and 3.5 sockets are not aligned in the center, the two edges near the USB-C port are very sharp, the USB-C port itself is also very shallow, allowing around a quarter of the USB-C plug to be exposed (they say this is for other aftermarket accessories, i.e. a case…but I haven’t seen something like that yet…), the stock cable is flat, having limited flexibility, and the USB-A adapter is generic and cheap. But that’s just me nitpicking around. Again, the Space’s build quality exudes confidence and quality at just 90 bucks.
However, after taking a look at the reviews below and others online, it does seem like certain Space units have actual build quality issues, i.e. loose buttons and loose internal screws. Maybe I just got lucky, so buyer beware.
Equipment:
ddHifi TC05, MFi06S connected to said DAC/Amp and to either a MacBook Pro 2021 or an iPhone 11
All IEMs are connected via 4.4 BAL output
Sound:
Do note that I don’t have a lot of experience in reviewing DAC/Amps, thus I’ll be mostly writing about some noticeable differences in the sound that I think I hear.
Tone:
The Space can generally be described as a neutral-bright sounding DAC. The general frequency spectrum is quite flat and linear. The bass doesn’t sound boosted, yet remains relatively good texture (punch and rumble), working well with my OST and folk tracks. For pop and rock, sometimes I do want a bit more bass, but am still generally satisfied with the Space’s bass. The midrange is probably one of the most uncolored out there. There’s really no detectable vocal boost, unlike most other DACs I have heard, which just have a very slight emphasis on female vocals. The treble, however, sometimes sounds a bit bright to me, often around the 6k region, inducing a small boost in sibilance. While not to the level of fatiguing, it is a bit annoying and uncomfortable to listen to for too long. Another slight boost in the treble occurs around the 10k region, where hi-hats also sound a bit harsh and sharp. Timbre on the Space is probably where this DAC falls flat. The Space not only sounds quite thin, despite having no audible boost in the midrange, it also presents this slightly abrasive, digital edge at times. With considerably thin IEMs, such as the Variations, vocals get this glassy, nigh grating texture. The Space may not be for everyone and every IEM as its tonality isn’t truly neutral, but brain burn-in might as well solve this issue.
Tech:
The Space sounds just like what I expect from a well-measuring DAC, clean and detailed. To the very least, it allows the Gaea to resolve all the existing macrodetails in each track. The Space does expand well in terms of width, providing an adequate sense of space. Layering and positional accuracy are great. I wouldn’t complain much about the Space’s imaging capabilities. One minor issue is probably dynamics. The Space does struggle a bit to put forth certain microdetails, thus in some ways, sounds dynamically compressed in the upper mids and treble. But its macrodynamic contrast is still good enough. The Space’s technical performance is simply excellent, to a point where I really can’t nitpick much even in absence of its price. Within dongle-fi, the Space is probably one of the cheapest options for a highly resolving DAC.
Pairings:
SoftEars Twilight: The Twilight is source-flexible, very source-flexible. It basically can pair with any DAC and still pump out great sound. This is probably due to how its tuned, a warm, slightly thick tone with an open presentation, which masks unwanted artifacts and note weight bias a DAC may generate. The Twilight indeed hides many of the Space’s tonal problems I mentioned above, making this probably the best pairing amongst these IEMs.
SoftEars RSV: Not much of a difference from the Twilight actually, as the RSV is basically a Twilight with less mid-bass and mid-treble. Do note that the RSV does have very low impedance, thus a source with high output impedance can generate a noticeable change in sound (although the Space doesn’t seem to have this issue).
DUNU Vulkan: From the two sets above you probably can tell that tonally-pleasing, warm-ish IEMs work well with the Space. And the Vulkan only justifies this. Thanks to the Space’s good imaging properties, you just got a pairup that you can probably kick back and listen to hours on-end.
Sennheiser IE 600: Probably one of the worst combos on this list… The IE 600 is sharp, bright and thin to boot. Slap on a DAC that only amplifies these problems, well you just took borderline-fatiguing to actually fatiguing.
MoonDrop Variations: The Variations can be considered as a tamer IE 600 in some ways, thus the issues mentioned above are generally less concerning. But still, the Variations’ thin midrange sounds even drier with the Space. This isn’t my go-to pairing, but I wouldn’t really hesitate using it to listen to OSTs and Electronic music, as its technicalities still pair well with the Variations.
EA x EA Gaea: About the same impressions as the Variations and the IE 600, drier midrange, more unwanted tonal artifacts (some graininess), and a slightly zingy treble. Yet interestingly, I use this combo to play games, as the laser-precise-imaging properties of the Gaea and the brighter signature generated by the Space are all things that actually work well with this use case. With the very compact size of the Space, you are looking at a great portable gaming set.
Comparisons:
Shanling UA2: When I swapped from the UA2 to the Space, I immediately noticed a jump in separation and overall clarity. However, I wasn’t able to pick up much tonal differences between the two (bass sounds a bit meatier on the Space). Overall, these two are quite similar in terms of sound. In terms of build, I actually would say that I really love the UA2’s sleek yet rounded build. It probably has the best handfeel out of any dongle, as there are no sharp edges, and it’s so thin and light to a point you barely notice it. The Space is thicker, and has sharper edges, thus doesn’t feel as smooth as the UA2’s shell, but nevertheless, it’s still a very sweet compact build.
ddHifi TC44C Blue: The TC44C is still my go-to DAC. I use it on my way to school, use it while enjoying music in my room, use it while travelling. And that’s because the TC44C features an ovular build, not dissimilar to the UA2, and a very nice stock leather case which provides a very premium feel. Can the space replace the TC44C’s unmovable position as my most-used DAC? Yes and no. I love the volume and gain controls on the Space, but am more concerned about its sharp edges scraping my phone case and pants/bags. Sound-wise, the TC44C sounds like dead-neutral with no treble oddities and no emphasized bass. The Space, as mentioned before, has slight colorations in its treble response. Other than that, the two are considerably transparent DACs. However, A/B testing does show that the TC44C has a more 3D presentation, and sounds just a bit clearer with more microdetails. Honestly, I’d prefer the TC44C, but the Space’s usability still attracts me to use it.
ddHifi TC44C Green: I really wanted to test the Space against one of my favorite DACs of all time. Unfortunately, I lost this while travelling, thus will only share some impressions via memory. The TC44C Green is bassier, warmer than the Blue version, and subsequently, the Space. I do remember that the Green was a step down in terms of resolution compared to the W2, but not sure if its inferior to the Space (probably around the same level). I’d prefer the TC44C Green’s tonality over the Space, but not sure if its other qualities are marginally better. Both TC44Cs do offer a more pleasing socket alignment (both sockets are centered), and generally a nicer, finer aluminum finishing (the case is great too!).
Luxury & Precision W2: Even after 2 years of using the W2 (and hearing numerous others), I’d still maintain that it’s still amongst the best DACs out there, regardless of price and configuration. The W2 has an incredibly clean and neutral timbre, with a dash of sweetness, mildly similar to LP’s expensive R2R DAPs. This is the one property I keep coming back to the W2 for. And the Space, just serves to prove my point on how special the W2 sounds to me. The Space’s thin tonality just sounds generic, probably heard it elsewhere a million times before. While its technicalities are no slouch, I still think it lacks the borderless soundstage expansion of the W2 and microdynamics. But remember, the W2 is a 300 dollar dongle and the Space costs 90 bucks, so hearing a difference like this isn’t unexpected. Where I think the Space does much better is its form factor. The Space is about two-thirds of the W2’s size, while offering the most useful function that dongles should have, a precision volume rocker. The W2 is larger as it has a screen, but honestly, I don’t find it too useful, as I barely change the other settings. I can perfectly have a W2 without a screen and use it just as much. Indeed, the W2 is too bulky for me to carry with me, which is why the Space is, along with the TC44C, my two “outdoor” DACs. If the Space carried the timbre of the W2, it might as well be the only DAC I’ll ever use.
MoonDrop MoonRiver 2: MR2 is basically a bigger, more expensive Space. With minor differences in terms of power output (MR2 has 20mW more power output at 32 ohms, maxing out at 250mW), DAC chip (2x CS43198 for MR2), aesthetics and build quality. The MR2’s build quality is not excellent, featuring very sharp edges around the bottom side, and floppy, loose buttons for the volume rockers. The volume rockers also don’t have the 50-step precision volume control like the Space, they are no different from your phone’s buttons. The middle section of the MR2 also feels quite fragile, only about 6mm thick, while the Space exudes more confidence in its stouter, thicker build. In terms of sound, the Space does emphasize vocals more than the MR2, or in other words, the MR2 sounds slightly laid-back. The MR2 does sound slightly thicker due to this, and lacks the slightly glassy, digital quality the Space does. However, I do detect the same 6k and 10k peaks on the MR2, just somewhat less intense. Technical performance is about the same on both, but I’m inclined to give MR2 the edge for clarity across the entire frequency range. Honestly, the MR2 makes the Space seem like a bargain, offering ~90% of the performance at a fraction of the size and cost. This is how the audio market is working nowadays, more expensive products are being undercut by cheaper alternatives again and again. It’s getting harder to justify major price gaps, because the lower-end markets are getting saturated with equally-competitive products.
iBasso DX170: “Why the hell are you comparing a dongle to a DAP?” is probably what some of you are screaming. Well, they both share the same purpose, translating digital signals into analog ones that are then transmitted to the transducer(s), thus I don’t see a particular reason why this comparison isn’t effective. The major difference is that dongles need to piggyback another device to power it and feed it the digital signals (a.k.a. music), while DAPs can be used independently. The DX170 does have a 100-step volume control, more accurate than the Space’s 50-step, and has loads more power, making it suitable to drive big cans. According to my calculations, the DX170 can reach an astonishing 1300mW according to the official 6.4 VRMS output voltage at 32 ohms, yet this value will almost always be lower, as power is limited by current output at low impedance levels (to get an exact power output, we need real measurements). Speaking of sound, I actually find the two to be quite similar. Consider the DX170 to be Space in DAP form, both are equally dry and digital-sounding. The DX170 does sound just a bit crisper in the treble. The Space, in some ways, makes even mid-range DAPs seem quite overpriced. It offers comparable sound at 1/5th of the price, and once you hook it up with a modern smartphone, you get an experience that smokes all DAPs (whether its screen quality, user interface fluidity, portability, and the capability of doing things beyond playing music), losing out only in terms of power output and controls.
Conclusion:
Honestly speaking, I am impressed by the Space. While it’s not the perfect DAC, as it has a rather thin and more analytical signature, it has the technical performance that comes eerily close to more expensive dongles and DAPs. It has the build quality and functionality that makes most other dongles seem like people are not putting enough into making their products more usable and premium. It has everything you need at a mere 90 bucks. It’s a DAC that doesn’t necessitate an upgrade, unless if you want that last 5-10% of performance while paying the “audiophile tax”. To me, the Space is the ultimate starter’s dongle, and it can take you a long way.
About Me:
Hi, I’m fugu (KillerLab). A student currently completing studies in Canada. I have been an audiophile for almost 2 years, although I have had interest in audio for a duration much longer than that. I love listening to J-Pop (yes, J for Japanese), J-Rock, OSTs, and occasionally, Electronic/Dance and Folk. My reviewing style (and the way I define certain terms) are largely inspired by crinacle and Precogvision.
Prelude:
I remember reading L7AudioLab’s (WolfX700) article on the Luxury & Precision W2 (CS43198), and claims that it is, by far, the best measuring dongle on the market. Soon afterwards, the market started to be saturated by more similar high-performance dongles, such as the MoonDrop MoonRiver 2, Dawn, Quloos MC-01, W2’s successors and our star of the show, the Tanchjim Space. Yet, the Space is amongst the cheapest “high-performance” dongles you can get, coming in at a cool 89.99 USD.
*A high performance dongle is hard to define, but for me it is: SINAD ~115dB (BAL), Dynamic Range/SNR ~130dB (A-weighted), low and linear IMD, ~-130dB Multitone, ~-150dB 12k FFT with little to no spikes, 4VRMS and ~200mW of output (BAL). I know that some audiophiles don’t believe how measurements correlate with sound quality, but to me, a good measuring DAC at least guarantees transparency and cleanliness, with low coloration, and those are things I want for my sources. If you’re interested in these measurements for the Space, see: https://www.l7audiolab.com/f/tanchjim-space/ (do note that the unit L7 tested is a prototype, not a production unit like the one I have).
Unboxing:
Even though unboxing experiences for these products (DAC/Amps) are often quite generic, I still think it’s important to address this, as an unboxing experience is the first impression of a product. It shows how much effort a company is willing to put into their products to make the user feel like they’re getting their money’s worth. And Tanchjim has done a pretty nice job here. The Space comes in their signature-styled package, a grey, patterned rectangular box with a white sleeve. Inside reveals the instruction manuals etc., and underneath that is the Space itself along with a dual USB-C cable and a USB-C to USB-A adapter, all neatly assorted in white/grey compartments. For DAC/Amps, this is actually one of the better unboxing experiences, as most other DAC/Amps come in a generic black/beige cardboard box with simple black foam cutouts.
User Experience:
The Space is actually really useful, in many ways. First of all, it’s incredibly small. The Space might as well be the smallest dongle that has a swappable cable system on the market right now. Secondly, it has its own volume control. It offers ~50 steps of volume adjustment (haven’t really counted this), which is much more accurate than the volume rockers on your computer/smartphone (those often have less than 15 volume steps). Tanchjim’s marketing material also says that the volume increments get smaller when nearing normal listening levels, to avoid the volume being either too loud or too quiet. I have no trouble powering any IEM with the Space. Gain is adjustable between High and Low, by pressing and holding the two volume buttons at the same time. Do note that the default gain is High, and the Space will always revert to this once disconnected then reconnected.
Build quality is great for the price: the Space sports a medium-fine sandblasted aluminum frame, with an acrylic board that shows the logic board, a nice design only few others use. The board also features a LED, which flashes blue once only when a device is connected. The volume button is not loose, unlike the MoonRiver 2, which is more than double the price, and has a good, tactile feedback. Even though there is a visible seam in the middle, running my finger along the sides shows that it is well-polished, to a point where the dongle feels like it’s a unibody construction.
The Space does exceed my expectations for a sub-100-dollar dongle, in terms of both usability and build quality, yet it is not perfect. Both the 4.4 and 3.5 sockets are not aligned in the center, the two edges near the USB-C port are very sharp, the USB-C port itself is also very shallow, allowing around a quarter of the USB-C plug to be exposed (they say this is for other aftermarket accessories, i.e. a case…but I haven’t seen something like that yet…), the stock cable is flat, having limited flexibility, and the USB-A adapter is generic and cheap. But that’s just me nitpicking around. Again, the Space’s build quality exudes confidence and quality at just 90 bucks.
However, after taking a look at the reviews below and others online, it does seem like certain Space units have actual build quality issues, i.e. loose buttons and loose internal screws. Maybe I just got lucky, so buyer beware.
Equipment:
ddHifi TC05, MFi06S connected to said DAC/Amp and to either a MacBook Pro 2021 or an iPhone 11
All IEMs are connected via 4.4 BAL output
Sound:
Do note that I don’t have a lot of experience in reviewing DAC/Amps, thus I’ll be mostly writing about some noticeable differences in the sound that I think I hear.
Tone:
The Space can generally be described as a neutral-bright sounding DAC. The general frequency spectrum is quite flat and linear. The bass doesn’t sound boosted, yet remains relatively good texture (punch and rumble), working well with my OST and folk tracks. For pop and rock, sometimes I do want a bit more bass, but am still generally satisfied with the Space’s bass. The midrange is probably one of the most uncolored out there. There’s really no detectable vocal boost, unlike most other DACs I have heard, which just have a very slight emphasis on female vocals. The treble, however, sometimes sounds a bit bright to me, often around the 6k region, inducing a small boost in sibilance. While not to the level of fatiguing, it is a bit annoying and uncomfortable to listen to for too long. Another slight boost in the treble occurs around the 10k region, where hi-hats also sound a bit harsh and sharp. Timbre on the Space is probably where this DAC falls flat. The Space not only sounds quite thin, despite having no audible boost in the midrange, it also presents this slightly abrasive, digital edge at times. With considerably thin IEMs, such as the Variations, vocals get this glassy, nigh grating texture. The Space may not be for everyone and every IEM as its tonality isn’t truly neutral, but brain burn-in might as well solve this issue.
Tech:
The Space sounds just like what I expect from a well-measuring DAC, clean and detailed. To the very least, it allows the Gaea to resolve all the existing macrodetails in each track. The Space does expand well in terms of width, providing an adequate sense of space. Layering and positional accuracy are great. I wouldn’t complain much about the Space’s imaging capabilities. One minor issue is probably dynamics. The Space does struggle a bit to put forth certain microdetails, thus in some ways, sounds dynamically compressed in the upper mids and treble. But its macrodynamic contrast is still good enough. The Space’s technical performance is simply excellent, to a point where I really can’t nitpick much even in absence of its price. Within dongle-fi, the Space is probably one of the cheapest options for a highly resolving DAC.
Pairings:
SoftEars Twilight: The Twilight is source-flexible, very source-flexible. It basically can pair with any DAC and still pump out great sound. This is probably due to how its tuned, a warm, slightly thick tone with an open presentation, which masks unwanted artifacts and note weight bias a DAC may generate. The Twilight indeed hides many of the Space’s tonal problems I mentioned above, making this probably the best pairing amongst these IEMs.
SoftEars RSV: Not much of a difference from the Twilight actually, as the RSV is basically a Twilight with less mid-bass and mid-treble. Do note that the RSV does have very low impedance, thus a source with high output impedance can generate a noticeable change in sound (although the Space doesn’t seem to have this issue).
DUNU Vulkan: From the two sets above you probably can tell that tonally-pleasing, warm-ish IEMs work well with the Space. And the Vulkan only justifies this. Thanks to the Space’s good imaging properties, you just got a pairup that you can probably kick back and listen to hours on-end.
Sennheiser IE 600: Probably one of the worst combos on this list… The IE 600 is sharp, bright and thin to boot. Slap on a DAC that only amplifies these problems, well you just took borderline-fatiguing to actually fatiguing.
MoonDrop Variations: The Variations can be considered as a tamer IE 600 in some ways, thus the issues mentioned above are generally less concerning. But still, the Variations’ thin midrange sounds even drier with the Space. This isn’t my go-to pairing, but I wouldn’t really hesitate using it to listen to OSTs and Electronic music, as its technicalities still pair well with the Variations.
EA x EA Gaea: About the same impressions as the Variations and the IE 600, drier midrange, more unwanted tonal artifacts (some graininess), and a slightly zingy treble. Yet interestingly, I use this combo to play games, as the laser-precise-imaging properties of the Gaea and the brighter signature generated by the Space are all things that actually work well with this use case. With the very compact size of the Space, you are looking at a great portable gaming set.
Comparisons:
Shanling UA2: When I swapped from the UA2 to the Space, I immediately noticed a jump in separation and overall clarity. However, I wasn’t able to pick up much tonal differences between the two (bass sounds a bit meatier on the Space). Overall, these two are quite similar in terms of sound. In terms of build, I actually would say that I really love the UA2’s sleek yet rounded build. It probably has the best handfeel out of any dongle, as there are no sharp edges, and it’s so thin and light to a point you barely notice it. The Space is thicker, and has sharper edges, thus doesn’t feel as smooth as the UA2’s shell, but nevertheless, it’s still a very sweet compact build.
ddHifi TC44C Blue: The TC44C is still my go-to DAC. I use it on my way to school, use it while enjoying music in my room, use it while travelling. And that’s because the TC44C features an ovular build, not dissimilar to the UA2, and a very nice stock leather case which provides a very premium feel. Can the space replace the TC44C’s unmovable position as my most-used DAC? Yes and no. I love the volume and gain controls on the Space, but am more concerned about its sharp edges scraping my phone case and pants/bags. Sound-wise, the TC44C sounds like dead-neutral with no treble oddities and no emphasized bass. The Space, as mentioned before, has slight colorations in its treble response. Other than that, the two are considerably transparent DACs. However, A/B testing does show that the TC44C has a more 3D presentation, and sounds just a bit clearer with more microdetails. Honestly, I’d prefer the TC44C, but the Space’s usability still attracts me to use it.
ddHifi TC44C Green: I really wanted to test the Space against one of my favorite DACs of all time. Unfortunately, I lost this while travelling, thus will only share some impressions via memory. The TC44C Green is bassier, warmer than the Blue version, and subsequently, the Space. I do remember that the Green was a step down in terms of resolution compared to the W2, but not sure if its inferior to the Space (probably around the same level). I’d prefer the TC44C Green’s tonality over the Space, but not sure if its other qualities are marginally better. Both TC44Cs do offer a more pleasing socket alignment (both sockets are centered), and generally a nicer, finer aluminum finishing (the case is great too!).
Luxury & Precision W2: Even after 2 years of using the W2 (and hearing numerous others), I’d still maintain that it’s still amongst the best DACs out there, regardless of price and configuration. The W2 has an incredibly clean and neutral timbre, with a dash of sweetness, mildly similar to LP’s expensive R2R DAPs. This is the one property I keep coming back to the W2 for. And the Space, just serves to prove my point on how special the W2 sounds to me. The Space’s thin tonality just sounds generic, probably heard it elsewhere a million times before. While its technicalities are no slouch, I still think it lacks the borderless soundstage expansion of the W2 and microdynamics. But remember, the W2 is a 300 dollar dongle and the Space costs 90 bucks, so hearing a difference like this isn’t unexpected. Where I think the Space does much better is its form factor. The Space is about two-thirds of the W2’s size, while offering the most useful function that dongles should have, a precision volume rocker. The W2 is larger as it has a screen, but honestly, I don’t find it too useful, as I barely change the other settings. I can perfectly have a W2 without a screen and use it just as much. Indeed, the W2 is too bulky for me to carry with me, which is why the Space is, along with the TC44C, my two “outdoor” DACs. If the Space carried the timbre of the W2, it might as well be the only DAC I’ll ever use.
MoonDrop MoonRiver 2: MR2 is basically a bigger, more expensive Space. With minor differences in terms of power output (MR2 has 20mW more power output at 32 ohms, maxing out at 250mW), DAC chip (2x CS43198 for MR2), aesthetics and build quality. The MR2’s build quality is not excellent, featuring very sharp edges around the bottom side, and floppy, loose buttons for the volume rockers. The volume rockers also don’t have the 50-step precision volume control like the Space, they are no different from your phone’s buttons. The middle section of the MR2 also feels quite fragile, only about 6mm thick, while the Space exudes more confidence in its stouter, thicker build. In terms of sound, the Space does emphasize vocals more than the MR2, or in other words, the MR2 sounds slightly laid-back. The MR2 does sound slightly thicker due to this, and lacks the slightly glassy, digital quality the Space does. However, I do detect the same 6k and 10k peaks on the MR2, just somewhat less intense. Technical performance is about the same on both, but I’m inclined to give MR2 the edge for clarity across the entire frequency range. Honestly, the MR2 makes the Space seem like a bargain, offering ~90% of the performance at a fraction of the size and cost. This is how the audio market is working nowadays, more expensive products are being undercut by cheaper alternatives again and again. It’s getting harder to justify major price gaps, because the lower-end markets are getting saturated with equally-competitive products.
iBasso DX170: “Why the hell are you comparing a dongle to a DAP?” is probably what some of you are screaming. Well, they both share the same purpose, translating digital signals into analog ones that are then transmitted to the transducer(s), thus I don’t see a particular reason why this comparison isn’t effective. The major difference is that dongles need to piggyback another device to power it and feed it the digital signals (a.k.a. music), while DAPs can be used independently. The DX170 does have a 100-step volume control, more accurate than the Space’s 50-step, and has loads more power, making it suitable to drive big cans. According to my calculations, the DX170 can reach an astonishing 1300mW according to the official 6.4 VRMS output voltage at 32 ohms, yet this value will almost always be lower, as power is limited by current output at low impedance levels (to get an exact power output, we need real measurements). Speaking of sound, I actually find the two to be quite similar. Consider the DX170 to be Space in DAP form, both are equally dry and digital-sounding. The DX170 does sound just a bit crisper in the treble. The Space, in some ways, makes even mid-range DAPs seem quite overpriced. It offers comparable sound at 1/5th of the price, and once you hook it up with a modern smartphone, you get an experience that smokes all DAPs (whether its screen quality, user interface fluidity, portability, and the capability of doing things beyond playing music), losing out only in terms of power output and controls.
Conclusion:
Honestly speaking, I am impressed by the Space. While it’s not the perfect DAC, as it has a rather thin and more analytical signature, it has the technical performance that comes eerily close to more expensive dongles and DAPs. It has the build quality and functionality that makes most other dongles seem like people are not putting enough into making their products more usable and premium. It has everything you need at a mere 90 bucks. It’s a DAC that doesn’t necessitate an upgrade, unless if you want that last 5-10% of performance while paying the “audiophile tax”. To me, the Space is the ultimate starter’s dongle, and it can take you a long way.
EA x EA Gaea: The Voice of the Goddess
About Me:
Hi, I’m fugu (KillerLab). A student currently completing studies in Canada. I have been an audiophile for almost 2 years, although I have had interest in audio for a duration much longer than that. I love listening to J-Pop (yes, J for Japanese), J-Rock, OSTs, and occasionally, Electronic and Classical. My reviewing style (and the way I define certain terms) are largely inspired by crinacle and Precogvision.
Notice:
I have purchased this unit at a discounted price from MusicTeck in exchange for this review. Despite so, I have not been instructed in any form to write positive things about this product. Thus, everything in this review will be my own truthful experience.
(But still a big thanks to Andrew from MusicTeck for trying to make things right, and for being such a kind and responsible salesperson!)
Prelude:
Haven’t heard of the name Elysian Acoustic Labs? Well, neither have I, until I stumbled across crinacle’s review of their flagship, the Annihilator, a few months ago. Instantly intrigued by the way this IEM was tuned, I wanted to experience Lee’s unique sound. However, Elysian products are hard to come by, as most of their orders are placed by messaging their social media accounts. They are also notoriously known for their surprisingly long wait times (up to 6 months!). But their partnership with widely-known cable company, Effect Audio, has made the dream of hearing Elysian products (and owning one) come true. Effect Audio is handling the production and distribution of the Gaea, making it far more accessible to the general audiophile market with larger stock supplies, while also adding in their own specialties, cables (and internal wiring).
I am no cable guy, as a person who believes in science and has had personal experience determining that cables don’t change sound marginally (by various A/B testing), so I’ll not talk about how these cables sound and whatever, despite this being a collab with one of the most prestigious cable companies out there. (I actually own a few EA cables, for usability and build quality, not for “sound”).
The Gaea is a 1DD/4BA IEM that costs 1300 dollars (oof, there goes my New Year’s Red Packet and a few months’ worth of allowance).
Unboxing:
The Gaea comes in a large square black cardboard box with gold embossed over it, pretty sweet design. Lifting the top cover reveals an opaque paper featuring a foreword from the founders of the two companies. The next layer is the earphones themselves, with the cable pre-attached and stuffed in a small compartment underneath. The bottom layer features all the accessories, three sets of SpinFit W1s, a cleaning tool, a cleaning cloth and a carrying case. I am actually reminded of my DUNU Vernus (Falcon Pro Limited)’s unboxing, as it has a near-identical layout (but the Vernus comes with more eartips and a protective mesh bag). IEM that costs more than a grand unboxes similar to something worth 200 bucks? Err… some work needed here?
Build & Fit:
Despite the unboxing being rather underwhelming, the quality of everything included is to the very least, good.
The shell is composed of black resin and a blue stabilized wood faceplate. Overall finishing of the shell is similar to the RSV, perfect polishing with no seam between the faceplate and the shell, and sports a smooth and shiny finish. While I’d say I prefer the RSV’s more rounded and elegant shape, there’s no denial that stabilized wood just looks that good. The fit is like the RSV, taking up lots of concha area which isolates sound pretty well, except the Gaea has a slightly shorter nozzle, making it just a bit more comfortable. The earpiece features a Pentaconn Ear connection, which, from memory is only seen on Acoustune products (and Sennheiser’s IE 400 and 500 Pro and Spear Lab’s Triton), making cable rolling not too easy, even though from a stability perspective, this connector does feels better than MMCX. A tiny nitpick about the build on these earpieces is that my PE sockets had quite a lot of white dust inside (polishing residue?). The cable is probably the more interesting part of this package. It sports a two-tone finish that is reminiscent of the IEM’s color scheme, with the y-split and plug having similar stabilized wood parts embedded into black aluminum. Not often do you see IEM’s come with matching cables that fit the overall theme, nice job, EA. The cable also has EA’s ConX system, allowing you to swap between the most common connectors on the market (although only PE is supplied, you can purchase other options from EA). Build quality is identical to the Ares S I have on hand (from the spec sheets, this cable also seems like a mix between the Ares S and the Cadmus), which translates to a premium feel, good amounts of heft, and low microphonics. Might I mention the chin slider? This little 8-shaped piece of aluminum fits perfectly inside the y-split, a smart and sleek design featured only on EA’s own Chiron (which is more expensive than the Gaea as a whole!). The Gaea benchmarks what a high-quality stock cable should be like. Other “boutique” companies, take notes. The black fabric case features a magnet clasp, and comfortable stores the IEM inside. Although nice-feeling, this material attracts dust and lint like a magnet. The cloth and cleaning tool are bog standard, but the black colors thankfully match the rest of the package. Well, we saved the worst for the last, the eartips. While the rest of the package has matching themes, the SpinFit W1s have a transparent umbrella, with varying colors for the base? It definitely does look quite disjointed from the rest of the earphone, but this part stays mostly in your ear, so I guess it just wasn’t as important as other areas. Might I mention that installing these eartips on this massive nozzle is a nightmare? I almost felt like I was tearing the base of the eartip off.
Actually, I take that back, the Gaea’s accessories are (generally) great, especially the cable. One step closer to 1.3k, yay.
Equipment:
MacBook Pro 16” 2021 + Luxury Precision W2 (Original CS43198 Ver.)
W2 Settings: Normal EQ, Normal SDF, Low Gain, LL Fast Filter, Tune 02, Ver. 1.0.3.6. AS
iBasso DX170
DX170 Settings: Filter 3 (LL Fast), Low Gain, Ver. 1.03.261
iPhone 11 + ddHifi TC44C (Blue)
The Gaea is rated at 102dB/100mVRMS for sensitivity, which translates to 122dB/VRMS, and with 10 ohms of impedance, it is easy to drive. Electronic devices' native output and dongles should have no trouble powering it, good quality DAPs are out of the question. My DX170 can drive it to my normal listening levels (~67.5 dB) with around 12 volume steps on Low Gain.
All music is streamed off Apple Music, with maximum quality (Hi-Res Lossless, if available).
The Gaea’s nozzle is 7mm wide, so most conventional eartips will not fit easily, only large-bore eartips are recommended. The SpinFit W1s are a hassle to install onto the Gaea, thus I’ll be using the MoonDrop Blessing 2/Variations/S8 stock tips for this review. The nice-looking and feeling stock cable will be used for this review
Frequency Response and Channel Matching for EA Gaea (Blue for L, Red for R, Green is my personal target, based off the SoftEars RSV)
Tonality:
Bass:
Not off to a great start. The Gaea’s bass lacks texture. By texture, I mean adequate rumble and bass depth. Bass depth, for me, can be translated to body, the weight of notes, or “meatiness”. This makes the Gaea’s bass feel thin and even a bit dry and weightless. However, the Gaea has excellent punch and slam, thanks to its overly-fast bass transients. The levels of resolution and separation in this region are also fantastic. I can say that the Gaea’s bass is good, but not excellent or top of the class. I’ve heard better options at lower prices. According to Precog, this driver is the same one featured in Elysian’s flagship, the Annihilator, and he claims that the two have very similar performance. I guess the Gaea’s bass performance has something to do with the MT009B driver’s own quality after all. 8 out of 10 will be my score for the Gaea’s bass.
Mids:
While on FR, the Gaea may seem excessively shouty, actual listening suggests that that is not really the case. It definitely does have a strong emphasis on vocals and is, for sure, intense to listen to, but doesn’t sound strident at all. It is quite rare to hear a midrange performance this well-controlled. Thanks to its primarily-sub-bass-focused bass response, the midrange also sounds exceptionally clean, offering incredible separation from the other frequencies. The final part I want to touch on about the Gaea’s midrange is its texture. The Gaea might have the best midrange texture I’ve heard so far. The Gaea’s Sonion drivers are capable of putting forward every vocal inflection and detail in instruments, effortlessly. The Gaea, simply put, sounds alive and energetic. While not being close to “neutral”, the Gaea’s midrange is something I can definitely respect and appreciate. I’ll give the mids here a 9 out of 10.
Treble:
Arguably the most disputable region of any transducer, as everybody’s ears are shaped differently, thus we wear IEMs at different insertion depths, thus they sound different. Well, to me, the Gaea’s treble is excellent. Fantastic extension with no major peaks nor dips, well-textured with lots of air. A minor nitpick of the Gaea’s treble is that hi-hats and cymbals occasionally have this subtle tinny and splashy texture to it, but considering everything else, the Gaea’s treble also earns a 9 out of 10.
Timbre:
The Gaea’s timbre is not the most natural one I’ve heard out of a multi-driver setup, but it certainly is well done. It is relatively thin and a tiny bit dry, but doesn’t have that plastickiness that certain hybrid monitors have. I have very few things to nitpick about the Gaea’s timbre, considering that there are really not many hybrid, or full-BA monitors I’d rank above the Gaea for timbre. 8.5 out of 10.
Tonal Balance Summary:
While on FR, the Gaea seems like it sports a v-shaped tonality, I don’t think quite so. The Gaea sounds to me more like a bright-neutral tonality. This is because the bass, although shows 10dB on the graphs, feels more like 5-7dB. It fails to balance out the aggressive pinna gain and treble response, allowing the upper frequencies to be picked up by the listener more easily. All of the above, combined with the Gaea’s fast transients, fits it’s targeted tonality of being a female-vocal-focused IEM. A to A+ for tonal score, as it sports a vivid signature, but can be refined just a bit more.
Technical Performance:
Transient & Dynamics:
Wow, this is where the Gaea impresses. Transients on the Gaea are quick. Instruments hit fast, vocals sound crisp, while still remaining within the realms of natural. These do translate to the small problems aforementioned in the timbre section, but I wouldn’t worry too much about that. The decay is not too extended, nor is it too quicky. It’s on the neutral-quick side, which definitely aids the Gaea in its sharp sound signature, while still retaining good texture in the mids and treble. This translates to a good transient balance, where the attack and decay complement each other to reach the desired presentation. Dynamics on the Gaea are simply excellent. The Gaea sounds incredibly energetic with a great sense of explosiveness no matter what you throw at it. Microdynamics are superb too, the Gaea is capable of capturing every last bit of small fluctuations, such as the reverb in percussions, the sustain of a grand piano, and the inhales and exhales of vocalists. There has never been a moment where I found the Gaea sounding compressed or undynamic, max 10 out of 10 here.
Imaging:
The Gaea’s stage is moderately wide, being capable of placing instruments “outside of the shell”. While not being particularly impressive in terms of height or diffusal (how the farthest sounds blend in perfectly with the background), the Gaea provides incredible separation between all tracks and laser-precise instrumental positioning. These feats are still enough to bring the Gaea to a 9 out of 10 for imaging, as its imaging qualities fit its profile as a reference-vocal-styled monitor.
Resolution:
Yea, if there’s one thing you’d buy the Gaea, it’ll be for its detail pickup. This monitor puts forth literally every last bit of detail I expect out of any track. Paired with its excellent separation abilities, the Gaea comfortably competes with multikilobuck TOTL monitors in terms of detail retrieval (from memory, the qdc Anole VX isn’t that much ahead of the Gaea in terms of detail, if at all better). Heck, I don’t even think my beloved HD 800 S is indefinitely better than the Gaea in this performance metric. The Gaea, simply put, is to the very least, one of the most detailed monitors on the market right now. To achieve this with a humble 1DD/4BA setup, while everybody else is stacking 12, 18… 24 (???) drivers to make them sound “impressive” on paper, is quite astonishing.
Comparison:
Although I don’t own any monitors in the same price bracket as the Gaea, I do want to compare it to a few of my sub-kilo monitors to see how much better the Gaea is, if at all, and whether it is worth that price gap or not.
SoftEars Twilight:
Gaea vs. Twilight is like Yin and Yang, the two are literally polar opposites. The Gaea focuses primarily on the upper midrange and treble, bringing out detail and texture. The Twilight focuses more on the lower midrange, providing warmth, boldness, and spatialness, or simply, ease of listening. The Gaea is definitely more technically proficient because of this, while the Twilight is closer to neutral for tuning for me. Somehow, I am able to enjoy both equally, with both being in my daily driver squad. Yet, I can’t really swap one for the other immediately (often I’d need something like the MoonDrop Variations to transition, continue reading to see a comparison with this IEM). I wouldn’t call one better than the other, they’re both fantastic monitors, but, again, are completely different in what they offer.
MoonDrop Blessing 2/Variations:
What’s the 1DD/4BA that took the entire audiophile community by storm? It’s none other than the venerable Blessing 2. And the B2 is impressive because it offers excellent tuning and class-leaping technical performance. Is the Gaea better than its distant relative? Yes? The Gaea is certainly more resolving, by quite a margin actually, and has better positional accuracy and layering, and is much more dynamic, but is not strictly better in terms of tuning. The Variations, as a texturally refined Blessing 2, definitely pulls ahead of the Gaea in terms of its sub-bass response (boy, that slam and rumble…), and lacks the slight abrasiveness in the treble, thus also making it somewhat more pleasant to listen to. The Gaea maxes out on technicalities, while the Blessing 2s can potentially sound just a bit more pleasant (especially the Dusk and the Variations).
(Blue line is the MoonDrop Variations)
Sennheiser IE 600 (with JVC FX-10++ Tips as the stock tips are horrendous):
Actually, both of these IEMs have good amounts of mids and treble. Except, the IE 600 is an absolute bass monster. It is without question that the IE 600 has way better bass texture than the Gaea, while having equivalent amounts of slam and matching macrodynamics. Where the IE 600 loses to the Gaea though, is in the smoothness of the treble. Its 10k plateau rises too quickly, thus making hi-hats sound borderline fatiguing. The Gaea is also better in terms of soundstage width, as I do consider the IE 600 to have a rather average stage size. I also believe that the Gaea is just slightly ahead in terms of microdynamics, or small fluctuations in volume, notably in instruments. Interestingly, the IE 600 is close to the Gaea’s detail retrieval performance. It’s a bit hard to tell people exactly which one they should buy, as the two are very alike in some ways, but in some ways they’re also quite different. I guess it comes down to whether you want all the bass you can have or not, or maybe fit and isolation (the IE 600 fits much better but isolates worse).
Unique Melody MEST MkII (from memory):
Ok, I don’t like the MEST MkII, specifically its midrange. The MEST MkII’s midrange sounds tonally off, almost wrong to me. Vocalists sound like they lack energy and they are also placed too far away for me. Don’t get me wrong, I respect the MEST MkII, I can see why people like it (massive soundstage), but I won’t pick up one as my daily driver. I’d much rather save 200 bucks and buy the Gaea, which comes with a much more usable cable (that PW Audio Copper M2 is very microphonic and stiff, all the descriptors of a bad cable) and a midrange tuning I can comfortably call great. But if you like the MEST MkII, then go for it, it’s your money and your ideal sound (just demo both if you can).
Sony IER-M9 (from memory):
The kilobuck guard. The M9 is incredibly safe in, well, everything. Indeed, the M9 is tonally more pleasant than the Gaea, as it is just warm and smooth all-round. The M9 however suffers from mediocre BA bass and a general lack of dynamics. Get the Gaea if an aggressive sound signature satisfies you, get the M9 if you want to kick back and listen to music for hours on end. The Gaea has a pretty chonky shell, so if your ears are small, the M9 may be also a better choice for you.
Conclusion:
Consider EA’s marketing as accurate, the Gaea is definitely a female-vocal-focused IEM, but it’s not just any vocal IEM, it’s one that has endgame potential. With proficient tuning across the board and technical performance that rivals any other flagship, the Gaea is, without doubt, one of my personal favorites, and one of the best IEMs in the sub-2k price bracket. Elysian's unique tuning methodology has paired really well with Effect Audio's cable design and craftsmanship to create an IEM that truly breathes life into music.
About Me:
Hi, I’m fugu (KillerLab). A student currently completing studies in Canada. I have been an audiophile for almost 2 years, although I have had interest in audio for a duration much longer than that. I love listening to J-Pop (yes, J for Japanese), J-Rock, OSTs, and occasionally, Electronic and Classical. My reviewing style (and the way I define certain terms) are largely inspired by crinacle and Precogvision.
Notice:
I have purchased this unit at a discounted price from MusicTeck in exchange for this review. Despite so, I have not been instructed in any form to write positive things about this product. Thus, everything in this review will be my own truthful experience.
(But still a big thanks to Andrew from MusicTeck for trying to make things right, and for being such a kind and responsible salesperson!)
Prelude:
Haven’t heard of the name Elysian Acoustic Labs? Well, neither have I, until I stumbled across crinacle’s review of their flagship, the Annihilator, a few months ago. Instantly intrigued by the way this IEM was tuned, I wanted to experience Lee’s unique sound. However, Elysian products are hard to come by, as most of their orders are placed by messaging their social media accounts. They are also notoriously known for their surprisingly long wait times (up to 6 months!). But their partnership with widely-known cable company, Effect Audio, has made the dream of hearing Elysian products (and owning one) come true. Effect Audio is handling the production and distribution of the Gaea, making it far more accessible to the general audiophile market with larger stock supplies, while also adding in their own specialties, cables (and internal wiring).
I am no cable guy, as a person who believes in science and has had personal experience determining that cables don’t change sound marginally (by various A/B testing), so I’ll not talk about how these cables sound and whatever, despite this being a collab with one of the most prestigious cable companies out there. (I actually own a few EA cables, for usability and build quality, not for “sound”).
The Gaea is a 1DD/4BA IEM that costs 1300 dollars (oof, there goes my New Year’s Red Packet and a few months’ worth of allowance).
Unboxing:
The Gaea comes in a large square black cardboard box with gold embossed over it, pretty sweet design. Lifting the top cover reveals an opaque paper featuring a foreword from the founders of the two companies. The next layer is the earphones themselves, with the cable pre-attached and stuffed in a small compartment underneath. The bottom layer features all the accessories, three sets of SpinFit W1s, a cleaning tool, a cleaning cloth and a carrying case. I am actually reminded of my DUNU Vernus (Falcon Pro Limited)’s unboxing, as it has a near-identical layout (but the Vernus comes with more eartips and a protective mesh bag). IEM that costs more than a grand unboxes similar to something worth 200 bucks? Err… some work needed here?
Build & Fit:
Despite the unboxing being rather underwhelming, the quality of everything included is to the very least, good.
The shell is composed of black resin and a blue stabilized wood faceplate. Overall finishing of the shell is similar to the RSV, perfect polishing with no seam between the faceplate and the shell, and sports a smooth and shiny finish. While I’d say I prefer the RSV’s more rounded and elegant shape, there’s no denial that stabilized wood just looks that good. The fit is like the RSV, taking up lots of concha area which isolates sound pretty well, except the Gaea has a slightly shorter nozzle, making it just a bit more comfortable. The earpiece features a Pentaconn Ear connection, which, from memory is only seen on Acoustune products (and Sennheiser’s IE 400 and 500 Pro and Spear Lab’s Triton), making cable rolling not too easy, even though from a stability perspective, this connector does feels better than MMCX. A tiny nitpick about the build on these earpieces is that my PE sockets had quite a lot of white dust inside (polishing residue?). The cable is probably the more interesting part of this package. It sports a two-tone finish that is reminiscent of the IEM’s color scheme, with the y-split and plug having similar stabilized wood parts embedded into black aluminum. Not often do you see IEM’s come with matching cables that fit the overall theme, nice job, EA. The cable also has EA’s ConX system, allowing you to swap between the most common connectors on the market (although only PE is supplied, you can purchase other options from EA). Build quality is identical to the Ares S I have on hand (from the spec sheets, this cable also seems like a mix between the Ares S and the Cadmus), which translates to a premium feel, good amounts of heft, and low microphonics. Might I mention the chin slider? This little 8-shaped piece of aluminum fits perfectly inside the y-split, a smart and sleek design featured only on EA’s own Chiron (which is more expensive than the Gaea as a whole!). The Gaea benchmarks what a high-quality stock cable should be like. Other “boutique” companies, take notes. The black fabric case features a magnet clasp, and comfortable stores the IEM inside. Although nice-feeling, this material attracts dust and lint like a magnet. The cloth and cleaning tool are bog standard, but the black colors thankfully match the rest of the package. Well, we saved the worst for the last, the eartips. While the rest of the package has matching themes, the SpinFit W1s have a transparent umbrella, with varying colors for the base? It definitely does look quite disjointed from the rest of the earphone, but this part stays mostly in your ear, so I guess it just wasn’t as important as other areas. Might I mention that installing these eartips on this massive nozzle is a nightmare? I almost felt like I was tearing the base of the eartip off.
Actually, I take that back, the Gaea’s accessories are (generally) great, especially the cable. One step closer to 1.3k, yay.
Equipment:
MacBook Pro 16” 2021 + Luxury Precision W2 (Original CS43198 Ver.)
W2 Settings: Normal EQ, Normal SDF, Low Gain, LL Fast Filter, Tune 02, Ver. 1.0.3.6. AS
iBasso DX170
DX170 Settings: Filter 3 (LL Fast), Low Gain, Ver. 1.03.261
iPhone 11 + ddHifi TC44C (Blue)
The Gaea is rated at 102dB/100mVRMS for sensitivity, which translates to 122dB/VRMS, and with 10 ohms of impedance, it is easy to drive. Electronic devices' native output and dongles should have no trouble powering it, good quality DAPs are out of the question. My DX170 can drive it to my normal listening levels (~67.5 dB) with around 12 volume steps on Low Gain.
All music is streamed off Apple Music, with maximum quality (Hi-Res Lossless, if available).
The Gaea’s nozzle is 7mm wide, so most conventional eartips will not fit easily, only large-bore eartips are recommended. The SpinFit W1s are a hassle to install onto the Gaea, thus I’ll be using the MoonDrop Blessing 2/Variations/S8 stock tips for this review. The nice-looking and feeling stock cable will be used for this review
Frequency Response and Channel Matching for EA Gaea (Blue for L, Red for R, Green is my personal target, based off the SoftEars RSV)
Tonality:
Bass:
Not off to a great start. The Gaea’s bass lacks texture. By texture, I mean adequate rumble and bass depth. Bass depth, for me, can be translated to body, the weight of notes, or “meatiness”. This makes the Gaea’s bass feel thin and even a bit dry and weightless. However, the Gaea has excellent punch and slam, thanks to its overly-fast bass transients. The levels of resolution and separation in this region are also fantastic. I can say that the Gaea’s bass is good, but not excellent or top of the class. I’ve heard better options at lower prices. According to Precog, this driver is the same one featured in Elysian’s flagship, the Annihilator, and he claims that the two have very similar performance. I guess the Gaea’s bass performance has something to do with the MT009B driver’s own quality after all. 8 out of 10 will be my score for the Gaea’s bass.
Mids:
While on FR, the Gaea may seem excessively shouty, actual listening suggests that that is not really the case. It definitely does have a strong emphasis on vocals and is, for sure, intense to listen to, but doesn’t sound strident at all. It is quite rare to hear a midrange performance this well-controlled. Thanks to its primarily-sub-bass-focused bass response, the midrange also sounds exceptionally clean, offering incredible separation from the other frequencies. The final part I want to touch on about the Gaea’s midrange is its texture. The Gaea might have the best midrange texture I’ve heard so far. The Gaea’s Sonion drivers are capable of putting forward every vocal inflection and detail in instruments, effortlessly. The Gaea, simply put, sounds alive and energetic. While not being close to “neutral”, the Gaea’s midrange is something I can definitely respect and appreciate. I’ll give the mids here a 9 out of 10.
Treble:
Arguably the most disputable region of any transducer, as everybody’s ears are shaped differently, thus we wear IEMs at different insertion depths, thus they sound different. Well, to me, the Gaea’s treble is excellent. Fantastic extension with no major peaks nor dips, well-textured with lots of air. A minor nitpick of the Gaea’s treble is that hi-hats and cymbals occasionally have this subtle tinny and splashy texture to it, but considering everything else, the Gaea’s treble also earns a 9 out of 10.
Timbre:
The Gaea’s timbre is not the most natural one I’ve heard out of a multi-driver setup, but it certainly is well done. It is relatively thin and a tiny bit dry, but doesn’t have that plastickiness that certain hybrid monitors have. I have very few things to nitpick about the Gaea’s timbre, considering that there are really not many hybrid, or full-BA monitors I’d rank above the Gaea for timbre. 8.5 out of 10.
Tonal Balance Summary:
While on FR, the Gaea seems like it sports a v-shaped tonality, I don’t think quite so. The Gaea sounds to me more like a bright-neutral tonality. This is because the bass, although shows 10dB on the graphs, feels more like 5-7dB. It fails to balance out the aggressive pinna gain and treble response, allowing the upper frequencies to be picked up by the listener more easily. All of the above, combined with the Gaea’s fast transients, fits it’s targeted tonality of being a female-vocal-focused IEM. A to A+ for tonal score, as it sports a vivid signature, but can be refined just a bit more.
Technical Performance:
Transient & Dynamics:
Wow, this is where the Gaea impresses. Transients on the Gaea are quick. Instruments hit fast, vocals sound crisp, while still remaining within the realms of natural. These do translate to the small problems aforementioned in the timbre section, but I wouldn’t worry too much about that. The decay is not too extended, nor is it too quicky. It’s on the neutral-quick side, which definitely aids the Gaea in its sharp sound signature, while still retaining good texture in the mids and treble. This translates to a good transient balance, where the attack and decay complement each other to reach the desired presentation. Dynamics on the Gaea are simply excellent. The Gaea sounds incredibly energetic with a great sense of explosiveness no matter what you throw at it. Microdynamics are superb too, the Gaea is capable of capturing every last bit of small fluctuations, such as the reverb in percussions, the sustain of a grand piano, and the inhales and exhales of vocalists. There has never been a moment where I found the Gaea sounding compressed or undynamic, max 10 out of 10 here.
Imaging:
The Gaea’s stage is moderately wide, being capable of placing instruments “outside of the shell”. While not being particularly impressive in terms of height or diffusal (how the farthest sounds blend in perfectly with the background), the Gaea provides incredible separation between all tracks and laser-precise instrumental positioning. These feats are still enough to bring the Gaea to a 9 out of 10 for imaging, as its imaging qualities fit its profile as a reference-vocal-styled monitor.
Resolution:
Yea, if there’s one thing you’d buy the Gaea, it’ll be for its detail pickup. This monitor puts forth literally every last bit of detail I expect out of any track. Paired with its excellent separation abilities, the Gaea comfortably competes with multikilobuck TOTL monitors in terms of detail retrieval (from memory, the qdc Anole VX isn’t that much ahead of the Gaea in terms of detail, if at all better). Heck, I don’t even think my beloved HD 800 S is indefinitely better than the Gaea in this performance metric. The Gaea, simply put, is to the very least, one of the most detailed monitors on the market right now. To achieve this with a humble 1DD/4BA setup, while everybody else is stacking 12, 18… 24 (???) drivers to make them sound “impressive” on paper, is quite astonishing.
Comparison:
Although I don’t own any monitors in the same price bracket as the Gaea, I do want to compare it to a few of my sub-kilo monitors to see how much better the Gaea is, if at all, and whether it is worth that price gap or not.
SoftEars Twilight:
Gaea vs. Twilight is like Yin and Yang, the two are literally polar opposites. The Gaea focuses primarily on the upper midrange and treble, bringing out detail and texture. The Twilight focuses more on the lower midrange, providing warmth, boldness, and spatialness, or simply, ease of listening. The Gaea is definitely more technically proficient because of this, while the Twilight is closer to neutral for tuning for me. Somehow, I am able to enjoy both equally, with both being in my daily driver squad. Yet, I can’t really swap one for the other immediately (often I’d need something like the MoonDrop Variations to transition, continue reading to see a comparison with this IEM). I wouldn’t call one better than the other, they’re both fantastic monitors, but, again, are completely different in what they offer.
MoonDrop Blessing 2/Variations:
What’s the 1DD/4BA that took the entire audiophile community by storm? It’s none other than the venerable Blessing 2. And the B2 is impressive because it offers excellent tuning and class-leaping technical performance. Is the Gaea better than its distant relative? Yes? The Gaea is certainly more resolving, by quite a margin actually, and has better positional accuracy and layering, and is much more dynamic, but is not strictly better in terms of tuning. The Variations, as a texturally refined Blessing 2, definitely pulls ahead of the Gaea in terms of its sub-bass response (boy, that slam and rumble…), and lacks the slight abrasiveness in the treble, thus also making it somewhat more pleasant to listen to. The Gaea maxes out on technicalities, while the Blessing 2s can potentially sound just a bit more pleasant (especially the Dusk and the Variations).
(Blue line is the MoonDrop Variations)
Sennheiser IE 600 (with JVC FX-10++ Tips as the stock tips are horrendous):
Actually, both of these IEMs have good amounts of mids and treble. Except, the IE 600 is an absolute bass monster. It is without question that the IE 600 has way better bass texture than the Gaea, while having equivalent amounts of slam and matching macrodynamics. Where the IE 600 loses to the Gaea though, is in the smoothness of the treble. Its 10k plateau rises too quickly, thus making hi-hats sound borderline fatiguing. The Gaea is also better in terms of soundstage width, as I do consider the IE 600 to have a rather average stage size. I also believe that the Gaea is just slightly ahead in terms of microdynamics, or small fluctuations in volume, notably in instruments. Interestingly, the IE 600 is close to the Gaea’s detail retrieval performance. It’s a bit hard to tell people exactly which one they should buy, as the two are very alike in some ways, but in some ways they’re also quite different. I guess it comes down to whether you want all the bass you can have or not, or maybe fit and isolation (the IE 600 fits much better but isolates worse).
Unique Melody MEST MkII (from memory):
Ok, I don’t like the MEST MkII, specifically its midrange. The MEST MkII’s midrange sounds tonally off, almost wrong to me. Vocalists sound like they lack energy and they are also placed too far away for me. Don’t get me wrong, I respect the MEST MkII, I can see why people like it (massive soundstage), but I won’t pick up one as my daily driver. I’d much rather save 200 bucks and buy the Gaea, which comes with a much more usable cable (that PW Audio Copper M2 is very microphonic and stiff, all the descriptors of a bad cable) and a midrange tuning I can comfortably call great. But if you like the MEST MkII, then go for it, it’s your money and your ideal sound (just demo both if you can).
Sony IER-M9 (from memory):
The kilobuck guard. The M9 is incredibly safe in, well, everything. Indeed, the M9 is tonally more pleasant than the Gaea, as it is just warm and smooth all-round. The M9 however suffers from mediocre BA bass and a general lack of dynamics. Get the Gaea if an aggressive sound signature satisfies you, get the M9 if you want to kick back and listen to music for hours on end. The Gaea has a pretty chonky shell, so if your ears are small, the M9 may be also a better choice for you.
Conclusion:
Consider EA’s marketing as accurate, the Gaea is definitely a female-vocal-focused IEM, but it’s not just any vocal IEM, it’s one that has endgame potential. With proficient tuning across the board and technical performance that rivals any other flagship, the Gaea is, without doubt, one of my personal favorites, and one of the best IEMs in the sub-2k price bracket. Elysian's unique tuning methodology has paired really well with Effect Audio's cable design and craftsmanship to create an IEM that truly breathes life into music.
SoftEars Twilight Review
The Turii Ti situation:
The Twilight and the Turii Ti are completely different. The Turii Ti uses the same 11mm DLC + PEEK dynamic driver as the Turii with 1.6T of magnetic flux. The Twilight uses a 10mm DLC + FreeEdge suspension dynamic driver (no creases on the suspension), which is developed specifically for this next generation of IEMs. Just wanted to clear that out, as I did find some people having questions about this, given that the Turii Ti has no official documentation about its specs.
About Me:
Hi, I’m fugu (KillerLab). A student currently completing studies in Canada. I have been an audiophile for a bit less than 2 years, although I have had interest in audio for a duration much longer than that. I love listening to J-Pop (yes, J for Japanese), J-Rock, OSTs, and occasionally, Electronic and Classical. My reviewing style (and the way I define certain terms) are largely inspired by crinacle and Precogvision.
Notice:
This unit was purchased at MusicTeck USA (thanks to Andrew and your team!). I have been given a discount from the said distributor in exchange for this review (not a student discount). There are, however, no external influences on my thoughts and views on the product, thus, this will be a personal, in-depth, yet honest review.
Prelude:
SoftEars is a Chinese IEM company founded at the end of 2017 in Chengdu. Over the course of 5 years, they have created numerous products that the audiophile community have come to love. From the venerable RS10 & Cerberus, to the dynamic driver frontrunner Turii, the “true reference” RSV and the “VFM” Volume. The name of SoftEars is directly related to excellency and opulence. And now, they present their newest creation, Twilight, successor to the Turii.
Unboxing:
The Twilight comes in a black cardboard box, featuring the SoftEars logo at the top, the Twilight name embossed on the front, basic specs and a golden “Made in China” sticker at the bottom. Inside, you are greeted first with the Turii’s slogan: “twist your ears, then with the earpieces on the right and the storage case on the left. From the photos I’ve seen, this seems to be the exact same layout as the Turii Ti’s package, except without the fancy Alcantara interior and silver exterior. Within the black hockey case, you’ll find the 4.4mm cable and a 4.4 to 3.5 adapter (quite a sweet addition). Under the earpieces, you’ll 3 types of tips, silicone, foam and SoftEars’ Ultra Clear LSR Tip, with 3 sizes each, S, M, L, packaged within sealed plastic bags. Interestingly, I didn’t receive the plastic eartip cards Animagus did (SoftEars says he used the Volume’s tips for photos instead; all Twilights will receive the plastic bags, no cards).There’s also a mesh baggy to protect the earpieces along with a cleaning tool. There is also black cardboard card featuring the model and S/N (what happened to the metal cards?). Overall, the Twilight comes in a simple unboxing experience with all the bare necessities.
Build & Fit:
The earpieces themselves are constructed of 5-axis CNC aerospace-grade aluminum. The sandblasting is exceptionally fine, giving the piece a very smooth, luxurious feel. No machining marks are observed either. Even though the nozzles are substantially smaller than SoftEar’s resin models, the rectangular shell is still quite big. The shell occasionally scrapes against parts of my ear, but for most of the time, it’s comfortable. The shell also protrudes outwards quite a bit, so don’t wear this to bed. However, thanks to the decreased density of aluminum, the Twilight fits noticeably better than the Turii (one of the heaviest monitors I’ve worn). Speaking of the Turii, the Twilight shares the exact same form factor and design, except with a matte black finish. I personally like the twisted design, but am not a huge fan of the rectangular shape. But after carefully thinking through it, yeah, there aren’t many other shapes out there that you can twist like this. Like the Turii, the isolation is quite poor due to its heavily-vented open-back nature. Overall, I am satisfied with the earpieces themselves, as they are robust, lightweight, offer good fit, and have a design I can live with.
The cable is constructed out of full matte black components, black connector, black y-split, black pins and black wires. SoftEars offers a small 4.4mm balanced connector, which I’d say is quite fitting today, as most people have a DAP/dongle with the said plug. Even if you don’t SoftEars also includes a 3.5mm adapter, which I’d say is really nice. The y-split reflects the design of the earpieces themselves, the twisted rectangles. Quite cool, given that many monitors offer a generic-looking cable that look completely unrelated to the monitor. The 2-pin connectors fit snuggly into the recessed sockets, while having a tiny bit of extra room just so that they don’t scrape against the earpiece shells. The 4-core 6N OCC copper cable itself is relatively soft and supple, and does coil up pretty well, while having minimal microphonics, although it does have a bit of memory effect. The only two major complaints I have are 1. the cable has no cable cinch, and 2. there are machining marks on the y-split, unlike the earpieces, which are clean. I will use the stock cable for this review.
The case is made out of (presumably synthetic) black leather. The interior is lined with grey fabric. The opening and closing feeling of the case is perfect: the lid doesn’t slide off by itself, no matter the weight within the case, but it doesn’t take much force to lift. The internal space is large enough to fit the monitors and the cable, and the 3.5mm adapter altogether. Overall, the case feels excellent and the color scheme fits the entire set.
The SoftEars UC LSR Tips are exceptionally comfortable. I have no trouble wearing these tips for hours in one go, as once they are inserted, you feel basically nothing in your ear canal. This will be the tip I will review the Twilight with.
Equipment:
MacBook Pro 16” 2021 + Luxury Precision W2 (Original CS43198 Ver.)
W2 Settings: Normal EQ, Normal SDF, Low Gain, LL Fast Filter, Tune 02, Ver. 1.0.3.6. AS
iBasso DX170
DX170 Settings: Filter 3 (LL Fast), Low Gain, Ver. 1.02.241
iPhone 11 + ddHifi TC44C (Green)
Sound Reference: SoftEars RSV
All music is streamed off Apple Music, with maximum quality (Hi-Res Lossless).
Frequency Response:
(Frequency Response of SoftEars Twilight with UC; Red is my target (based off RSV), Green is measured.
Measured on IEC clone coupler @94 dBSPL, with 1kHz alignment point)
The Review:
General Sound Profile: Warm-neutral
Bass: The Twilight offers a mild 5dB bass boost from 800Hz and below. Seeing the FR, the first thing you think is probably: “bruh, it’s bloated”. Well, actual listening suggests that that is not the real case here. The Twilight definitely does have some extra mid-bass, some extra meat and richness, but it’s not really enough to affect the midrange, so consider it as a relatively clean monitor. The 3.5dB sub-bass boost is generally good with most music I listen to, delivering adequate punch/slam and good texturing, however, I can find myself wanting a bit more at times. One other caveat is that the Twilight’s bass is placed slightly farther back in the mix than I’m generally used to. Overall, I can say the Twilight’s bass response is quite good, and very fitting for its general sound profile, warm and relaxing, and the quality of it is quite impressive in contrast to its relatively low amount. Around a 7.5 – 8 out of 10.
Midrange: If there’s one thing SoftEars always masters in their monitors, it’ll be the midrange. SoftEars and MoonDrop, both tune accordingly to their VDSF target, providing near-zero coloration and possibly the most accurate vocal performances I’ve heard from any monitor. And I daresay, SoftEars does it even better than their sister company. The Twilight (along with the RSV I’ll talk about later) is the most solid evidence for that. The Twilight’s midrange is neutral, in almost every way possible. No shout, no recessions, no odd harmonics. It presents vocals a bit forward, while dragging instruments far back into the mix, providing fantastic separation. Without any alarming peaks or dips, the Twilight also preserves all instrumental tones very well. Unlike certain Moondrop monitors, the Twilight also maintains excellent note weight for vocals, not thin nor thick. I simply cannot fault the Twilight’s midrange. Max 10 out of 10.
Treble: SoftEars also controls their treble pretty well, evident on most of their monitors, and the Twilight is another good demonstration of that. The Twilight exhibits a truly linear treble response, offering no unwanted peaks nor sibilance. However, the biggest caveat is that its extension isn’t particularly fantastic. The Twilight doesn’t really have much sparkle up top, and for treble-sensitive people, can potentially sound a bit dark. I actually find this again fitting for its generally warm tonality. I’ll give the Twilight a 9 out of 10 here, as it again, doesn’t do anything wrong.
Timbre: Where do we start with timbre? The Twilight exhibits basically the best timbre I’ve heard from any earphone. Every single instrument is presented with incredible accuracy with net zero artifacts. Thanks to its very linear tuning, the Twilight also doesn’t have a direct emphasis on any part of the frequency nor bias towards any specific instrument. The smoothness and overall roundedness of the Twilight benefits it’s timbre greatly. I cannot think of any other one of the near-100 monitors that I’ve heard carefully that even come close to the Twilight’s natural timbre (well, probably the RSV, but that’s it). Maximum 10 out of 10 here, no questions asked.
Transients & Dynamics: Transients are probably the Twilight’s Achilles’ Heel. The Twilight’s transients are, well, smoothed over; not necessarily blunted, but definitely lacking crispness. Although, as mentioned in the timbre section, this does reduce the sense of sharpness that some people may want, this also reduces the definition of the Twilight (I define definition as how every note is resolved), hampering the Twilight’s technical performance. However, like many of the other qualities mentioned above, I still find this smoothed transients fitting for its overall sound signature. Can’t really fault it nor praise it. The redeeming quality in this section is actually the Twilight’s dynamics. I believe there are two types of dynamics, one type is visceral impact/air movement (bass dynamics/macrodynamics), and the other is fluctuations/gradations in volume (microdynamics), with the latter being where I believe the Twilight is very capable in. String instruments, in which volume is greatly controlled by the power the bow is pulled at (in the case of violins etc.), create volume shifts due to the non-constant power exerted by the musician on the strings, as the amplitude of sound changes. Small changes in the volume of the vocalists are also counted as part of microdynamics. The Twilight is capable of presenting these, effortlessly. The MoonDrop KATO is actually an antithesis of good microdynamics, despite having decent macrodynamics. Most instruments, especially strings and brass, on the KATO sound “flat”, where there are no changes in volume (or just barely any). Back to the Twilight, I’ll give it around a 7 for transient response, while a 9 for dynamics (just not enough macrodynamics), averaging a straight 8 in this category.
Resolution: Some parts of the Twilight’s resolution have already been talked about in the Transients & Dynamics section, however, just allow me to elaborate a bit more. The Twilight isn’t class-leading in the resolution department, particularly due to the aforementioned weakened definition (how each note is resolved). But it still fights back in terms of internal detail (how many tracks are resolved), which is largely related to imaging performance (see below). I’ll give the Twilight an 8 here, as it is no slouch, but not outstanding.
Imaging: If there’s one thing the Turii left a deep impression on me, it would be its imaging performance. The Turii had a near borderless soundstage, naturally diffusing instruments into the vast black background it presented, while also offering excellent separation. And the Twilight, is honestly, is just as powerful as the Turii in these metrics. Not only do vocals stand out from the mix, the layers between each instrumental track is also exceptionally cleanly separated. This is why the Twilight’s internal detail is still very strong. In some ways, the two SoftEars DD brothers reminds me of the HD800s (yep, ur big boy headphone), of having very similar traits, just still not to the same legendary level. To me, the imaging performance is actually what’s so impressive about the Twilight (it’s also why I clicked the “Place Order” button). Again, I’ll give the best score possible to the Twilight for its jaw-dropping imaging performance. In this metric, the Twilight is a true class-leader, if not, a class-leaper.
The Twilight provides possibly the best implementation of warm-neutral I’ve heard so far. It provides warmth more ways than one, from the boosted mid-bass, to the relatively relaxed treble, to the smooth, natural timbre, to its rounded transients (and its vast soundstage). It strikes an incredible balance between all metrics to form its loveable sound signature, which is something I can’t say for the general IEM population. Is this the single DD endgame? It’s a big yes if you’re looking for an IEM you can listen to all day long. The Twilight, in my heart, is amongst the best monitors out there, not only because of its class-leading midrange tonality, imaging and timbral performance, it’s also because of its distinguished consistency across the board. This is one of SoftEars’ top works, and just one more marvelous addition to the world of audio.
(Twilight’s own score)
Comparisons:
Well, fantastic products are not only great on their own, they need to be better than the general competition. Does the Twilight beat out its competition? Let’s find out with the following comparisons:
Twilight vs. Turii: Now, I need to be clear, I don’t own the Turii, I have listened to it for hours too, but still am unable to make a highly accurate comparison. But one thing is for sure, the Twilight is not weaker than the Turii, nor stronger, it is simply different from the Turii. The Turii can be called a brighter, more resolving Twilight, or the Twilight a more natural, warmer Turii. The Turii Ti is essentially a brighter Turii, thus a brighter brighter Twilight. At 2/3 of the price, the Twilight is definitely more VFM than the Turii, which is nice. The Twilight also fits much better than the Turii, so if the OG’s fit didn’t work for you, maybe give the Twilight a shot.
Twilight vs. Sennheiser IE 600: No sugarcoating here, both monitors are what I consider as the top dogs of all single DDs. However, the two are immensely different from one other. The IE 600 is the more energetic one, providing a massive sub-bass boost (13dB, who are you kidding), and a “spicy” treble response, being more V-shaped than the Twilight. The IE 600 is thus much more energetic and incisive than the Twilight, while the Twilight is much easier to listen to for the general population. In terms of technical performance, yes, the IE 600 outresolves the Twilight in terms of definition by a lot, is noticeably snappier in terms of transients, and provides insane macrodynamics. However, the Twilight crushes the IE 600 in imaging, as the IE 600 sounds constrained, where you hear a wall surrounding the stage, whereas, the Twilight, blasts past all of these walls, and just provides a massive globular soundstage. Separation is significantly better on the Twilight too. And for microdynamics, the two are about toe-to-toe with each other. The IE 600 is more unique and has more individuality to its tuning, dynamics and resolution. The Twilight is the more objectively-acceptable option, while also displaying its distinctiveness in its imaging performance. Both are simply fantastic, but neither is the wiser.
Twilight vs. MoonDrop Variations: Ah, yes, let’s compare it to the Blessing 2 Pro Max. The Variations also has a similar sub-bass focused low-end response like the IE 600, providing better punch and slam than the Twilight. However, the Twilight does have better “richness” due to its extra mid-bass. The Variations does outresolve the Twilight by a notch, however is still somewhat beaten by the Twilight’s imaging performance. And one more point to the Twilight’s high tonal consistency, in contrast to the Variations’ more disjointed tone and drier timbre, as the transients and texture of the three types of drivers are slightly different. I’ll consider the Twilight to be more natural than the Variations, while the Variations being the slightly more technical of the two. Both are impressive all-rounders, but I am unable to call out which one is indefinitely better.
Twilight vs. Tanchjim PRISM: The PRISM isn’t really talked about much in the Western IEM community. However, I really like the PRISM for one specific quality, its imaging performance. Even against my benchmark, the Twilight is still better in this quality, possibly due to its heavily-vented semi-open-backed nature. In other metrics, the Twilight isn’t as shouty as the PRISM is and has a more palatable tonality, but is conversely, slightly out-resolved. This is quite a decisive win for the Twilight, although I will continue liking the PRISM simply because it’s the best looking monitor I’ve seen and own (crown “jewel”).
Twilight vs. DUNU Zen Pro: Err, another monitor I don’t own but have listened to plenty of times to understand how it generally sounds. The Zen Pro sounds more muffled than the Twilight, and also blander, lacking a wow factor. I will say that the Twilight wins this round for sound, however, the Zen Pro’s shell is significantly smaller. But even if that matters, I think there are still alternatives here that are better (namely the IE 600).
Twilight vs. SoftEars RSV: This is by far the hardest comparison of the bunch. In some ways, the two are similar, far too similar. The tonality of the two are near-identical in the midrange and treble, while splitting ways in the bass. One is cleaner (RSV), while one is meatier (Twilight). At this point, I feel like I am doing marketing for SoftEars, but yes, the Twilight outclasses the RSV in imaging,but that’s about it. I also hear some dynamic compression both macro and micro for the RSV, yet these are not issues for the Twilight. Thus the Twilight is slightly more technical than the RSV. However the RSV does offer significantly better isolation and an arguably better fit, while being 27.5% cheaper. If your budget is limited, go for the RSV instead, it offers almost all the SoftEars experience that the Twilight does. [You can opt for the open-box option which will drag the price down even more (by another 20%)].
Edited: 2023/4/15 After re-A/B testing the RSV and the Twilight, and after a better understanding of dynamics.
(Score comparison w/. everybody else)
Value Proposition:
While not being effectively better than the best in its class, the Twilight remains at the very top of the bunch, and is 2/3 of the OG’s price. 930 is a still big chunk of money (and yes, it did dry my wallet), and there are cheaper alternatives that perform similarly. However, if you do have the budget, I actually don’t see why you shouldn’t buy the Twilight for its amazing audio experience.
Epic Battle (Twilight v. IE 600 v. Variations):
The review basically ends here, however, I have included a detailed comparison between the Twilight, IE 600 and Variations by identifying their strengths and weaknesses by each genre I listen to. Keep reading only if you are interested, or if you find that this may help you better. (I have excluded the Turii and Zen Pro as I don’t own them, the RSV because it’s far too similar so I’ll probably be repeating myself most of the time, and the PRISM because I’ve already “declared” the Twilight to be better).
J-Pop:
Song: Ifの世界設定 (Hypothetical World Setting)
Artist: Orangestar / IA
Album: 未完成エイトビーツ (Mikansei Eight Beats)
Twilight: decent bass slam, lacks depth, vocals slightly emphasized, unbeatable rendering of IA’s voice (no annoying VOCALOID artifacts), zero emphasis on other instruments, lateral image with front and back extension, all synthesizer tracks are incredibly well-separated, theater-like presentation, a more reference-ish listen
IE 600: intoxicating bass response, good depth, IA sounds far too digital and has quite a lot of grain, noticeable sibilance, behind-the-ear image, studio-like presentation
Variations: powerful bass slam, great depth, IA generally sounds thin and a bit too digital, slight emphasis on hi-hats, generally behind-the-ear stage, theater-like presentation, somewhat a bridge between the Twilight and IE 600
Winner: Twilight without question if you are here for IA’s vocals, as it’s one of the few IEMs that can render that properly. Variations for a more energetic experience
J-Pop:
Song: 老人と海 (Rōjin to Umi) (Old Man and the Sea)
Artist: ヨルシカ (Yorushika)
Album: 老人と海
Twilight: mellow bass response that still provides excellent depth, outstanding guitar pluck clarity, suis’ vocals stand out from the mix, with hints of warmth and sweetness, n-buna’s vocals shine beyond the instruments, zero aggressiveness
IE 600: powerful kicks, hi-hats and cymbals are emphasized significantly, suis’ vocals do stand out, but are grainy and lack sweetness, n-buna’s vocals shine along with suis’, overly aggressive with ear-piercing sibilance
Variations: interesting kick texture with good punch and slam, great left-right separation, suis’ vocals may be hindered by the backing tracks at times, suis sounds dry and cold, n-buna’s vocals are basically not detectable, average vocal performance paired with a bass response I find not fitting well
Winner: Twilight. It has by far the best vocal performance of the three. It also doesn’t have the level of aggressiveness the other two show, which kind of ruins the serenity the song tries to provide. Natural, mellow, smooth is exactly the scene the Old Man and the Sea conveys, the Twilight presents that with accuracy like no other
J-Rock:
Song: 新宝島 (Shin Takara Jima)
Artist: sakanaction (サカナクション)
Album: 新宝島
Twilight: not enough sub-bass slam and punch, vocals slightly subdued, notes have a very small amount of blunt, unrivalled separation, image placed laterally with extension towards both front and back, concert hall-like presentation, outwards-diffused instruments
IE 600: incredibly well-articulated kicks and snares, vocals slightly subdued, very crisp notes, great separation, image generally placed behind ear, studio-like stage size
Variations: excellent kick texture, vocals slightly forward, perfect transient balance, fantastic separation, instruments placed laterally and behind the ear, theater-like stage size
Winner: Variations, as it combines the best of the IE 600’s crispness and the Twilight’s presentation. However, the IE 600 can be considered competitive for its earth-shattering bass response
Classical:
Song: Fantasia on Arias from “La Traviata”: II. Allegretto
Composer: Marc-Olivier Dupin
Conductor: Yuli Turovsky
Orchestra: I Musici de Montréal
Concertmaster: Alexander Trostiansky
Twilight: silky smooth, rich, full note weight, orchestra placed far behind concertmaster, good frontal imaging with height, stereoscopic stage, fantastic depth, great microdynamics
IE 600: concertmaster’s violin sounds a bit too sharp, also a bit thin, orchestra is placed quite near concertmaster, in-your-head imaging, excellent depth, excellent microdynamics, sounds like everybody is in the practice room
Variations: violin is quite smooth but does have a very slight sharp edge, note weight a bit thin, orchestra is placed appropriately behind concertmaster, excellent frontal imaging, average depth, good microdynamics
Winner: Twilight without question. Easily the most listenable out of the three, as the violin doesn’t have any edginess. Also has massive projection and high dynamic inflection in instrumental tones, which gives possibly the most accurate rendering for an orchestra in a concert hall
OST (Instrumental):
Song: 陽菜と、走る帆高 (Running with Hina)
Artist: RADWIMPS
Album: 天気の子 (Tenki no ko) (“Weathering With You” Original Soundtrack)
Twilight: fantastic depth without any bass bloom, incredible balance between the volumes of every instrument, beautiful microdynamic contrast, true orchestral-performance-level presentation with adequate air
IE 600: good depth with a bit of bass bloom, too much emphasis on percussions to a point where it overshadows the string instruments, percussions also have a slight metallic edge, good microdynamic contrast, open, airy, stage
Variations: average depth with a bit of bass bloom, slight emphasis on percussions, average microdynamic contrast with minor compression, open, airy, stage
Winner: Twilight without question. The most accurate in presenting an orchestra. The only one out of the three that makes you feel the openness and elegance of the sky depicted in the movie by Makoto Shinkai
J-Pop (Live Recording):
Song: Universe (Live)
Artist: Official 髭男 Dism (OFFICIAL HIGE DANDISM)
Album: One Man Tour 2021-2022 – Editorial- @saitama Super Arena
Twilight: excellent bass texture, emphasis on brass instruments and drum kicks, slight vocal emphasis, frontal and lateral presentation, outwards-diffused instruments, concert hall-like presentation, magnificent internal detail (the only one capable of resolving the tom-toms)
IE 600: thunderous, true concert-like bass response, hi-hat emphasis, frontal stage presentation, good positional accuracy, theater-like presentation, high macro and microdynamics
Variations: remarkable slam, significant emphasis on hi-hats, can have a slight tinny edge, slight vocal emphasis, lateral presentation, theater-like presentation, bass is ethereally separated
Winner: IE 600 without question. It’s the only monitor here that makes you feel like you’re currently in the live concert being shook by the kicks and the bass guitar.
Electronic (Instrumental):
Song: Silhouettes
Artist: Yuncino
Album: Silhouettes
Twilight: mellow kicks but with good depth, marvelous track separation, excellent left-right channel separation, cathedral-like presentation, globular stage
IE 600: explosive kicks with good depth, great track separation, ok LR separation, large studio-like presentation, behind-the-ear stage
Variations: energetic kicks but with average depth, great track separation, good left-right separation, theater-like presentation, generally behind-the-ear stage
Winner: Twilight for pleasantness and expansiveness, Variations for energy and balance (of performance between the three)
Electronic:
Song: Polar
Artist: SaMZing / Kirara Magic
Album: Polar
Twilight: surprisingly good bite and attack, excellent depth, not overly bloomy, great clarity, unparalleled track separation, instrumental outwards-diffusion, theater-like presentation, globular stage
IE 600: excellent punch & slam, excellent depth, overly sharp notes but with near-ethereal clarity, fairly good separation, studio-like presentation, lateral stage, incredibly aggressive presentation
Variations: excellent slam, lacks depth, crisp notes with a slight tinny edge on high-pitched percussions, excellent clarity, fantastic track separation, theater-like presentation, stage
Winner: IE 600 if you like doing head bangs, as it provides the most satisfying drops. Twilight’s generous presentation works exceptionally well during the choruses and buildups
Hip-Hop (Electronic):
Song: ZERO-SUM
Artist: wotaku, KAITO
Album: ZERO-SUM
Twilight: lead-synth placed behind ears, powerful bite and depth, good SFX rendering (although guns sound like they have suppressors), adequate focus on vocals, precise positioning, mini-HD800s
IE 600: in-your-face lead synth, excellent SFX rendering (guns sound crisp, overly crisp), great clarity focus on KAITO’s vocals, good positioning, sound generally placed behind ears, acceptable LR separation, room-like stage
Variations: unreal rumble, bass separation like no other, excellent SFX rendering, good focus on KAITO, excellent positioning, great LR separation, studio-like stage
Winner: Variations’ sub-bass response killed it (even better than the IE 600)
If you got here, thanks for reading my 4500-word *cough* essay *cough*. Well, that's the real end of it, comment down below if you have any suggestions on how to improve this (this is also the first time I'm writing a formal review this long) or just want to continue chatting
.
The Turii Ti situation:
The Twilight and the Turii Ti are completely different. The Turii Ti uses the same 11mm DLC + PEEK dynamic driver as the Turii with 1.6T of magnetic flux. The Twilight uses a 10mm DLC + FreeEdge suspension dynamic driver (no creases on the suspension), which is developed specifically for this next generation of IEMs. Just wanted to clear that out, as I did find some people having questions about this, given that the Turii Ti has no official documentation about its specs.
About Me:
Hi, I’m fugu (KillerLab). A student currently completing studies in Canada. I have been an audiophile for a bit less than 2 years, although I have had interest in audio for a duration much longer than that. I love listening to J-Pop (yes, J for Japanese), J-Rock, OSTs, and occasionally, Electronic and Classical. My reviewing style (and the way I define certain terms) are largely inspired by crinacle and Precogvision.
Notice:
This unit was purchased at MusicTeck USA (thanks to Andrew and your team!). I have been given a discount from the said distributor in exchange for this review (not a student discount). There are, however, no external influences on my thoughts and views on the product, thus, this will be a personal, in-depth, yet honest review.
Prelude:
SoftEars is a Chinese IEM company founded at the end of 2017 in Chengdu. Over the course of 5 years, they have created numerous products that the audiophile community have come to love. From the venerable RS10 & Cerberus, to the dynamic driver frontrunner Turii, the “true reference” RSV and the “VFM” Volume. The name of SoftEars is directly related to excellency and opulence. And now, they present their newest creation, Twilight, successor to the Turii.
Unboxing:
The Twilight comes in a black cardboard box, featuring the SoftEars logo at the top, the Twilight name embossed on the front, basic specs and a golden “Made in China” sticker at the bottom. Inside, you are greeted first with the Turii’s slogan: “twist your ears, then with the earpieces on the right and the storage case on the left. From the photos I’ve seen, this seems to be the exact same layout as the Turii Ti’s package, except without the fancy Alcantara interior and silver exterior. Within the black hockey case, you’ll find the 4.4mm cable and a 4.4 to 3.5 adapter (quite a sweet addition). Under the earpieces, you’ll 3 types of tips, silicone, foam and SoftEars’ Ultra Clear LSR Tip, with 3 sizes each, S, M, L, packaged within sealed plastic bags. Interestingly, I didn’t receive the plastic eartip cards Animagus did (SoftEars says he used the Volume’s tips for photos instead; all Twilights will receive the plastic bags, no cards).There’s also a mesh baggy to protect the earpieces along with a cleaning tool. There is also black cardboard card featuring the model and S/N (what happened to the metal cards?). Overall, the Twilight comes in a simple unboxing experience with all the bare necessities.
Build & Fit:
The earpieces themselves are constructed of 5-axis CNC aerospace-grade aluminum. The sandblasting is exceptionally fine, giving the piece a very smooth, luxurious feel. No machining marks are observed either. Even though the nozzles are substantially smaller than SoftEar’s resin models, the rectangular shell is still quite big. The shell occasionally scrapes against parts of my ear, but for most of the time, it’s comfortable. The shell also protrudes outwards quite a bit, so don’t wear this to bed. However, thanks to the decreased density of aluminum, the Twilight fits noticeably better than the Turii (one of the heaviest monitors I’ve worn). Speaking of the Turii, the Twilight shares the exact same form factor and design, except with a matte black finish. I personally like the twisted design, but am not a huge fan of the rectangular shape. But after carefully thinking through it, yeah, there aren’t many other shapes out there that you can twist like this. Like the Turii, the isolation is quite poor due to its heavily-vented open-back nature. Overall, I am satisfied with the earpieces themselves, as they are robust, lightweight, offer good fit, and have a design I can live with.
The cable is constructed out of full matte black components, black connector, black y-split, black pins and black wires. SoftEars offers a small 4.4mm balanced connector, which I’d say is quite fitting today, as most people have a DAP/dongle with the said plug. Even if you don’t SoftEars also includes a 3.5mm adapter, which I’d say is really nice. The y-split reflects the design of the earpieces themselves, the twisted rectangles. Quite cool, given that many monitors offer a generic-looking cable that look completely unrelated to the monitor. The 2-pin connectors fit snuggly into the recessed sockets, while having a tiny bit of extra room just so that they don’t scrape against the earpiece shells. The 4-core 6N OCC copper cable itself is relatively soft and supple, and does coil up pretty well, while having minimal microphonics, although it does have a bit of memory effect. The only two major complaints I have are 1. the cable has no cable cinch, and 2. there are machining marks on the y-split, unlike the earpieces, which are clean. I will use the stock cable for this review.
The case is made out of (presumably synthetic) black leather. The interior is lined with grey fabric. The opening and closing feeling of the case is perfect: the lid doesn’t slide off by itself, no matter the weight within the case, but it doesn’t take much force to lift. The internal space is large enough to fit the monitors and the cable, and the 3.5mm adapter altogether. Overall, the case feels excellent and the color scheme fits the entire set.
The SoftEars UC LSR Tips are exceptionally comfortable. I have no trouble wearing these tips for hours in one go, as once they are inserted, you feel basically nothing in your ear canal. This will be the tip I will review the Twilight with.
Equipment:
MacBook Pro 16” 2021 + Luxury Precision W2 (Original CS43198 Ver.)
W2 Settings: Normal EQ, Normal SDF, Low Gain, LL Fast Filter, Tune 02, Ver. 1.0.3.6. AS
iBasso DX170
DX170 Settings: Filter 3 (LL Fast), Low Gain, Ver. 1.02.241
iPhone 11 + ddHifi TC44C (Green)
Sound Reference: SoftEars RSV
All music is streamed off Apple Music, with maximum quality (Hi-Res Lossless).
Frequency Response:
(Frequency Response of SoftEars Twilight with UC; Red is my target (based off RSV), Green is measured.
Measured on IEC clone coupler @94 dBSPL, with 1kHz alignment point)
The Review:
General Sound Profile: Warm-neutral
Bass: The Twilight offers a mild 5dB bass boost from 800Hz and below. Seeing the FR, the first thing you think is probably: “bruh, it’s bloated”. Well, actual listening suggests that that is not the real case here. The Twilight definitely does have some extra mid-bass, some extra meat and richness, but it’s not really enough to affect the midrange, so consider it as a relatively clean monitor. The 3.5dB sub-bass boost is generally good with most music I listen to, delivering adequate punch/slam and good texturing, however, I can find myself wanting a bit more at times. One other caveat is that the Twilight’s bass is placed slightly farther back in the mix than I’m generally used to. Overall, I can say the Twilight’s bass response is quite good, and very fitting for its general sound profile, warm and relaxing, and the quality of it is quite impressive in contrast to its relatively low amount. Around a 7.5 – 8 out of 10.
Midrange: If there’s one thing SoftEars always masters in their monitors, it’ll be the midrange. SoftEars and MoonDrop, both tune accordingly to their VDSF target, providing near-zero coloration and possibly the most accurate vocal performances I’ve heard from any monitor. And I daresay, SoftEars does it even better than their sister company. The Twilight (along with the RSV I’ll talk about later) is the most solid evidence for that. The Twilight’s midrange is neutral, in almost every way possible. No shout, no recessions, no odd harmonics. It presents vocals a bit forward, while dragging instruments far back into the mix, providing fantastic separation. Without any alarming peaks or dips, the Twilight also preserves all instrumental tones very well. Unlike certain Moondrop monitors, the Twilight also maintains excellent note weight for vocals, not thin nor thick. I simply cannot fault the Twilight’s midrange. Max 10 out of 10.
Treble: SoftEars also controls their treble pretty well, evident on most of their monitors, and the Twilight is another good demonstration of that. The Twilight exhibits a truly linear treble response, offering no unwanted peaks nor sibilance. However, the biggest caveat is that its extension isn’t particularly fantastic. The Twilight doesn’t really have much sparkle up top, and for treble-sensitive people, can potentially sound a bit dark. I actually find this again fitting for its generally warm tonality. I’ll give the Twilight a 9 out of 10 here, as it again, doesn’t do anything wrong.
Timbre: Where do we start with timbre? The Twilight exhibits basically the best timbre I’ve heard from any earphone. Every single instrument is presented with incredible accuracy with net zero artifacts. Thanks to its very linear tuning, the Twilight also doesn’t have a direct emphasis on any part of the frequency nor bias towards any specific instrument. The smoothness and overall roundedness of the Twilight benefits it’s timbre greatly. I cannot think of any other one of the near-100 monitors that I’ve heard carefully that even come close to the Twilight’s natural timbre (well, probably the RSV, but that’s it). Maximum 10 out of 10 here, no questions asked.
Transients & Dynamics: Transients are probably the Twilight’s Achilles’ Heel. The Twilight’s transients are, well, smoothed over; not necessarily blunted, but definitely lacking crispness. Although, as mentioned in the timbre section, this does reduce the sense of sharpness that some people may want, this also reduces the definition of the Twilight (I define definition as how every note is resolved), hampering the Twilight’s technical performance. However, like many of the other qualities mentioned above, I still find this smoothed transients fitting for its overall sound signature. Can’t really fault it nor praise it. The redeeming quality in this section is actually the Twilight’s dynamics. I believe there are two types of dynamics, one type is visceral impact/air movement (bass dynamics/macrodynamics), and the other is fluctuations/gradations in volume (microdynamics), with the latter being where I believe the Twilight is very capable in. String instruments, in which volume is greatly controlled by the power the bow is pulled at (in the case of violins etc.), create volume shifts due to the non-constant power exerted by the musician on the strings, as the amplitude of sound changes. Small changes in the volume of the vocalists are also counted as part of microdynamics. The Twilight is capable of presenting these, effortlessly. The MoonDrop KATO is actually an antithesis of good microdynamics, despite having decent macrodynamics. Most instruments, especially strings and brass, on the KATO sound “flat”, where there are no changes in volume (or just barely any). Back to the Twilight, I’ll give it around a 7 for transient response, while a 9 for dynamics (just not enough macrodynamics), averaging a straight 8 in this category.
Resolution: Some parts of the Twilight’s resolution have already been talked about in the Transients & Dynamics section, however, just allow me to elaborate a bit more. The Twilight isn’t class-leading in the resolution department, particularly due to the aforementioned weakened definition (how each note is resolved). But it still fights back in terms of internal detail (how many tracks are resolved), which is largely related to imaging performance (see below). I’ll give the Twilight an 8 here, as it is no slouch, but not outstanding.
Imaging: If there’s one thing the Turii left a deep impression on me, it would be its imaging performance. The Turii had a near borderless soundstage, naturally diffusing instruments into the vast black background it presented, while also offering excellent separation. And the Twilight, is honestly, is just as powerful as the Turii in these metrics. Not only do vocals stand out from the mix, the layers between each instrumental track is also exceptionally cleanly separated. This is why the Twilight’s internal detail is still very strong. In some ways, the two SoftEars DD brothers reminds me of the HD800s (yep, ur big boy headphone), of having very similar traits, just still not to the same legendary level. To me, the imaging performance is actually what’s so impressive about the Twilight (it’s also why I clicked the “Place Order” button). Again, I’ll give the best score possible to the Twilight for its jaw-dropping imaging performance. In this metric, the Twilight is a true class-leader, if not, a class-leaper.
The Twilight provides possibly the best implementation of warm-neutral I’ve heard so far. It provides warmth more ways than one, from the boosted mid-bass, to the relatively relaxed treble, to the smooth, natural timbre, to its rounded transients (and its vast soundstage). It strikes an incredible balance between all metrics to form its loveable sound signature, which is something I can’t say for the general IEM population. Is this the single DD endgame? It’s a big yes if you’re looking for an IEM you can listen to all day long. The Twilight, in my heart, is amongst the best monitors out there, not only because of its class-leading midrange tonality, imaging and timbral performance, it’s also because of its distinguished consistency across the board. This is one of SoftEars’ top works, and just one more marvelous addition to the world of audio.
(Twilight’s own score)
Comparisons:
Well, fantastic products are not only great on their own, they need to be better than the general competition. Does the Twilight beat out its competition? Let’s find out with the following comparisons:
Twilight vs. Turii: Now, I need to be clear, I don’t own the Turii, I have listened to it for hours too, but still am unable to make a highly accurate comparison. But one thing is for sure, the Twilight is not weaker than the Turii, nor stronger, it is simply different from the Turii. The Turii can be called a brighter, more resolving Twilight, or the Twilight a more natural, warmer Turii. The Turii Ti is essentially a brighter Turii, thus a brighter brighter Twilight. At 2/3 of the price, the Twilight is definitely more VFM than the Turii, which is nice. The Twilight also fits much better than the Turii, so if the OG’s fit didn’t work for you, maybe give the Twilight a shot.
Twilight vs. Sennheiser IE 600: No sugarcoating here, both monitors are what I consider as the top dogs of all single DDs. However, the two are immensely different from one other. The IE 600 is the more energetic one, providing a massive sub-bass boost (13dB, who are you kidding), and a “spicy” treble response, being more V-shaped than the Twilight. The IE 600 is thus much more energetic and incisive than the Twilight, while the Twilight is much easier to listen to for the general population. In terms of technical performance, yes, the IE 600 outresolves the Twilight in terms of definition by a lot, is noticeably snappier in terms of transients, and provides insane macrodynamics. However, the Twilight crushes the IE 600 in imaging, as the IE 600 sounds constrained, where you hear a wall surrounding the stage, whereas, the Twilight, blasts past all of these walls, and just provides a massive globular soundstage. Separation is significantly better on the Twilight too. And for microdynamics, the two are about toe-to-toe with each other. The IE 600 is more unique and has more individuality to its tuning, dynamics and resolution. The Twilight is the more objectively-acceptable option, while also displaying its distinctiveness in its imaging performance. Both are simply fantastic, but neither is the wiser.
Twilight vs. MoonDrop Variations: Ah, yes, let’s compare it to the Blessing 2 Pro Max. The Variations also has a similar sub-bass focused low-end response like the IE 600, providing better punch and slam than the Twilight. However, the Twilight does have better “richness” due to its extra mid-bass. The Variations does outresolve the Twilight by a notch, however is still somewhat beaten by the Twilight’s imaging performance. And one more point to the Twilight’s high tonal consistency, in contrast to the Variations’ more disjointed tone and drier timbre, as the transients and texture of the three types of drivers are slightly different. I’ll consider the Twilight to be more natural than the Variations, while the Variations being the slightly more technical of the two. Both are impressive all-rounders, but I am unable to call out which one is indefinitely better.
Twilight vs. Tanchjim PRISM: The PRISM isn’t really talked about much in the Western IEM community. However, I really like the PRISM for one specific quality, its imaging performance. Even against my benchmark, the Twilight is still better in this quality, possibly due to its heavily-vented semi-open-backed nature. In other metrics, the Twilight isn’t as shouty as the PRISM is and has a more palatable tonality, but is conversely, slightly out-resolved. This is quite a decisive win for the Twilight, although I will continue liking the PRISM simply because it’s the best looking monitor I’ve seen and own (crown “jewel”).
Twilight vs. DUNU Zen Pro: Err, another monitor I don’t own but have listened to plenty of times to understand how it generally sounds. The Zen Pro sounds more muffled than the Twilight, and also blander, lacking a wow factor. I will say that the Twilight wins this round for sound, however, the Zen Pro’s shell is significantly smaller. But even if that matters, I think there are still alternatives here that are better (namely the IE 600).
Twilight vs. SoftEars RSV: This is by far the hardest comparison of the bunch. In some ways, the two are similar, far too similar. The tonality of the two are near-identical in the midrange and treble, while splitting ways in the bass. One is cleaner (RSV), while one is meatier (Twilight). At this point, I feel like I am doing marketing for SoftEars, but yes, the Twilight outclasses the RSV in imaging,
Edited: 2023/4/15 After re-A/B testing the RSV and the Twilight, and after a better understanding of dynamics.
(Score comparison w/. everybody else)
Value Proposition:
While not being effectively better than the best in its class, the Twilight remains at the very top of the bunch, and is 2/3 of the OG’s price. 930 is a still big chunk of money (and yes, it did dry my wallet), and there are cheaper alternatives that perform similarly. However, if you do have the budget, I actually don’t see why you shouldn’t buy the Twilight for its amazing audio experience.
Epic Battle (Twilight v. IE 600 v. Variations):
The review basically ends here, however, I have included a detailed comparison between the Twilight, IE 600 and Variations by identifying their strengths and weaknesses by each genre I listen to. Keep reading only if you are interested, or if you find that this may help you better. (I have excluded the Turii and Zen Pro as I don’t own them, the RSV because it’s far too similar so I’ll probably be repeating myself most of the time, and the PRISM because I’ve already “declared” the Twilight to be better).
J-Pop:
Song: Ifの世界設定 (Hypothetical World Setting)
Artist: Orangestar / IA
Album: 未完成エイトビーツ (Mikansei Eight Beats)
Twilight: decent bass slam, lacks depth, vocals slightly emphasized, unbeatable rendering of IA’s voice (no annoying VOCALOID artifacts), zero emphasis on other instruments, lateral image with front and back extension, all synthesizer tracks are incredibly well-separated, theater-like presentation, a more reference-ish listen
IE 600: intoxicating bass response, good depth, IA sounds far too digital and has quite a lot of grain, noticeable sibilance, behind-the-ear image, studio-like presentation
Variations: powerful bass slam, great depth, IA generally sounds thin and a bit too digital, slight emphasis on hi-hats, generally behind-the-ear stage, theater-like presentation, somewhat a bridge between the Twilight and IE 600
Winner: Twilight without question if you are here for IA’s vocals, as it’s one of the few IEMs that can render that properly. Variations for a more energetic experience
J-Pop:
Song: 老人と海 (Rōjin to Umi) (Old Man and the Sea)
Artist: ヨルシカ (Yorushika)
Album: 老人と海
Twilight: mellow bass response that still provides excellent depth, outstanding guitar pluck clarity, suis’ vocals stand out from the mix, with hints of warmth and sweetness, n-buna’s vocals shine beyond the instruments, zero aggressiveness
IE 600: powerful kicks, hi-hats and cymbals are emphasized significantly, suis’ vocals do stand out, but are grainy and lack sweetness, n-buna’s vocals shine along with suis’, overly aggressive with ear-piercing sibilance
Variations: interesting kick texture with good punch and slam, great left-right separation, suis’ vocals may be hindered by the backing tracks at times, suis sounds dry and cold, n-buna’s vocals are basically not detectable, average vocal performance paired with a bass response I find not fitting well
Winner: Twilight. It has by far the best vocal performance of the three. It also doesn’t have the level of aggressiveness the other two show, which kind of ruins the serenity the song tries to provide. Natural, mellow, smooth is exactly the scene the Old Man and the Sea conveys, the Twilight presents that with accuracy like no other
J-Rock:
Song: 新宝島 (Shin Takara Jima)
Artist: sakanaction (サカナクション)
Album: 新宝島
Twilight: not enough sub-bass slam and punch, vocals slightly subdued, notes have a very small amount of blunt, unrivalled separation, image placed laterally with extension towards both front and back, concert hall-like presentation, outwards-diffused instruments
IE 600: incredibly well-articulated kicks and snares, vocals slightly subdued, very crisp notes, great separation, image generally placed behind ear, studio-like stage size
Variations: excellent kick texture, vocals slightly forward, perfect transient balance, fantastic separation, instruments placed laterally and behind the ear, theater-like stage size
Winner: Variations, as it combines the best of the IE 600’s crispness and the Twilight’s presentation. However, the IE 600 can be considered competitive for its earth-shattering bass response
Classical:
Song: Fantasia on Arias from “La Traviata”: II. Allegretto
Composer: Marc-Olivier Dupin
Conductor: Yuli Turovsky
Orchestra: I Musici de Montréal
Concertmaster: Alexander Trostiansky
Twilight: silky smooth, rich, full note weight, orchestra placed far behind concertmaster, good frontal imaging with height, stereoscopic stage, fantastic depth, great microdynamics
IE 600: concertmaster’s violin sounds a bit too sharp, also a bit thin, orchestra is placed quite near concertmaster, in-your-head imaging, excellent depth, excellent microdynamics, sounds like everybody is in the practice room
Variations: violin is quite smooth but does have a very slight sharp edge, note weight a bit thin, orchestra is placed appropriately behind concertmaster, excellent frontal imaging, average depth, good microdynamics
Winner: Twilight without question. Easily the most listenable out of the three, as the violin doesn’t have any edginess. Also has massive projection and high dynamic inflection in instrumental tones, which gives possibly the most accurate rendering for an orchestra in a concert hall
OST (Instrumental):
Song: 陽菜と、走る帆高 (Running with Hina)
Artist: RADWIMPS
Album: 天気の子 (Tenki no ko) (“Weathering With You” Original Soundtrack)
Twilight: fantastic depth without any bass bloom, incredible balance between the volumes of every instrument, beautiful microdynamic contrast, true orchestral-performance-level presentation with adequate air
IE 600: good depth with a bit of bass bloom, too much emphasis on percussions to a point where it overshadows the string instruments, percussions also have a slight metallic edge, good microdynamic contrast, open, airy, stage
Variations: average depth with a bit of bass bloom, slight emphasis on percussions, average microdynamic contrast with minor compression, open, airy, stage
Winner: Twilight without question. The most accurate in presenting an orchestra. The only one out of the three that makes you feel the openness and elegance of the sky depicted in the movie by Makoto Shinkai
J-Pop (Live Recording):
Song: Universe (Live)
Artist: Official 髭男 Dism (OFFICIAL HIGE DANDISM)
Album: One Man Tour 2021-2022 – Editorial- @saitama Super Arena
Twilight: excellent bass texture, emphasis on brass instruments and drum kicks, slight vocal emphasis, frontal and lateral presentation, outwards-diffused instruments, concert hall-like presentation, magnificent internal detail (the only one capable of resolving the tom-toms)
IE 600: thunderous, true concert-like bass response, hi-hat emphasis, frontal stage presentation, good positional accuracy, theater-like presentation, high macro and microdynamics
Variations: remarkable slam, significant emphasis on hi-hats, can have a slight tinny edge, slight vocal emphasis, lateral presentation, theater-like presentation, bass is ethereally separated
Winner: IE 600 without question. It’s the only monitor here that makes you feel like you’re currently in the live concert being shook by the kicks and the bass guitar.
Electronic (Instrumental):
Song: Silhouettes
Artist: Yuncino
Album: Silhouettes
Twilight: mellow kicks but with good depth, marvelous track separation, excellent left-right channel separation, cathedral-like presentation, globular stage
IE 600: explosive kicks with good depth, great track separation, ok LR separation, large studio-like presentation, behind-the-ear stage
Variations: energetic kicks but with average depth, great track separation, good left-right separation, theater-like presentation, generally behind-the-ear stage
Winner: Twilight for pleasantness and expansiveness, Variations for energy and balance (of performance between the three)
Electronic:
Song: Polar
Artist: SaMZing / Kirara Magic
Album: Polar
Twilight: surprisingly good bite and attack, excellent depth, not overly bloomy, great clarity, unparalleled track separation, instrumental outwards-diffusion, theater-like presentation, globular stage
IE 600: excellent punch & slam, excellent depth, overly sharp notes but with near-ethereal clarity, fairly good separation, studio-like presentation, lateral stage, incredibly aggressive presentation
Variations: excellent slam, lacks depth, crisp notes with a slight tinny edge on high-pitched percussions, excellent clarity, fantastic track separation, theater-like presentation, stage
Winner: IE 600 if you like doing head bangs, as it provides the most satisfying drops. Twilight’s generous presentation works exceptionally well during the choruses and buildups
Hip-Hop (Electronic):
Song: ZERO-SUM
Artist: wotaku, KAITO
Album: ZERO-SUM
Twilight: lead-synth placed behind ears, powerful bite and depth, good SFX rendering (although guns sound like they have suppressors), adequate focus on vocals, precise positioning, mini-HD800s
IE 600: in-your-face lead synth, excellent SFX rendering (guns sound crisp, overly crisp), great clarity focus on KAITO’s vocals, good positioning, sound generally placed behind ears, acceptable LR separation, room-like stage
Variations: unreal rumble, bass separation like no other, excellent SFX rendering, good focus on KAITO, excellent positioning, great LR separation, studio-like stage
Winner: Variations’ sub-bass response killed it (even better than the IE 600)
If you got here, thanks for reading my 4500-word *cough* essay *cough*. Well, that's the real end of it, comment down below if you have any suggestions on how to improve this (this is also the first time I'm writing a formal review this long) or just want to continue chatting
.
hevelaoak
"globular soundstage"
this is the first time I read such a term to explain the condition or the presentation of an IEM in this case. I honestly didn't read many written reviews lately (or maybe not even one in the past months lol), I can say this is one of the best reviews I've read in a long time. straightforward, uncomplicated, and packed with important infos. for someone who has listened to hundreds of IEMs, it's like I already know everything about Twilight by reading this review.
thank you and please consider writing more reviews in the future.
best.
this is the first time I read such a term to explain the condition or the presentation of an IEM in this case. I honestly didn't read many written reviews lately (or maybe not even one in the past months lol), I can say this is one of the best reviews I've read in a long time. straightforward, uncomplicated, and packed with important infos. for someone who has listened to hundreds of IEMs, it's like I already know everything about Twilight by reading this review.
thank you and please consider writing more reviews in the future.
best.
Alino
Thank you. You did a great work, some of the best script organization, comunicative skills and tech data together I red here ever. Thank you.
(You can go completely filter-less, but that may affect the longevity of the driver due to debris falling into the nozzle easily. I believe it will yield similar sonic results, as mesh filters don't affect sound that much. These foam filters, however, act a bit like dampeners.)