Reviews by kmmbd

Ah, Cowon, never change!

While most manufacturers are trying to provide all the bells and whistles, Cowon is keeping things simple and basic. The Korean company focuses on a pure listening experience: put in an SD card, load some music, and go about your business.

The Cowon Plenue R2 is a good showcase for Cowon’s minimalist philosophy. It’s priced in the mid-range of the DAP market and, unlike its peers, lacks Android OS, a large touch-screen, and online streaming support.

However, the Plenue R2 sports a fascinating dual-mono configuration of the Cirrus Logic CS43131 chipset which boasts desktop-class measurements in many aspects. Let’s see if the software limitations are overshadowed by the playback quality.

This review originally appeared on Headphonesty. I purchased the Plenue R2 with my own funds.

Click to expand...

Packaging​

Cowon opted for their signature stealth-black packaging. The unboxing is no-frills, but there is ample foam padding inside to protect the DAP while transporting.

Accessories​

Not much in the way of accessories here as Cowon only bundles a 1.5m USB type-A to type-C cable (which you likely have already). A disappointment indeed.

Design​

Cowon went for a bold design language with straight edges and sharp corners for the Plenue R2. This results in an industrial design that Cowon termed “Solid and Void”. The backplate has an interesting rubber pattern that helps in gripping the device.



The top of the device houses the power button with a circular LED underneath that changes color according to the bit-depth/type of the file being played. For DSD files it glows yellow, purple for FLAC files, and white for regular lossy files. This LED also acts as a status LED when the device is on standby. I turned it off myself as it was distracting during late-night sessions.



The right side of the device houses the playback control buttons which have nice feedback. The left side of the housing has the microSD slot. The bottom of the device has all the ports: 3.5mm SE, 2.5mm balanced, and USB type-C. I like the placement of ports at the bottom so the headphone cables don’t run across the device and aren’t a nuisance.



While I love the Plenue R2’s design, buttons, and the port placement, I am not a big fan of the sharp corners or the bright LED. A carrying case solves that sharp corner issue though, and the LED can be easily turned off.

Display​

The Cowon Plenue R2 utilizes a 800*480 Samsung AMOLED panel. AMOLED panels are quite a rarity in the DAP market and it’s great that Cowon is utilizing one here. The display offers deep blacks, near-infinite contrast ratio, and punchy colors. Viewing angles are superb.

In terms of color accuracy, there is a warm tint to the display. While not ideal, this is a DAP so color accuracy isn’t the biggest concern. Display brightness is good and you can navigate it easily even under direct sunlight. The display is covered by scratch-resistant glass but don’t expect smartphone levels of durability. Text looks somewhat blurred out up close due to the pentile display matrix.

Overall, an excellent display that will do justice to album cover art.

Usability​

When it comes to handling, the Plenue R2 is a bit of a mixed bag. While it is compact, and for the most part, one-handed operation is a breeze, the top power-button can be a stretch. You can use the playback buttons just by feel without looking. Cowon did a good job with the overall usability.

User interface​

The Plenue R2 runs on Cowon’s proprietary Linux-based Operating System that is very lightweight in nature (limited number of background processes, frugal power-draw, deep-sleep mode during standby, etc.). Being a proprietary OS, Cowon knows the ins and outs of the system and can customize at the kernel level. As a result, boot times are excellent, with the device taking only about 10 seconds to start from cold.

However, being unique from the rest also has its downsides. Cowon’s OS lacks support for all modern streaming services and MQA unfolding. It’s also not very fast feeling with the UI capped at 30fps, resulting in choppy scrolling and slow transitions when moving from one page to another.



Now that we’ve got the limitations out of the way, let’s talk about what the OS does extremely well. First of all, it’s very stable. I have only had one random crash in over a year of usage. Secondly, it draws very little power when on standby since there is no multitasking or support for multiple background processes (unlike Android-based DAPs).

Last but not least, the features it has are focused mostly on music playback and that makes the experience of using the DAP quite pleasant.

User friendly subtleties are sprinkled throughout the whole user experience that you will miss if you move to a more “modern” DAP. For example, the way the rewind button works: it plays a small part of the track as the song rewinds, allowing you to pick the exact spot you want to repeat.

There are numerous player skins that change the look of the Now Playing screen. The player background can be changed too (I chose black for power efficiency). Then there are 140 levels of volume adjustment with precise 0.5dB of change between each level. Neat!

Very few devices do gapless playback as well as the Plenue R2. You can smoothly transition from one song to the next even while rewinding. The DAC feature is superb and by just selecting “DAC” from the settings menu allows you to connect to Windows/Linux machines without extra driver installation. You can assign the capacitive button to a number of features including reconstruction filter selection, which is handy.

Another nice addition is the ability to access nearly all the features from the Now Playing screen. Tapping on the icon on the top-right shows a row of shortcuts and you can basically change/tweak everything from there. You can use swipe gestures in most of the UI – swipe from left to go back a level, swipe from bottom in Now Playing screen to access song list, etc.

The DSP effects (JetEffect 7) are also class-leading and sound more natural than similar solutions like Hiby’s MSEB to my ears. I recommend trying them out to see what works for a particular headphone/earphone pairing.

All in all, the Plenue R2 has a dizzying array of features when it comes to music playback. There is a pretty decent Parametric EQ (PEQ) option that allows you to choose from some pre-selected frequencies. The DSP effects can be customized to your heart’s content (up to 40 custom presets available too) and can be mixed with regular PEQ. Add to that the five selectable filters and the Plenue R2 becomes a chameleon of a device.

I am willing to forego many smartphone-based features for such flexibility, but I understand some might focus more on the streaming services or lack thereof.

Battery life​

Battery endurance is one of the Plenue R2’s biggest strengths. The power draw is very minimal when the device is not in use, and the auto-off feature helps with standby times as well. The AMOLED display is also frugal (even more so if you pick a black background).

Add that to the power-efficient CS43131 chipset and you get impressive battery life. I usually have to charge it once a week since a single charge gives me ~17 hours of playback time. That’s something none of the Android DAPs can boast, so the Plenue R2 is a clear winner in the battery life category.

Charging times could be faster though. The device charges at an anemic 1.5V resulting in very slow power-refill (~3 hours for 100%). A higher voltage charging solution would be beneficial (even though it may deteriorate the battery in the long-term).

Internals​

Cowon uses two Cirrus Logic CS43131 chipsets in a dual-mono configuration. This helps in reducing stereo crosstalk and increases SNR since the noise mostly cancels itself out in the output stage. This particular chip is available in some budget DAPs but what matters the most is the implementation, which Cowon aced with the Plenue R2.

Firstly, the Plenue R2 uses a Temperature Compensated Oscillator (TCXO) to control sampling rate fluctuations due to changes in operating temperature. Secondly, it employs a Complex Programmable Logic Device (CPLD) to execute fixed operations very fast and also to reduce noise in the process.

The Plenue R2 also has an uncommon feature where the 3.5mm output also acts as a digital optical output.

Simply max out the volume to enter line-out mode. Nifty. Other features include a very old Bluetooth (BT) 3.0 implementation but it does support DSP effects over BT which is quite uncommon.

Speaking of old things, Cowon uses an archaic Cortex A9 1.2GHz CPU without any HW acceleration. This is the one area where I hope Cowon improves soon because a more modern CPU and some form of GPU will not only help with power efficiency but also help make the UI navigation more fluid.

Cowon Plenue R2 Sound​

The following impressions were made on the latest 1.21 firmware.

It is very difficult to describe how the Plenue R2 sounds because with the JetEffect enabled it can sound like anything. Moreover, the choice of reconstruction filter subtly alters the sound. This is a good thing as it makes “pairing” with bright or warm IEMs a simple procedure (just change the filters). On the other hand it becomes very difficult to describe a “base” sound.

Nonetheless, for testing, I chose to keep all DSP effects turned off and I selected the fast/low-latency filter. I also used the Dunu Zen earphones which are quite sensitive to source changes.

The general sound signature of the Cowon Plenue R2 can be described as neutral with subtle warmth in the mids.

Click to expand...

The signature is also somewhat laid-back with the treble notes not being as aggressively focused as many of its peers. This does not come across as a lack of resolution, however, just that things aren’t “in-your-face”. The treble has a distinct lack of edginess that many of the DAPs in this price range suffer from. This results in a smooth treble rendition that is non-fatiguing on the source side.

The bass reproduction on the Plenue R2 is interesting as it mostly focuses on the mid-bass fullness rather than sub-bass hit. However, a subtle bump in the JetEffect setting can remedy that (try ‘Mach3Bass’). What stands out the most, though, is the microdynamics of the Plenue R2. Subtle gradations in volume levels are so vividly portrayed that it makes most other DAPs sound lifeless in comparison. Macrodynamics (sudden change in loudness) are also very good.

Staging is excellent with no noticeable deficiency, and imaging is precise. Layering is one area where it falls short of flagship DAPs, and the other one is raw output power. Despite having a 4Vrms voltage swing from the balanced out (thus making some high-impedance loads run decently) the Plenue R2 won’t get very loud with inefficient gear.

Pairing Notes​

I tried to run a Hifiman Sundara off of it and that didn’t go well. The same applies to the Sennheiser HD650 which did not have the expected fullness in the bass and lower-mids. The Sennheiser HD560S, Meze 99 Classics, and Final Sonorous III were very easy to drive, however.

Strangely enough, one of the most pesky IEMs in terms of power, the Final E5000 (92 dB/mW @ 14 ohms) ran excellently from the balanced output of the Plenue R2. More powerful DAPs failed to exert the bass-control that Plenue R2 had with E5000.



The best pairings I had with the Plenue R2 were with moderately efficient single-dynamic driver IEMs and highly sensitive multi-BA IEMs. IEMs like the Dunu Zen, Final E3000, Sennheiser IE900, Final A8000, and Dunu Luna paired incredibly well. As for BA and hybrid IEMs, the Dunu Studio SA6 and the ever-so-picky Campfire Audio Andromeda 2020 were driven to their full potential without any background hiss.

Comparisons​

Vs Hiby R6 2020​

The Hiby R6 2020 is a refresh of the Hiby R6 Pro and as a DAP is the polar-opposite of the Plenue R2 in many ways. Hiby embraces the Android OS and tries to make the experience as smartphone-like as possible. Cowon meanwhile trims the OS to its essentials and focuses on music playback first and foremost.

In terms of general UI smoothness and snappiness, the Hiby R6 2020 is in an entirely different dimension. Not even a hint of a contest. If you want Android OS and loads of connectivity options, the R6 2020 is one of the best out there. The Plenue R2 can but haplessly languish against the sheer computational grunt of the Hiby DAP.

Then we get to the sound quality.

The R6 2020 has far more driving power than the Plenue R2 but when it comes to sound quality, Cowon has it beat all around.

Click to expand...

There is not a single aspect of the sound where the R6 2020 can match, let alone surpass the Cowon DAP. Dynamics are superior on the Cowon, the transparency in the mids richer, and even subtle spatial cues are well portrayed which often gets too up-front in the R6 2020.

The atmospheric nuances are also better portrayed on the Plenue R2 (playing in a small room vs in an open-air concert), something the Hiby lacks since it plays everything at about the same volume.

As for the rest of the stuff, the Plenue R2 is easier to handle in one-hand and has far better battery life. R6 2020 has a larger, sharper screen even though contrast and color is better on the Plenue R2.

I think the conclusion here is pretty straightforward: if you don’t need streaming services, the Plenue R2 is a no-brainer and the better choice.

Vs Astell&Kern SR25​

This time the competition comes from Cowon’s home-turf. Astell&Kern is one of the most popular DAP manufacturers around and the Koreans have some of the most striking industrial designs out there. The Astell&Kern SR25 is uniquely identifiable with its slanted display which is divisive but definitely grabs attention. SR25 uses Android but it’s a deeply customized version of the OS.

As a result of using a fork of Android, the SR25 can stream from Tidal, Spotify, and Qobuz. However, A&K did a poor job of optimizing the OS so you’ll face random freezes, stutters, and a general sluggishness while operating. Also, you cannot install unsupported apps (no Play Store support) which is a bummer. Even with these limitations the SR25 is a “smarter” DAP than the Plenue R2.

Let’s get into the sound quality then. In terms of amplification, the SR25 beats the Plenue R2, though it’s not as big a gap as it was with the Hiby R6 2020. In terms of sound quality, the SR25 has a colored presentation that works well with some pairings and genres and not so well with others. For those looking for a reference player, the coloration on the SR25 may be too much.

Staging is also a bit odd on the SR25 as it is very tall and wide but lacks the depth that the Plenue R2 can portray. Imaging suffers as a result, and so does separation. Macrodynamics are better defined on the SR25 whereas the Plenue R2 offers far superior microdynamics.

Battery life is nearly twice as long on the Plenue R2. It also has superior DSP effects and the display quality is better (the SR25 display looks washed out). Once again, for sound quality alone I would pick the Plenue R2. However, the SR25 does sound more exciting with Pop and EDM tracks and when paired with bass-lite IEMs, so some might prefer that coloration over the neutrality of Plenue R2.

Conclusion​

The Plenue R2 caters to a niche, and if you are part of that particular audience it’ll serve you exceedingly well. I like devices that have a singular and well-executed purpose, so I have a soft-spot for the Plenue R2. Moreover, the attention to detail when it comes to the listening experience is unlike anything else out there.

If you need streaming services and a faster UI with smartphone-like operation, then the Plenue R2 will disappoint. In fact, everything from Cowon will be an exercise in frustration in that regard.

However, if you value sound quality above everything else, need class-leading battery life, and want a DAP that has a dizzying array of sound tuning options, the Cowon Plenue R2 stands alone. Cowon made a flawed masterpiece, but it is a masterpiece nonetheless.

The Cowon Plenue R2 earns my recommendation as one of the best DAPs under $1000, considering only music playback performance. Too bad you can barely find them to buy now in 2023.

Sennheiser’s 500-series of headphones have always been overshadowed by their immensely popular 600-series brethren. The HD 598 and later the HD 599 have both been above average in their performance, but never quite gained the same cult following.

The HD 560S aim to change all that with a reference tuning aimed towards studio use and those who seek neutrality. Let’s see if they managed to hit that lofty goal, while being different enough to stand out from the much lauded 600-series.

This review was originally published on Headphonesty.

Sources used: Questyle CMA-400i, iFi xDSD Gryphon

Click to expand...

Packaging and Accessories​

Packaging is a plain cardboard box and nothing much to write home about. In the box you get:

• Sennheiser HD 560S headphones
• 3m 6.35mm terminated cable
• 6.35mm to 3.5mm adapter cable

Build​

The HD 560S have fully plastic build. Fret not though, the plastic is high quality and robust enough to take daily abuse. The headband adjustment clicks, so you know which level you are at.

There is only one cable entry located on the left ear cup. The connector on the headphone side is 3.5mm but has a proprietary “twist and lock” mechanism. This makes sourcing aftermarket cables challenging.

The yokes have limited sidewise movement. However, the ear cups rotate front-to-back by about 15 degrees, so I think most people won’t have issues getting a good seal. There is also a rubber nub that stops the cup from hitting the yoke. The ear pads have a velour-like material. They did not feel scratchy to me but your mileage may vary.

Comfort and isolation​

Clamp force is alright on the sides but pressure can build-up on top of the head. I wish the headband had softer padding. The clamp pressure reportedly becomes weaker over time, but I advise against trying to bend the headband by force since it is plastic and not as malleable as a metal headband. Comfort overall is above average but falls behind the likes of the Philips SHP9600.

Isolation is almost non-existent due to the open-back design.

Internals​

The Sennheiser HD 560S use completely redesigned 40mm drivers despite using a previous-generation housing.

Click to expand...

The drivers are mounted at an angle from the ear, allowing better pinna interaction. The damping scheme has also been improved, resulting in better driver control.

Sennheiser HD 560S Sound​

The HD 560S are neutrally-tuned without any coloration in the mids or bass. There is some lower-treble emphasis though which can veer towards bright at times.

The HD 560S deliver well-extended bass for an open-back even though sub frequencies are rolled-off and lack rumble. Certain sub-bass notes, or the dense understrokes of grand piano, etc., are often missing or lacking in body.

The mid-bass could do with a bit more body to compensate. There is also some loss of texture in the mid-bass, with bass notes of different instruments often sounding the same. Bass decay is somewhat slow and attack is blunted. Given their open-back nature, these sorts of issues (e.g. lack of rumble) are expected at this price.

The upper-mids can sound strident at times. Part of this is due to the linear bass response that doesn’t mask the upper-mid shout at all. This is good for monitoring but can be an issue when listening to poorly mastered tracks.

Lower-mids are excellently tuned, however. The lack of coloration in the midrange makes the HD 560S especially suitable for studio monitoring and mixing.

The aforementioned lower-treble peak can be tiring for treble-sensitive people. I have experienced fatigue when listening to poorly mastered tracks. Certain rock and metal songs are susceptible here, e.g. Red Hot Chilli Pepper’s Californication.

Fortunately the upper-treble is well-extended and Sennheiser did not try to exaggerate the air frequencies. Instead, they put some emphasis near 15KHz and kept the rest of it well under control. Cymbals and triangles resonate naturally as a result, with precise attack and decay.

Overall detail and resolution is good but the HD 560S are not giant-killers in these regards.

Soundstage is average for an open-back and these don’t sound as claustrophobic as the 600-series headphones. Imaging is precise with accurate instrument placement. One negative is the center-imaging which suffers in busy tracks.

Macrodynamic punch is lacking due to the lack of sub-bass rumble and mid-bass body. Microdynamics (gradual shifts in volume) are above average but not class leading.

Comparisons​

Vs Sennheiser HD 650​

Sennheiser’s HD 650 are legendary in their own right and are massively popular even 20 years after launch. The HD 560S manage to bring some meaningful improvement over their older brethren.

The most noticeable improvement is in staging and imaging, with the HD 560S outperforming the HD 650 in both aspects. Bass extension is also better on the HD 560S even though the HD 650 sound bassier due to their mid-bass emphasis.

Sadly, this is where the HD 560S end their dominance. The HD 650 are noticeably more resolving and transparent in the midrange with better vocal articulation. The treble is also smoother yet just-as-detailed on the HD 650. Despite the mid-bass emphasis, bass on the HD 650 never bleeds into the mids and the mid-bass texture is superior.

Separation is also a marked improvement on the 600 series headphones. Given that the HD 6XX (Drop version of the HD 650) are just USD $40 extra over the HD 560S, I am reluctant to recommend the HD 560S over the older model.

One caveat of the 600 series headphones are their amp requirements, though nowadays you can get a capable-enough amp for the HD 650s without denting your wallet too much.

Conclusion​

Sennheiser made a near perfect pair of studio monitors with the HD 560S. Flat bass response? Check. Neutral and uncolored midrange? Check. Extended treble with a bit of lower-treble emphasis to highlight mastering flaws? Check. Fairly easy to drive? Check. Good soundstage and imaging? Check, and check.

The Sennheiser HD 560S are good headphones. It’s just a that the HD 650 are often better. To their credit, the HD 560S strike a happy “medium” between the HD 600 and HD 650 sound signature. Those who find the HD 600 lacking in bass and the HD 650 having too much bass will probably find the HD 560S more adhering to their preferences.

There is a place for the HD 560S after all, even though they are unlikely to be as popular as the eternal classics.

IKKO Audio put themselves on the map with the release of the OH1 and OH10 IEMs. They have a distinct design language throughout their product range which helps them stand out in the crowded marketplace. IKKO OH2 are the newest entry in their IEM lineup and aim to capture a piece of the over-crowded sub-USD$100 budget IEM landscape. Buyers are spoilt for choices in this range, so IKKO needs something special to truly entice.

This review was originally published on Headphonesty. HiFiGo was kind enough to provide the IKKO OH2 for evaluation.

Click to expand...

Accessories​

IKKO nailed the unboxing experience. The box is colorful and comes with extras like a magnetic anime figurine and a fox-themed brooch.




In general, the accessories are of good quality, with two caveats: the oval tips, and certain aspects of the stock cable. The oval tips did not give me a good seal, so I had to switch to the foam tips – which are excellent – some of the best foam tips I’ve tried to date.

The silver-plated, single-crystal copper cable has two cores, a rather stiff sheathing, and annoying memory hooks. Add the mmcx connectors that rotate too easily and it’s not the best stock cable in this range.



The carrying case is a bit cumbersome to handle and doesn’t have extra chambers to hold the tips or the cleaning tool. Form over function.

Build​

The OH2 have a unique shell, with the internal PCB itself being part of the design language. A transparent polycarbonate window is sandwiched between two pieces of anodized aluminum. The sides of the driver and the PCB are visible through the transparent bit.



There is one vent on the inner-side of the IEMs and another on the faceplate. The nozzle has an oval shape, similar to the Beyerdynamic Xelento IEMs. I haven’t found any practical benefit of this nozzle shape so I have my doubts about the claims of better pressure-relief.



The earpieces are light and very comfortable to wear for long sessions. However, isolation is merely average with the stock silicone tips as seal is an issue.

The OH2s use an 8mm “deposited-carbon” diaphragm driver. This usually indicates a carbon-nanotube deposited (via physical vapor-deposition process) PET driver that has higher stiffness than typical PET diaphragms.

Sound​

The following sound impressions are formed with stock foam tips, stock cable, and Sony NW-A55 as the source. Test tracks are available on Tidal as a playlist. Measurements conducted on an IEC-711 compliant rig.

Click to expand...

The IKKO OH2 have a warm, somewhat laid-back tuning. The mid-bass throws a veil across the entire lower-mids region, resulting in a warm but recessed midrange. The lack of treble sparkle or energy further enhances the sense of smoothness, at times at the expense of engagement.

Moreover, the driver is not very fast or resolving in the bass region, resulting in a longer decay of bass notes. This makes fast bass-lines blur into each other, such as double-pedals in many metal tracks. On the other hand, heavy snare hits have a satisfying impact, which is more suitable for rock music.

Slight lower-mid recession (by about 3dBs), mid-bass prominence, and a reserved upper-mid rise result in a veiled midrange. Subtle low-level details like the deep understroke of the piano on Radwimp’s Date are lost. The reserved upper-mid rise is a welcome change though, as too much focus here would make things shouty.

The highs are rolled-off and are rarely felt. A peak around 5kHz adds some life into the presence region but then it downturns. There is a lack of airiness up top as well, which becomes evident when listening to the triangles on Dave Matthews Band’s Crash Into Me.

The soundstage is very much in-your-head. Imaging is also two-dimensional with everything placed left or right. Macrodynamic punch is softened, which reduces the dramatic impact of sudden bass drops, for example. Microdynamics are also merely average with subtle gradations in volumes not being picked up.

Comparison vs Moondrop Aria​

Moondrop Aria (reviewed here) are one of the benchmarks in the under USD$100 bracket, warranting a comparison with the IKKO OH2.

In terms of build, it’s hard to pick a winner. The OH2 look more futuristic, whereas the Aria have a more traditional look.

In terms of sound, the Aria go for a more sub-bass focused tuning with superior rumble and better bass texture. The mid-bass can feel anemic at times on the Aria, where the OH2 fare better. Lower-mids are similarly recessed on both, with equally restrained upper-mids.

However, the Aria have more energy in the treble and a wider stage, with a tad better imaging. Macrodynamic punch is also superior on the Aria, whereas both suffer in terms of microdynamics.

Overall, the Moondrop Aria have a similarly smooth signature that doesn’t skimp on treble as much as the OH2 do.

Conclusion​

In a vacuum, the IKKO OH2 are good IEMs. It’s too bad that the competition are stronger than ever and manage to excel in multiple aspects where the OH2 are merely adequate overall.


The bass response is good, but it could be better. The midrange is fairly well-tuned, but lacks the engagement factor some of their peers offer. Meanwhile, the treble is too smoothed over to bring anything to the table.


IKKO OH2 don’t stand out, and being average is just not good enough anymore.

My first encounter with the 7Hz brand was through their i99 IEMs which had a very unique shell design that immediately caught my attention. Unfortunately, the sound quality of the i99 did not match their design prowess.

Along comes the Timeless, a pair of mid-range, planar magnetic IEMs. Given the lukewarm reception that previous 7Hz IEMs have received, one may be misled into thinking that the Timeless are another uninspired option. Fortunately, the Timeless are anything but uninspiring. Read on.

This review was originally published on Headphonesty. Linsoul was kind enough to provide the 7Hz Timeless for evaluation.

Click to expand...

Accessories​

The supplied cable feels supple in hand and does not form kinks or bends. I am not too fond of the red and black aesthetics though. In terms of materials, it is a silver-plated and pure copper strand mixed cable and negates the need for an aftermarket replacement. The aluminium case is overkill and impractical at times but I found it to be extremely sturdy which is good.

Design​

The Timeless have a two-piece shell design. The seam where the two pieces join can be felt with fingernails and is uneven in places. The outer shell has a coin-like shape that gives a distinct look to the IEMs. The inner-shell meanwhile, has a more traditional IEM shape.



Due to the large driver size and dual magnet arrays, the Timeless are thicker than average single-driver IEMs. There are five vents on the inner faceplate: four near the channel markings and one beside the nozzle. Speaking of the nozzle, the 5mm diameter is larger than average and the mesh can be replaced if it gets clogged.

Comfort​

The 7Hz Timeless are quite comfortable and have a snug fit. I can listen to them for hours without any discomfort or pressure buildup. Isolation, unfortunately, is below average

Internals​

The Timeless are one of the few IEMs that utilizes a full-range planar driver. The 14.2mm double-sided magnet driver coupled with the ultra-thin diaphragm is similar to full-size planar headphones. However, the Timeless are surprisingly light even though they use dual magnetic arrays.



The driver cavity has an interesting design as well. It’s shaped into a half-circle and a tuning mesh behind seemingly acts as a dampener.

Sound​

The following sound impressions are formed with the stock tips (clear, yellow stem) + stock cable + Lotoo PAW 6000 or Questyle CMA-400i. Test tracks available on Tidal as a playlist.

Click to expand...

The general sound signature of the 7Hz Timeless can be described as “bass boosted neutral”. That’s an oversimplification of course, so let’s dive deeper.



The 7Hz Timeless’ bass response is one of the best in their price class. Despite an early rise in bass shelf (starting around 500 Hz) the Timeless sound clean with no discernible bass-bleed. This rise also adds some thickness to the low-end with snare hits having a dense leading edge.

Bass here is fast with good texture. The slam isn’t as noticeable as the best planar headphones though. Also, the sub-bass rumble is rather polite and lacks physicality in stock tuning. Percussion hits lack tactility as a result.

Fortunately, the 7Hz Timeless can take EQ like a champ. If you want some extra grunt and physicality in the bass, try adding a +4dB sub-bass shelf from 150Hz downward. This noticeably improved the slam factor, though the bass then veers into bass-head territory.



Whereas the bass tuning is mostly good, the midrange is a bit of a mixed bag. First the good stuff. Male vocals sound superb. Baritone vocals have adequate heft and don’t sound hyper-clear as on some Harman curve (or its derivatives) hitters.

However, in certain tracks with high-pitched vocals the Timeless can sound grating. As a result, female vocals don’t sound as smooth or effortless as male vocals.

Perhaps the most contentious part of the Timeless’ tuning is their treble response. The lower treble is quite uneven and, to my ears, has some ringing around 5Khz. This ringing adds some odd sharpness to acoustic guitars in some tracks. As a result, the timbre sounds off, with string instruments having a metallic sheen to their tone.



The best thing about the treble is its extension. Crash cymbals, hi-hats, and triangles decay naturally. The shimmer of upper-treble notes can be heard even though they are not particularly prominent.

Staging and imaging are two aspects where the Timeless don’t stand out. The staging here is fairly narrow and lacks depth. Imaging, meanwhile, lacks the pin-point precision to localize instruments in ordinal directions.

Macrodynamics (sudden change in loudness) are portrayed well, even though with more sub-bass grunt it would be better. Microdynamics are rather poor. Subtle changes in volume are not picked up well.

Comparisons​

vs Dunu Falcon Pro​

The Falcon Pro are warmer and thicker in tone than the Timeless. As a result, the Falcon Pro are less resolving and cannot render fine details as well as the 7Hz IEMs. Bass is also noticeably slower and has some bleed in the upper-bass region.


Treble is smoother on the Falcon Pro though, so they work better for laid-back listening. Dynamics are also better on the Falcon Pro, and so is the imaging. Timeless hits back with their characteristic planar speed and superior separation. Both lack sub-bass rumble but the Falcon Pro is less textured than the Timeless in the sub-bass region.


These two IEMs have little in common and are intended for different audiences. For a smoother, laid-back, and more dynamic listen, the Falcon Pro are great. For a more technically accomplished sound, the 7Hz Timeless are the better pick.

vs Audeze iSine 10​

Without the Cipher cable the iSine 10 sound horrible. They are an uncontrolled, peaky mess from analog sources and are practically unlistenable. The story changes drastically with the Cipher cable.


With the Cipher cable, the sound is V-shaped without going overboard. The Timeless meanwhile strikes a better tonal balance. Bass lacks texture on the iSine 10 compared to the Timeless, whereas lower-midrange is tuned better on the 7Hz IEMs. Female vocals and treble, however, are smoother on the iSine 10.


In terms of raw resolution these are quite close to each other but the Timeless just edges out their competition. When it comes to staging and imaging though, the iSine 10 reigns supreme. They are on a different class altogether and comparable to open-back, full-size headphones when it comes to staging prowess.


As for the non-sound criterias, the iSine 10 is impractical for outdoor use due to no isolation. They are also very heavy and I find them uncomfortable. If those caveats are manageable, and if you can find an iSine 10 in stock at all - they are the better purchase.

Closing​

The 7Hz Timeless are not perfect. The treble tuning could definitely use some work, the sub-bass could do with more physicality, and the upper-mids and lower-treble need adjustment. Imaging and microdynamics are two other weak points.


That being said, the bass response is very good overall and the lower midrange is delightful. General resolution is top-notch and gives certain more expensive IEMs a run for their money. Above all, the Timeless do not require an absurdly powerful source or heavy equalization to sound good, and that alone is a great accomplishment when considering their peers.

I can recommend the 7Hz Timeless to those who do not mind a dash of brightness up top and want a taste of planar in IEM form.

I am not too familiar with NF Audio as a company, so I decided to take a shot at their NM2 single-dynamic model when they were offered. They claim to have years of experience in making “real” monitoring earphones, so their entry-level IEMs should showcase their expertise.

There is a plethora of sub-$100 IEMs these days and every other review will claim one of them to be the “best” under $100. NF Audio NM2 entered this crowded market with some established heavy-hitters already staring them down. Let’s see if these can carve themselves a niche.

This review was originally published on Audioreviews.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. KeepHiFi was kind enough to send me the NF Audio NM2 for evaluation.

Sources used: Sony NW-A55
Price, while reviewed: $90. Can be bought from KeepHiFi.

Click to expand...

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES​

Packaging of the NM2 is rather interesting with vinyl-like shapes abound. In terms of accessories, you get a bunch of eartips, a round carrying case (looks cool but a bit cramped), and a stock cable that has one of the worst memory wires in existence. The memory wire is so stiff that the IEMs pop out of the ear at times by itself.




Apart from the memory wire portion, the cable itself is good: supple, well-braided, and doesn’t carry much touch noise. You also get a 3.5mm to 6.35mm adapter, keeping true to the “studio monitor” status of the IEMs.
3/5

BUILD QUALITY​

Build quality is the weakest point of the NF Audio NM2. I find the plastic shells cheap and they feel fragile. The finish is also subpar and reminiscent of $5 budget IEMs. Even the nozzle is plastic instead of metal, which some $5 IEMs nowadays have as well.



It’s clear where NF Audio did their cost-cutting, but I wish they left the build quality somewhat passable for the price bracket.
2/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT​

Comfort and isolation are very good, with the single vent near the 2-pin connectors not allowing much outside noise in. The plastic shell is ironically a help here due to their lightweight and skin-friendliness.
4.5/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS​

For the review, I used Spinfit CP-100+ tips and Sony NW-A55 DAP (MrWalkman firmware modded). The NM2 are fairly sensitive so won’t need much powerful sources.

DRIVER SETUP​

NF Audio used a dual-cavity 10mm dynamic driver for the NM2, with the twist being that there are two rear cavities to further optimize the pressure behind the diaphragm. The driver is called MCL2-10, though I have no idea what that acronym stands for.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES​

NF Audio NM2 treads the fine line between “bright” and “energetic”. In loose terms, the NM2 can be categorized as “bright V-shaped” even though that description does them a disservice.

Bass response on the NM2 is very interesting. It has the sub-bass rumble and mid-bass punch, but lacks some of the mid-bass texture. This results in a bass response that is fast and (mostly) accurate while lacking the fullness of low notes.

Midrange is where the things can become divisive. The lower-mids could have done with a bit more body, but they don’t sound overly recessed as the mid-bass bump adds body to the lower-midrange. Upper-mids can be contentious due to peaking around 4KHz which adds intensity to guitar riffs and leading edge of hi-hats or cymbals.

Fortunately, the intensity is counterbalanced by the boosted sub-bass. In most tracks the upper-mid glare is masked by the sub-bass frequencies. Only in acoustic or vocal-oriented music do you notice the peakiness in that region.

Treble can be too forward on some tracks due to the aforementioned 4KHz peak but things never got sibilant or splashy. Treble is well-done here with adequate sparkle and good upper-treble extension. Triangles and cymbals decay naturally with their resonant frequencies being audible beyond 14KHz. Many IEMs in this range opt for treble roll-off and NM2 does it better than most here.

Soundstage is fairly wide but lacks the depth due to the forwardness in the upper-midrange. Imaging is accurate with good cardinal and ordinal placements of instruments (within the limitations of the in-ear form-factor of course).

These are especially adept at locating the position of the microphone relative to the speaker or singer. As a result, while live recording with a stereo mic you can notice if the singer is singing off-center.

Macrodynamic punch is above-average but there are other IEMs that do it better. The lack of mid-bass fullness somewhat dampens the impact here. Microdynamics (subtle gradation in volume) are excellent though as you can track the subtle shifts in volume even in busy tracks.

Separation is good when it comes to mids and highs but the recessed lower-mids can make some low-notes smear into each other. Timbre is mostly good with a hint of metallic sheen to some higher-pitched notes. In general, the NM2 are excellent for acoustic or live music and also suited for live microphone monitoring.

Bass: 4/5
Midrange: 4/5
Treble: 4/5
Staging: 4/5
Imaging and Separation: 4/5
Dynamics and Speed: 4/5

FREQUENCY RESPONSE GRAPH​

SELECT COMPARISONS​

vs Dunu Titan S, Moondrop Aria, Tin T3 Plus​

So, I somehow ended up with all three of the contenders for the “best under $100” tag, namely: Dunu Titan S, Moondrop Aria, Tin T3 Plus, and of course: NF Audio NM2.

I will go about it a bit differently this time around, and rank each of the IEMs based on a specific aspects.


Build: Titan S = T3 Plus > Aria >> NM2

Titan S with their metal shells and T3 Plus with the resin shells – both have excellent build. Aria’s paint tend to chip off and NM2 has the build quality of $5 QKZ IEMs.


Accessories: T3 Plus = Titan S > Aria > NM2

T3 Plus got a good cable and decent tips but the carrying case is poor. Titan S got a great carrying case (better than many expensive IEMs come with) and good tips but meh cable. Aria got horrible cable and meh eartiops and case. NM2 got the worst cable of the bunch, replacement recommended.


Bass: Aria = Titan S > NM2 > T3 PlusAria has slightly denser bass whereas Titan S has more “neutral” bass tuning. Both are fast with good texture. NM2 can sound thin in mid-bass at times and T3 Plus lacks texture.


Mids: NM2 > Titan S > T3 Plus = Aria

Both T3 Plus and Aria have issues with lower-mids. NM2 handle lower and upper mid pretty well, so does the Titan S. However, Titan S tended to get slightly shoutier.


Treble: Titan S > NM2 > T3 Plus > Aria

Aria has the weakest treble response among these. T3 Plus has a bit more energy in lower-treble. Titan S and NM2 both got good treble extension but the NM2 has more focus near lower-treble which can be fatiguing. If you like higher amount of treble: NM2 for you.


Soundstage: Titan S > Aria > T3 Plus = NM2

Perceived stage is widest and deepest on Titan S. Aria comes second though the margin between Titan S and Aria is sizeable. T3 Plus sound congested, whereas NM2 can sound too forward at times.


Imaging: Titan S > NM2 = Aria > T3 Plus


Separation: Titan S > NM2 > T3 Plus > Aria


Dynamics: Titan S = Aria > NM2 > T3 Plus

I am bit torn here. Microdynamics are superior on Titan S whereas Aria has better macrodynamics (e.g. sudden bass drops). NM2 does both better than average but doesn’t exceed the performance of the benchmarks.

Click to expand...

Overall, I think the Titan S ticks most of the boxes. It’s got good technicalities coupled with a neutral bright tonality that works well. NM2 is the most technical among them and will cater well to those who need more information up top.Aria meanwhile got the best timbre and has the smoothest signature here. T3 Plus is more of a mixed bag due to the odd-sounding bass.

CONCLUDING REMARKS​

NF Audio NM2 are primarily let down by their uninspiring design and cheap build, which is a shame. The tuning is unconventional and offers something unique among the myriad of Harman-target doppelgangers. This gives rise to a “nice” problem – there are a number of good choices for the end-user and it becomes confusing to pick the right one.

While the NM2 nails technicalities, tonality could have been better or smoother for general listening. However, the intended purpose of these IEMs are studio monitoring and for professional applications there is usually some presence-region emphasis. On that front, the tuning choices are justified.

The NF Audio NM2 earns my recommendation for studio monitoring purposes, and will suit those who prefer an energetic and engaging listen.

Single dynamic driver flagships are making a comeback, and Dunu’s Zen Pro are the latest entry into the crowded market. The Zen Pro, as the Pro moniker suggests, are intended as an improved version of the original Dunu Zen (now discontinued).

For the Zen Pro, Dunu has altered the housing color and changed the stock cable to a more pliable one. Moreover, they re-engineered the magnet system and re-tuned the driver.

So how well can the Zen Pro compete against their peers? Read on.

The Zen Pro were sent courtesy of Tom at Dunu as part of a review tour.
Sources used: Lotoo PAW 6000, Questyle CMA-400i
Price, while reviewed: $900. Can be bought from Dunu's official store.

Click to expand...

Packaging and Accessories​

The review tour unit came without any retail packaging. You can take a look at my unboxing of the original Dunu Zen since the packaging is similar in terms of design and accessories, apart from the cable.

However, the star of the show is their CHORD cable.

The CHORD is a 4-core cable in Litz configuration with mixed-strand Furukawa OCC Copper and Neotech Silver. Both of the raw materials suppliers are some of the most highly regarded in the industry, so clearly Dunu did not skimp on cost. In addition, the cable is equipped with their patented Quick-Switch modular plug system.



Dunu also supplied the Digital Q-Lock Plus connectors with Type-C and Lightning connections. These act as mini dongles so you can just plug-and-play from the USB-C port on smartphones.



While convenient, I found the sound of the digital connectors to be compressed and lacking in dynamics. These connectors are great proof of concepts but won’t replace a dedicated DAP or a good dongle.

Design​

The Zen Pro have 316L Stainless Steel shells with a glossy Titanium-colored finish. There is one vent near the nozzle while the back of the IEMs have the ACIS vent that is used to control airflow inside the driver housing. The nozzle is fairly long and has a raised lip and metal mesh.



The mmcx connector has Dunu’s patented catch-hold mechanism for more reliable connection. The shells feel positively dense in hand and are designed well. The biggest issue is the glossy finish that attracts smudges and fingerprints.

Comfort and isolation​

Comfort is good for me with a snug fit. The weight is mostly manageable. Isolation is average due to the vent on the back of the IEMs.

Internals​

Dunu debuted a new driver system with the OG Zen that goes by the ECLIPSE trademark. This system doesn’t necessarily indicate the diaphragm material rather how the dome, driver surround, and voice-coil attachment process is executed.

The Dunu Zen Pro have a variation of the ECLIPSE system with a 13.5mm dynamic driver system with a Magnesium-Aluminium (Mg-Al) alloy diaphragm where the micro-pores on the diaphragm surface have been filled with nanoDLC to increase surface stiffness. The driver also has a W-shaped dome, similar to the Focal Clear driver. The diaphragm material has similarities with the Clear as well.



The ratio between the metals in the alloy was adjusted, resulting in a stiffer, lighter diaphragm with higher internal damping and widened bandwidth in the high frequencies. The biggest issue of the OG Zen was their lack of treble extension and the Zen Pro addresses this issue head-on.

Sound Quality​

The general sound signature of the Dunu Zen Pro can be termed as neutral.



I could not hear any evident coloration across the frequency spectrum at all, and they are one of the few neutrally-tuned, single-dynamic driver IEMs in the TOTL space. There is one caveat though: the sound signature can change noticeably based upon the tip selection and insertion depth. I recommend trying a few of the supplied eartips and finding out the one that works best.

The Zen Pro goes for a controlled sub-bass boost of about 5dB with the sub-bass being strongest around 50Hz. Bass rises slowly from 400Hz, which helps the mid-bass gain some body and weight. The mid-bass is really well tuned to my ears, with no bass bleed into the lower-mids.

Snare hits are dense without being overbearing. The bass is very agile for a dynamic driver and can keep up with fast basslines in many metal songs, e.g. All that Remains’ This Calling. Bass texture stands out the most, with different instruments displaying their characteristic sound in busy mixes.

Where the bass falters is the rumble factor. Sub-bass is present but won’t suit your bass-head desires. Dunu went for a neutral tuning so a dense sub-bass would compromise mid-bass texture to some degree. Another intangible that is missing is the sense of slam.

Midrange is where Dunu brought about some noticeable changes from the OG Zen. The OG Zen have a pronounced upper-mid, further exaggerated by a peak around 4KHz. The 4KHz peak is noticeably dialed down here and the transition from lower-mids to upper-mids follows a near-reference tuning.

Male vocals and low guitar notes have exemplary clarity and precision. The only bit of coloration in the midrange is in the hint of warmth stemming from the upper-bass rise around 300Hz. This adds body to baritone vocals and makes them more true-to-life.

The upper-mids are well controlled and avoid shoutiness and shrillness. Both male and female vocals have excellent articulation and string instruments have lifelike attack-decay. You can pick out the different tone color of nylon and steel string guitars and distortion guitars never sound too forward. The Zen Pro’s midrange tuning facilitates long-term listening and justifies the “Zen” nomenclature.

The biggest tuning change from the OG Zen happens in the treble region. The OG version have a steep treble roll-off from 10KHz which counter-balances the lack of brilliance with a deliberate peak around 8KHz. This does not induce sibilance but will alter the timbre of cymbal hits and their natural decay is abrupt and lacks extension.

Zen Pro rectifies this issue to a degree. The 8KHz peak is toned down somewhat and there are additional peaks in the upper-treble region (near 11.5KHz and 14.5KHz to my ears).

There are a couple shortcomings in the treble though. Firstly: the 6KHz dip could be less prominent. This can be perceived as a lack of “clarity” in the treble region by many listeners. However, it is fairly simple to equalize that part based on individual taste and treble tolerance.

The other shortcoming is the peak around 11.5KHz which to my ears can be a bit intense in certain recordings and highlights the shimmer of the instruments more than necessary.

Overall soundstage is a definite improvement over the original Zen but falls short of some of their peers. The focus on the midrange pulls the vocals closer to the listener and this can reduce the perception of stage width. Stage depth and height were fairly good given the in-ear form-factor.

Imaging is very good, with certain shortfalls that plague every IEM out there, e.g. things that are happening at the back of your head are not positioned correctly. The rest of the instruments are well placed and positional cues are readily picked up.

Microdynamics are class-leading, beating the venerable OG Zen which lead the metric in this price bracket. In high dynamic-range recordings every subtlety is picked up. Dave Brubeck’s Take Five has small gradations in cymbal volume which one can easily recognize when listening to the Zen Pro.

Disappointingly, macrodynamic punch is lacking vs the OG Zen. The driver speed is even faster than the original, however, and can keep up with the busiest of tracks while keeping the outline of individual instruments intact.

General timbre is natural albeit the upper-treble peaks can at times sound “zingy”. Overall resolution is excellent for a single-dynamic driver, falling short of the technical performance of some pure Beryllium foil drivers. Finally, layering is immaculate with backing vocals being delightfully drawn out from the mix.

Bass: 4.5/5
Mids: 5/5
Treble: 4/5
Imaging/Separation: 4/5
Staging: 4/5
Dynamics/Speed: 4/5

Comparisons​

Vs Dunu Zen​

Build quality, accessories, comfort, and isolation are largely similar between these models with the stock cable being the only difference. I much prefer the CHORD cable on the Zen Pro over the bulky DUW-03. Otherwise, they are similar in everything but the sound.

OG Zen goes for a more energetic and raw tuning. The lack of treble extension is evident, but the focus on mid-treble keeps the highs from going dark. Bass has more slam and physicality on the original with superior macrodynamics. Stage is narrower with more up-front vocals. Guitar riffs are treated as first-class citizens and the OG Zen were rather unique in their delivery of Rock and Metal tracks.

The Zen Pro dials the bass and mids down a notch and things calm down noticeably. With better upper-treble extension and less mid-treble focus the treble also feels toned down. The Zen Pro excels in singer/songwriter tracks and classical music as a result. The stage is wider, deeper, with better layering.

Instrument separation is largely similar on both, and so is the imaging, but overall resolution is higher on the Zen Pro. For the USD $200 premium, you get a number of noticeable improvements indeed. I did feel let down by the reduced bass slam as that was one of the highlights for me on the OG Zen, so I would suggest OG Zen users to audition the Zen Pro if possible before purchase.

Vs Unique Melody MEST​

UM MEST (version 1) is now discontinued but it is a model I have on hand while making comparisons. In terms of build, comfort, design, and accessories the Zen Pro wins without contest. Isolation is better on the MEST but you compromise on comfort.



As for sound, the MEST are unabashedly colored with emphasis in both the bass and treble frequencies. The actual bass quality is far higher on the Zen Pro though, with superior bass texture and speed. The bass driver on the MEST is noticeably slow and compromises the coherency of the IEMs.

Midrange is thicker and more recessed on the MEST. Treble, on the other hand, goes for added focus near the presence region with a 6KHz peak and only starts to roll-off around 15KHz. This results in a brilliant treble rendition with gobs of air and added intensity. I personally do not like this hyper-active treble response and always EQ’ed the treble down to suit my own tastes.

Soundstage and imaging are far superior on the MEST, rivaling many full-size cans. Separation is also better, although layering, especially in the midrange, is better on the Zen Pro. Overall resolution is higher on the MEST.

The UM MEST is a technical marvel with the bone-conduction driver and the quad-brid setup overpowers the single-dynamic Zen Pro when it comes to raw resolution. For me, resolution is not everything and the Zen Pro’s smoother, calmer presentation makes me prefer them over the MEST for long-listening sessions. For short listens and absolute resolving prowess, the original MEST is still one of the best around.

Conclusion​

The Dunu Zen Pro have excellent build, comfort, and a stellar accessory pack. Dunu fixed some of the issues found on the original release and it is always great to see brands listening to community feedback.

I do feel that some of the magic of the OG Zen has been lost. I miss the bass slam of the original and in certain tracks I wish there were a bit more energy in the presentation. On the other hand, the Zen Pro won’t beat the tribrids and quad-brids in the market that are targeting absolute resolution.

Nevertheless, the tuning is really well done overall and has a certain calmness to it which is often abandoned in the TOTL space to showcase better technicalities.

Intro​

Earsonics reached out to me somewhere around January to ask if I were interested in one of their latest releases. They did not reveal if the product in question were IEMs or something else, and there was also some embargo in place until the launch of the product itself.

Needless to say that my curiosity got the better of me and I only knew about the specs of the IEMs two weeks after receiving them.

The ONYX are Earsonics' latest launch and aims to capture the super-competitive mid-fi market. They are priced in a category I like to term "The Twilight Zone" - the point where diminishing returns start arising. Being a quad-driver hybrid with 3 BA drivers for mids and highs and a dynamic driver for bass, the ONYX got the spec-sheet right for the asking price.

Let's see if Earsonics could create something unique for the price range.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Thibault from Earsonics was kind enough to send me the ONYX for the purpose of evaluation.

Sources used: Questyle CMA Fifteen, Lotoo PAW 6000
Price, while reviewed: 490 euros. Can be bought from Earsonics Official store.

Click to expand...

Build​

The ONYX are absolute tanks when it comes to build. The dense aluminium shells are reassuringly heavy. The 2-pin connectors are recessed into the shells, making the connection more robust than protruded ones.

The shell itself is a two-piece design held together by two small torx-headed screws. The sides of the shell have a unique dual-slit mechanism that apparently relieves the internal pressure.



The nozzle is ergonomically angled but due to the small diameter might not fit every third-party tips out there. I did find the Spinfit CP-100+ to fit nicely, but Spinfit CP-500 slipped out. Note that there is no wax filter on the nozzle, so cleaning them periodically is recommended.



The Earsonics logo is stamped into the faceplate, and this rounds up a rather unique shell-design. I think the Onyx stand out from the rest of the competition in terms of industrial design and are identifiable immediately unlike the regular resin-shell affairs.

Accessories​

Earsonics supplies a nice 4-core cable that is supple and doesn't form kinks easily. The heavy shells do tend to get entangled due to the thinner cable gauge. You also get 6 pairs of eartips (2 pairs of dual-flange, 2 pairs of foams, and 2 pairs of silicone), a hard-shell carrying case, and a cleaning tool. Pretty well-rounded accessory wise.

Comfort and Isolation​

This is where I encounter my first qualm with the ONYX. The shells are too heavy to be listening to the IEMs while lying down, which is something I do often. Also the fit is not the most stable (due to the weight) and can even slip out of the ears without a deep fit.

Isolation was above average with the stock dual-flange tips. The foam tips offer even better isolation so try those out if you need more silence.

Sound​

The Onyx have a dense, laid-back tuning where the delivery is dominated by low-end.

Sub-bass frequencies are bold and often masks the low-mid details. The mid-bass sits around 7dB below the sub-bass frequencies, resulting in some loss of texture. This gives rise to a unique bass response where the mid-bass sounds muted and lacks impact comapred to the sub-bass rumble.

Such response works well with tracks like Poets of the Fall's Daze but can't keep up in tracks with more nimble bass-line and subtle shifts in mid-bass notes, e.g. American Football's Where Are We Now. This lack of texture is not too noticeable on snares and percussion instruments and the slower decay works well in heavy snare hits.

The midrange is where many will feel divided. I find it a mixed bag, personally. Going by the graph, the unconventional peaking around 1.5KHz should be rather honky and nasal but in practice the sound does not feel so congested.

Most of the times male vocals sound about right, if somewhat laid back or recessed due to the aforementioned sub-bass prominence. This is likely due to the subsequent peaking around 3.5KHz that counterbalances the dip around 3KHz. Baritone vocals, however, sound "chesty" and too dense and lacks articulation at times.

String instruments also lack the bite in the leading edge of attack, with sharply tuned guitars sounding somewhat blunted. Same applies to heavy distortion guitar riffs and other plucked instruments.

The treble follows a similar "peak followed by a dip" nature of the midrange. However, a deep insertion somewhat smoothes out the lower-treble peakiness while a shallow fit exaggerates the bump near 6KHz. This may result in occasional splashiness but again is alleviated by tip-change.

Treble in general sounds muted and laid-back, exemplified by the toned down cymbal and triangle hits on Dave Matthews Band's Crash into Me. This may work for those who prefer a darker treble, but I found it to limit resolution and layering/separation of the ONYX.

Speaking of resolution, resolved detail often seems middling due to the sub-bass' masking effect and rolled-off treble. Imaging is a mixed bag with good left/right delineation but when it comes to ordinal imaging (top-left/bottom-right etc.) the ONYX cannot quite deliver with the same precision. This is often referred to as "three-blob imaging" with things being placed left, right, and center only.

Macrodynamic punch should be excellent here with the bass focus but the slow decay of the driver slightly tapers the experience. Microdynamics were middling too with subtle gradations in volume not being as readily apparent as some of their peers.

One area where the ONYX impressed is staging. Partly due to the tuning choices and partly due to the internal acoustic chamber, the stage depth is very good with vocals being projected somewhat farther away than the center of the head (a issue plaguing most IEMs). Stage width was also good though that may be a byproduct of the lower-mid recession.

Bass: 4/5
Mids: 3.5/5
Treble: 3/5
Imaging/Separation: 3/5
Staging: 4/5
Dynamics/Speed: 3/5

Frequency Response Graph​

The measurements were conducted using an IEC-711 compliant coupler. Questyle CMA Fifteen were used as source (low gain).

Select Comparisons​

vs Dunu Studio SA6​

The Dunu Studio SA6 are my personal benchmark for IEMs around the $500 mark and acts a great reference point while comparing other IEMs in the "Twilight Zone" of pricing.



In terms of build, both are excellent but I will always side with metal if it's metal vs resin so ONYX gets the nod for build quality. Comfort is better on the SA6 though due to much lighter shells. Isolation is about similar on both, whereas the SA6 have better supplied accessories due to the excellent modular cable.

In terms of sound, Dunu put more focus on clarity and resolution than hard-hitting bass. The SA6 is better than most all-BA IEMs when it comes to bass but can't hold a candle to the grunt and physicality of the ONYX's bass response.

Mids are another case though and I personally much prefer the SA6's midrange tuning. I find it to be about perfect for my tastes as not only are vocals articulated, the string instruments sound magnificent with superb tonal accuracy.

The treble is more extended on the SA6 as well with better defined cymbal hits, esp crash cymbals have a more satisfying leading edge on the DUNU IEMs. Staging is better on the ONYX, whereas imaging is slightly better on the SA6 (they are no imaging champ).

Separation and speed goes to the SA6 as the slower dynamic driver on the ONYX feels sluggish in comparison. Dynamics are better on the ONYX, however, with the SA6 having similar microdynamics and slightly worse macrodynamic punch.

Overall, I would pick the SA6 for a more resolving and articulated listen, whereas the ONYX is better suited for bass-driven and energetic tracks.

Conclusion​

The Earsonics ONYX have a unique tuning, especially compared to the more popular adherers of the Harman-target (or its variants). The bass response is good and the general coherence is excellent given the multi-driver nature of the IEMs. Earsonics put a lot of R&D into the driver placement and configuration, and that shows.

However, I think the sub-bass is too boosted and the bass driver could be faster. That way the lower-level details would not be as overshadowed by decaying sub-bass notes. I also wish that the treble was a bit more extended since the lack of air impacts the sense of clarity. Imaging could be better yet and the heavy shells are a bit tiring for me.

All that being said, a bassy tuning is not too common in the $500-ish price range and the ONYX offer something for those who prefer a dense, energetic listen. Give this a try if you like your bass to be bold and brash, even at the cost of some fine details.

Edit: re-adjusted rating for 2023.

TinHiFi became one of the most popular Chinese IEM makers after releasing the TinHiFi T2. These IEMs have something no one else was offering in the budget realm: a well-tuned bright-neutral sound signature. Since then, TinHiFi released several budget models but has not replicated the same level of success enjoyed with the T2.

Enter the T3 Plus, (seemingly) an upgrade over the original TinHiFi T3.

Aiming to take the budget-IEM crown, let’s see how close TinHiFi got with the T3 Plus.

This review originally appeared on Headphonesty.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Ken from TinHiFi was kind enough to send me the T3 Plus for the purpose of evaluation.

Sources used: Sony NW-A55, Hidizs AP80Pro
Price, while reviewed: $80. Can be bought from TinHiFi's AliExpress shop.

Click to expand...

Packaging and Accesories​

• TinHiFi T3 Plus IEMs
• Cloth carrying pouch
• A 0.78mm, 2-pin to 3.5mm single-ended cable (Oxygen-Free Copper or OFC)
• 9 pairs of eartips:
  • 6 pairs of silicone eartips: 3 pairs of white, 3 pairs of black
  • 3 pairs of blue foam tips
• Warranty card and user manual

The stock cable has a black 200D Kevlar-infused coating. The cable is supple, doesn’t form kinks, and has good tensile strength.



Not very impressive in terms of accessories but they get the job done.
3/5

Build​

The TinHiFi T3 Plus have 3D-printed resin shells with a pseudo-custom shape. There are two vents on the shell: one near the nozzle and another near the side of the IEMs. The nozzle itself is metal. The shells have a translucent black finish, so you can get a glimpse of the golden-colored copper driver cabinet.

The faceplate design is not particularly eye-catching but looks nice and has depth to it. Unfortunately, the 2-pin connectors are not recessed and sit flush with the housing. This may result in some third-party cables protruding from the housing.
4.5/5

Comfort and Isolation​

Due to their lightweight nature and ergonomically shaped resin shells, the Tin T3 Plus are very comfortable to wear and they isolate well.
4/5

Internals​

TinHiFi uses a 10mm LCP (Liquid Crystal Polymer) diaphragm. The diaphragm material is similar to the one Sony uses on their ex-flagship, the Sony EX1000. This particular material has high rigidity, resulting in better pistonic motion and faster transients vs typical PET (plastic, basically) diaphragms.

TinHiFi also uses the popular double-cavity design with the driver unit being housed inside a copper capsule.

Sound Quality​

The general sound signature of the T3 Plus can be summarized as “bass-boosted neutral”. However, the sound signature is quite tip-dependent. I found the stock tips to be too bassy and they masked the lower-mid details to a degree. Spinfit CP-100+ tips mitigated the issue for the most part.

The following sound impressions are formed with Spinfit CP-100+ tips, stock cable, and iFi Hip-DAC2 or Questyle CMA-400i as sources. Test tracks available on Tidal as a playlist.

Click to expand...

The sub-bass is quite prominent and boosted above the lower mids by almost 10dB. The bass frequencies start to rise from 500Hz and peak around 35Hz. You can hear the rumble around 25Hz as well but the impact is lacking. In terms of sheer extension, T3 Plus does the job.

When it comes to absolute quality of the bass, I find the mid-bass lacking in texture. The sub-bass does not slam as hard as expected and also casts a halo over the lower-mids. This is most apparent in songs where there is a heavy bass-line that accompanies the male vocals.

Female vocals fare a lot better. For my tastes, T3 Plus have some of the best female vocal rendition at their price-point. There is no shoutiness or shrillness and even high-pitched vocals sound smooth. String instruments have a thicker note-size and lack crispness which is a byproduct of the tuning itself.

The treble on the T3 Plus is mostly smooth and only has some emphasis around 4.5kHz and later at around 11kHz (to add some air into the mix). There is a general lack of air and sparkle, mostly due to the sub-bass emphasis and the relatively muted treble tuning.

Cymbal hits are placed in the background and they do not resonate for long. Moreover, in fast-paced tracks like Lamb of God’s Ruin cymbal hits tend to smear into each other at times.

Soundstage width and height is fairly good on the T3 Plus, definitely above average. Soundstage depth falls short against some of their peers, though. Imaging is also average with instruments mostly being placed left and right.

Microdynamics (subtle changes in volume level) on the TinHiFi T3 Plus are surprisingly good. Unfortunately, the lack of sub-bass rumble and mid-bass texture coupled with the rolled-off treble result in fairly compressed macrodynamic punch. Separation of instruments is good, but not class-leading.

Bass: 3/5
Mids: 4/5
Treble: 3.5/5
Imaging/Separation: 3/5
Staging: 3.4/5
Dynamics/Speed: 3.5/5

Frequency Response Graph​

Comparisons​

Vs Final E3000​

Final E3000 have been on the market for over 4 years now and still remain a benchmark in the budget IEM space. In terms of build, they are the polar opposite to the T3 Plus with a cylindrical shape and fixed cable.

In terms of sound quality, the E3000 go for a warm, laid back tuning with mid-bass emphasis. The sub-bass rolls off earlier compared to the T3 Plus, whereas the mid-bass has better texture on the E3000. The treble has slightly better extension and results in superior separation and imaging on the Final IEMs. The E3000 also have class-leading stage width and depth, so the T3 Plus fall short on those aspects. Comparison graph:



For relaxed, laid-back listening the E3000 are still excellent. If you need extra sub-bass presence and more forward upper-mids, the T3 Plus will serve better.

Vs Moondrop Aria 2021​

The Moondrop Aria 2021 have become a benchmark for me in the USD$50-$100 price range. They have an inoffensive tuning with great bass and mids.

In terms of build quality, I think it is a toss-up between the two. There are reports of the Aria’s paint chipping off so that is something to note. The stock cable of the T3 Plus is also markedly better.

When it comes to sound, the T3 Plus have some extra energy near 4kHz and add some emphasis to guitar riffs. The Aria sound smoother in the treble region as a result, despite lacking energy and extension. The Aria bass has better mid-bass texture as well, and the sub-bass rumble is more prominent. Macrodynamic punch and Imaging are improved on the Aria.

Overall, the Aria have slightly smoother tuning with better bass texturing and speed. The T3 Plus do offer a more energetic take on a bass-boosted neutral tuning which suits rock and metal genres.

Conclusion​

TinHiFi has been hard at work to come up with another budget-benchmark, and the T3 Plus is the best attempt yet. The build is solid, accessories mostly good (the tips might require a change), and the sound is closer to the Harman target with some modifications.

Unfortunately, the technical performance is only middling and they do not do anything that has not already been done.

Tonality is another matter though, and for the most part, TinHiFi nailed it. Female vocals sound excellent and the tuning won’t offend anyone. The TinHiFi T3 Plus are solid IEMs but, by the slightest of margins, they fail to elevate themselves above the competition.

A near miss indeed.

Sennheiser’s HD series of headphones have spanned multiple decades and are still going strong. The HD820 are their current consumer-grade flagship (discounting the unobtanium HE-1) and aim to bring the staging and imaging properties of the HD800S into a closed-back form. Easier said than done, so let’s see how close Sennheiser gets to the mark.

This review was originally published on Headphonesty.

In the box​

• Sennheiser HD820 headphones
• 3 meter 6.35m single-ended cable
• 3 meter 4.4mm pentaconn cable (can be swapped for XLR at purchase)
• A USB drive
• Microfiber cloth

The cables are too long for regular desk use. Other than that, they have excellent build quality and should last a long time.

Design​

The HD820 share a similar housing design to the HD800 and HD820S with the major difference being the Gorilla Glass on the earcups. The glass has a concave shape and reportedly disperses the resonant frequencies that form within the earcup. The build material is mostly high quality plastic, with the earpads having a leather surround and velour top.

The headband is stainless steel and has a smooth, clicked adjustment mechanism.



The housings have detachable cable with connectors unique to the HD8X0 series (ODU circular connectors). Aftermarket cables can run expensive for this reason. The earcups have a moderate amount of swivel and rotate about 30 degrees to the left and right for better adjustment.



The earpads can be easily replaced (simply pulling on one end does the trick) and have a different design to the HD800 or HD800S earpads. The HD820 earpads form a tighter seal and have a softer surface.



My biggest “gripe” about the HD820 build is the glass side panel. The glass catches smudges and fingerprints and needs maintenance to look good. Other than that, build quality is excellent.

Comfort and isolation​

Comfort is excellent, which is rare for many TOTL headphones. The relatively light weight of 360g, combined with adequate padding and the redesigned earpads, facilitate long-term wearing. Isolation is great as well, as the Gorilla Glass earcups block outside noise effectively.

Internals​

The most fascinating aspect of the HD820 are their ring-radiator drivers.

In fact, the ring-radiator driver technology deserves its own article to cover the technical design in how it differs from a regular dome-shaped diaphragm. Briefly, in a typical dynamic driver, the dome and the surround acts as a single unit during pistonic motion (as in whenever there is any audio signal).

However, at higher frequencies, the voice coil moves faster than the surrounding, resulting in phasing issues. This results in two audible phenomena: noticeably worse imaging and higher distortion at high frequencies.



To combat this, Sennheiser removed the central dome and mounted the inner and outer ridges of the driver diaphragm directly to the chassis. The voice coil was then placed in the middle of these two ridges, allowing for uniform movement across the entire diaphragm.

A rather ingenious solution in theory. So let’s see how the driver system performs in practice.

Sound​

The following sound impressions were formed with the stock earpads, stock cable, and the iFi xDSD Gryphon, SMSL SP400, or Questyle CMA-400i as sources. Test tracks available on Tidal as a playlist.

Click to expand...

The Sennheiser HD820 have a warm sound signature with some lower-treble focus. What stands out the most though is the soundstage, as these rival many open-back headphones in that regard. One major “caveat” of these headphones is how seal-dependent the sound is. The seal can break with little jaw or head movements and can attenuate the bass. Probably something to keep in mind during auditions.

Bass​

Bass is not the HD820’s strongest suit. However, in terms of absolute extension, they deliver. You can hear the sub-bass tones until 25Hz rather easily and they will provide some rumble when called for. However, bass slam is lacking and bass texture is not the best. There is some haziness in the bass region that masks some low-level details.

The proverbial fly in the ointment is the bass "cut" around 300Hz. This frequency cut ensures that there is little bass bleed from the boosted 100-200Hz region. At the same time it creates a strange hollowness while transitioning from upper-bass to lower mids. In tracks with heavy bass-line and accompanying vocals, this lack of weight is exacerbated. Case in point: Passenger’s Things You’ve Never Done.

All of these culminate into a bass response that is, perhaps, the weakest aspect of the HD820.

Midrange​

Sennheiser HD-series headphones usually have good midrange tuning. In fact, their HD600, HD650, and the HD800S have masterful midrange tuning and are often considered reference headphones for that reason.

The HD820s are a slight deviation from that lineage. The midrange issues start from the aforementioned upper-bass cut that can make certain low-level tones sound odd. Baritone vocals have a strange chestiness to them that’s not there in the original recording.

Sennheiser probably chose to add a bump between 1-1.5KHz to counterbalance this bass cut. While this does flesh out some of the thinner male vocals, they do so at the expense of vocal articulation. There is some nasality in male vocals that is hard to ignore once you hear it.

Upper-mids are tuned fairly close to reference, but can be too forward for those who prefer a laid-back signature.

Treble​

The treble is characterized by a low-treble peak near 5kHz. This peak is nowhere near as distracting as the OG HD800 but it does rear its head from time to time. On those occasions, vocals can sound shouty and string instruments may sound grating. Fortunately such instances are rare.

Other than that, treble extension is excellent, cymbal hits sound natural and have a raw bite to them without sounding tonally off. Even super-fast drum sections do not sound smeared. Lamb of God’s Ruin, for example, retains every hit of the blistering fast drum section around the 2:40 mark.

Overall, treble is the strongest aspect of the HD820’s sound signature which is quite ironic given many user’s struggles with the OG HD800 to tame this region.

Soundstage and imaging​

Staging is exceptional and I have not heard a closed back yet with such expansive staging. The HD820s will put many open-back TOTL headphones to shame. If staging is your concern, these will probably exceed your expectations given the form factor.

Imaging is precise with even the slightest shift in position being picked up. Center-imaging is excellent as well. Can’t pick any fault here.

Dynamics and speed​

Microdynamics (subtle gradations in volume) are delightfully portrayed. Counting Crows’ Miami acts as an excellent showcase in this regard. The driver is also very fast with only a handful of planar and electrostatic driver headphones outpacing the HD820s.

Where the HD820s fall short is microdynamics or sudden changes in volume. Bass slam lacks impact and sudden bass drops lack the dramatic effect one should experience.

Comparisons​

vs Audeze LCD-XC​

Audeze’s LCD-XC is a closed-back version of their venerable LCD-X. Sporting a 106mm planar magnetic driver, the LCD-XC weigh noticeably more than the HD820 (670g vs 360g) and are far from comfortable. In terms of usability, I’d always pick the HD820 over the LCD-XC.

Then comes the sound, and the bass response goes strongly in favor of the Audeze. Bass notes have superb articulation and texture, coupled with excellent slam and rumble. The midrange is tuned similarly in terms of upper-mids, though the LCD-XC have a better lower-midrange reproduction (with male vocals especially).

Treble is where the HD820 flex their muscle. LCD-XC have slight graininess in the treble and percussion instruments sound somewhat compressed. Treble extension is also too focused on the air frequencies and this can cause fatigue in long-listening sessions.I prefer the HD820 style of treble tuning: brilliant-yet-inoffensive.

Soundstage and imaging also go squarely in the HD820’s favor. Microdynamics are better on the HD820 whereas macrodynamic punch is superior on the LCD-XC. General resolution is high on both, although I think the HD820 slightly outresolve the Audeze LCD-XC, especially in the treble region.

In the end, I think tonally the LCD-XC are better, though in terms of technicalities the HD820 remain unscathed. Both deserve an audition if you are after a pair of TOTL closed back headphones.

Where to Buy​

• Official Store

Conclusion​

The Sennheiser HD820 look great, the build is fantastic, and comfort is superb. Couple these usability perks with excellent treble, class-leading soundstage, outstanding imaging, and a highly resolving signature, and you should have a winner.

The reality is a bit more complicated. The bass response fails to impress and the midrange has tonal oddities. This leaves a bittersweet aftertaste, as you think about what could have been instead of what the HD820s have already accomplished.

All that being said, the Sennheiser HD820 deserve an audition and I am going to cautiously recommend them based on their exceptional technical performance.

KZ is perhaps the most popular chi-fi manufacturer and in terms of sheer number of models available I think they got everyone beat. I did not keep up with their hectic release schedule for the better part of the year, but the KZ ZEX did catch my attention. Why, you ask? The EST (Electrostatic) buzzword, of course.

Most IEMs in the budget range go for a single-dynamic or a balanced-armature hybrid setup, so the ZEX is a refreshing change of pace. Let’s see if the sound quality is as good as it’s supposed to be.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. KZ sent me the ZEX for evaluation.

Sources used: Hidizs AP80 Pro
Price, while reviewed: $25. Can be bought from KZ’s Official Website.

Click to expand...

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES​

The packaging is no-frills but has all the necessities. You get 3 pairs of Starline tips (white) and a 2-core SPC wire. The cable itself is rather nice, especially given the price and how some manufacturers cut corners here. I wish there was a carrying case, but I am nitpicking here.
4/5

BUILD QUALITY​

The KZ ZEX have plastic shells (including the nozzles) with a metal backplate. The finish is good with no visible seam between the plastic shell and the metal backplate. At the bottom of each earpiece you’ll find the 2-pin port (protruted ones, sadly). There are no vents which is surprising given the existence of a dynamic driver inside. A pretty generic build overall but it’s well-executed.
4/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT​

Due to their lightweight nature and lack of vents, the KZ ZEX are very comfortable to wear and they isolate well. There is some pressure build-up but it only occurs occasionally. Not bad for a vent-less shell design.
4/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS​

The ZEX is very easy to drive and shouldn’t need any special source to sound its best. For the review I primarily used the Hidizs AP80 Pro. As for tips, I used the stock tips and they worked well.

DRIVER SETUP​

KZ ZEX is a dual-driver hybrid, with a 10mm dynamic driver in charge of the lows and mids, and a 6.8mm “electrostatic” driver in charge of the highs. In reality, the electrostatic driver is a magnetostatic one and operates similarly to the principle of electret mics (just reverse-engineered). Despite the misleading marketing, the driver combination is quite rare in the budget realm and warrants a closer look.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES​

The KZ ZEX has a V-shaped signature with the mid-bass bloom dominating the sound signature.

I usually start my sound section with the bass and then I go upward, but this time I’ll change things around a bit. The treble will be the highlight here for me because the KZ ZEX has a quite interesting treble response. In moderate listening volumes (around 70dB or so) the treble has a nice attack and sounds crisp without being overbearing or fatiguing. However, as you push the volume up, the treble becomes even more peaky ~5KHz and loses its composure.

I believe that this particular electret/magnetostatic driver is not suited for high SPL listening. So perhaps this is something to take note of when auditioning the ZEX. As for the midrange – it is not well-tuned. I am not a fan of the scooped out male vocals. Moreover, the upper-mids sound suppressed in high-pitched vocals, resulting in a boxy vocal reproduction.

The bass response, meanwhile, is mostly mid-bass focused and sub-bass rumble is not prominent. Bass lacks texture and has slow decay so bass notes can smear into each other. The emphasis on the upper-bass is a bit too much (rising from 700Hz almost) and this masks lower-level detail.

Speaking of detail, the ZEX isn’t particularly resolving even for the price. Dynamics sound compressed due to aforementioned upper-bass boost. Soundstage is below-average whereas imaging is basically left and right. Not much to write home about here.

Bass: 3/5
Midrange: 2/5
Treble: 3.5/5
Staging: 2.5/5
Imaging and Separation: 2.5/5
Dynamics and Speed: 2/5

SELECT COMPARISONS​

vs BLON BL-03​

The BLON BL-03 have been one of the few hype-trains that did not get derailed. It’s been a couple of years now that the BL-03 has remained the de-facto budget IEM recommendation.

In terms of overall build, comfort, accessories – the KZ ZEX are superior to the BL-03. The BLONs require a cable and tip change as the stock ones are horrible. When it comes to sound though, these IEMs go for different direction.

BLONs go for a slightly V-shaped tuning with warm mids and slightly rolled-off treble. The KZ ZEX on the other hand goes for a more pronounced treble response. In terms of midrange tuning and timbre, the BL-03 trounce the ZEX. I do think the ZEX has more sparkle in their treble. BL-03 bass is also more textured and doesn’t sound as smeared as ZEX.

Staging is middling on both whereas imaging is better on the BL-03. BL-03 also sounds more dynamic and less compressed than the ZEX. So apart from the treble, the ZEX is not really an upgrade over the BLON in most factors. Rather the opposite is often true.

CONCLUDING REMARKS​

The most interesting part about the KZ ZEX are their driver configuration and their treble response (in moderate listening levels).

Sadly, the midrange tuning isn’t up to the mark with overly recessed male vocals, and the bass is just slow and texture-less. The treble itself can get grainy once the volume is pushed up, so the ZEX have caveats all around.

The KZ ZEX falls victim to poor tuning decisions in the bass and mids despite having a fairly novel driver configuration. I hope KZ goes back to the drawing board and fixes the tuning issues in the upcoming model. For now, I cannot recommend the KZ ZEX.

I have always admired Meze’s philosophy in terms of product development. In stark contrast to recent craze of releasing “Pro” versions and numerous rehashes of the same IEM within months of each other, Meze develops products with a long shelf-life in mind.

The Meze 12 Classics V2 is the successor/upgrade to their original Meze 12 Classics model which was released almost 5 years ago. The intention of the original model was to have a similar sound signature to Meze 99 Classics (their most popular headphone model) and the updated model tries to do the same.

Let’s see if Meze’s long awaited budget offering can hold against the current competition.

This review originally appeared on Audioreviews.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Meze was kind enough to send me the 12 Classics V2 for the purpose of evaluation.

Sources used: Sony NW-A55, Hidizs AP80Pro
Price, while reviewed: $70. Can be bought from Meze’s Official Website.

Click to expand...

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES​

The Meze 12 Classics V2 have the usual bunch of tips (3 pairs of regular tips, 1 pair of dual-flange) and a nifty carrying case. That’s about all you get. I do wish the single-flange tips were of higher quality as I found them inadequate to provide a good seal (and thus made the Meze 12 Classics V2 sound subpar).
3.5/5

BUILD QUALITY​

Wooden IEM shells usually look gorgeous and the Meze 12 Classics V2 is no exception. The housing is a 3-piece design with a walnut housing sandwiched between two aluminium “caps”. The dark walnut wood is contrasted by the copper color-trim of the aluminium pieces and the design exudes class.



Too bad that the fabric-covered cable is a pain to use while commuting. It’s janky, it’s bouncy, it gets coiled in your pocket, forms kinks easily – not a fan at all. Also the cable is fixed but my old Meze 11 Neo is still alive after 5 years (!) so I’d not be too wary of the fixed cable provided you use these carefully. There is a raised nub on the left strain-relief for channel identification.



There is a single vent right beside the cable-entry in the housing. There is adequate strain-relief all around. My biggest gripe is the cable, otherwise the build quality belies the price-tag.
4/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT​

Given the bullet-style shell, it’s a fairly comfortable IEM and can be worn both cable-up and cable-down. There is some minor driver flex that subsides after a while. The isolation is good but depends on the tips used.
4/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS​

For this review, I mostly used the Sony NW-A55 player and the Spinfit CP-100+ tips. The warmer signature of the A55 somewhat mitigated the treble peak on the 12 Classics V2 and was quite enjoyable for on-the-go listening. I’d recommend pairing the Meze 12 Classics V2 with a warm source for best results.

DRIVER SETUP​

Meze 12 Classics V2 is utilizing an upgraded 8mm Titanium-coated PET driver with a copper-clad Aluminium wire voice-coil. This driver isn’t as fast as the Titanium coated driver on the Dunu Titan 1 but is better than a regular PET driver.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES​

The general sound signature of the Meze 12 Classics V2 can be described as V-shaped. However, this is a rather well executed V-shape since the lower mids aren’t too recessed and male vocals have good intelligibility. Bass frequencies dominate the spectrum with deep bass tones having some added reverberation, likely due to the slower decay of the driver. However, the bass has decent texture and thus doesn’t sound one-note. Sub-bass rumble is lacking though, and I expected more slam from the driver (as it was the case with the old 11Neo).

The lower-mids get some warmth from the rise in the upper-bass and in some tracks you can feel the bass bleed into the mids. In most cases though this was kept well under control and lower-mids didn’t sound muffled (albeit they sound distant). The upper-mids are fairly prominent thanks to the 3KHz peak and female vocals sound more in balance with the rest of the frequencies.

The point of contention would then be the lower-treble peak which is rather scary in the graphs. Playing a sine-sweep with the IEMs in my own ear, I can hear the lower-treble peak become strong post 4KHz and sustain itself until 5.6KHz. Then, another peak starts from ~7KHz and sustains until 8KHz. However, these peaks aren’t as fatiguing in real-world scenarios and I couldn’t hear sibilance in any of my test tracks (incl. Evanescence’s Bring Me to Life). This tuning, however, may cause fatigue if you’re sensitive in those regions in the long run.

Dynamics are decent, esp macrodynamics. However, microdynamics (gradual change in volume) isn’t as noticeable and the lack of sub-bass rumble makes sudden bass drops sound less dramatic. Soundstage is impressively wide but lacks depth. Imaging is mostly left/right but due to above-average instrument separation things don’t sound congested at all. Timbre had a metallic sheen to it, a common problem in most Titanium-coated PET drivers.

Bass: 4/5
Mids: 4/5
Treble: 3/5
Imaging/Separation: 4/5
Staging: 4/5
Dynamics/Speed: 3/5

FREQUENCY RESPONSE GRAPH​

SELECT COMPARISONS​

vs Meze 12 Classics (discontinued): So, did Meze really improve upon the original 12 Classics? Yes, they did. The driver is noticeably faster, bass is better controlled, the imaging/staging are better, and I prefer the new copper-trim a lot more. A true upgrade in all aspects barring the cable.

vs Moondrop Aria ($80): The Moondrop Aria (2021) is my current benchmark in the <$100 price-bracket. Does the Meze 12 Classics V2 dethrone them? Not really. I find the Aria to have better tonal balance overall and better imaging/faster transients.

However, these are differently tuned IEMs with vastly difference preferences in mind. Those who need an exciting, colored, V-shaped presentation will find the extra energy in the Meze 12 Classics V2 that’s lacking on the Aria. However, the detachable cable on the Aria just makes it a better deal for just $10 extra if you want a more balanced sound signature.



vs Final E3000 ($50): The Final E3000 is another favorite of mine under the $100 mark. It also shares a V-shaped sound profile and has a fixed cable + bullet style shell just like the Meze 12 Classics V2.

In terms of sound, three areas where the E3000 absolutely trounces the 12 Classics V2 are: staging, imaging, instrument separation. I also find the vocals to be more “engaging” on the Final E3000, but that’s more down to personal preference (slightly thicker lower-mids on the Final IEM). The Meze 12 Classics does have a more prominent treble, better bass extension, has a more robust stock cable vs the E3000, and is easily driven from most budget sources (the E3000 needs a good source).

CONCLUDING REMARKS​

Upgrading a classic like the OG Meze 12 Classics V2 is a tough task, but Meze has done well with the version 2.0. However, competition is far stronger than it was 5 years back, and the 12 Classics V2 isn’t as straightforward a recommendation as the OG was.

For me (and many potential buyers) the fixed cable may be a deal-breaker. Also those who are sensitive to peaky treble may find the 12 Classics V2 over long listening sessions. However, it’s one of the few well-tuned V-shaped sound signature under $100, and that counts as a strong point.

The Meze 12 Classics V2 gets my recommendation if you’re looking for an IEM with V-shaped sound signature (under $100). The design is excellent, the tuning mostly solid, and Meze usually supports their IEMs for a long time. That’s more than you can say about a lot of offerings lately, so there’s that.

Moondrop has been teasing about a pair of single-dynamic ultra-budget earphones for the while. So it is fair to say that there has been quite some anticipation building up to the Quarks. As it stands, Moondrop Quarks are their cheapest earphones and also the cheapest earphones to offer a neutral-ish tuning.

Given the cheap price of admission it’s hard to not get impressed by the Quarks, at least on paper. Reality can be sobering, though, so let’s see if the Quarks can keep up with the competition.

This review originally appeared on Audioreviews.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. ShenzhenAudio was kind enough to send me the Quarks for evaluation.

Source used: Hidizs AP80 Pro

Price, while reviewed: $13 (no mic version). Can be bought from Shenzhen Audio or Moondrop Offical Store.

Click to expand...

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES​

Not much to talk about here, really. The packaging is kinda unique for Moondrop though as it is bereft of any anime artwork. Other than that – the tips are not good and the carrying pouch is meh. I’d highly advise getting third party tips.
1/5

BUILD QUALITY​

The Moondrop Quarks do look quite decent from afar, esp the transparent shell and color-coded back-plates give a nice visual touch. Sadly, up-close the illusion evaporates. The plastic is decidedly cheap with a shoddy finish, the cable is springy, and the innards lack the polish of higher-tier earphones. But hey, we are talking about the price of a decent lunch. Understandable omissions.

One curious omission was that of vent, since there are no visible vents on the Quarks. Moondrop calls this a fully-enclosed structure and it will be interesting to see how that affects the sound.
3/5

​

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT​

Due to the light-weight nature and bullet-type shell, the Moondrop Quarks fit rather easily. However, there is some pressure build-up in the ear-canals due to lack of back-vent but it was not much of a problem for me. Your mileage may vary.
4/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS​

For a budget device, the Quarks required surprising amount of power and the driver seems rather inefficient with a sensitivity around the 97-98dB/mW region. This means that you will require a source with above-average output power to drive them properly. I think most modern dongles will suffice even though Apple dongle, out of phones, will likely fall short.

As for eartips, I found the stock tips to be a poor fit for me and opted for Final E-type tips with a size smaller than I usually use to help with the deeper fit.

DRIVER SETUP​

Moondrop Quarks utilizes a 6mm micro-dynamic driver with a PET diaphragm. Nothing to write home about, really, though I am not expecting such at this price point.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES​

The general sound signature of the Moondrop Quarks can be described as “Neutral” with a dry midrange and somewhat rolled-off treble.

When it comes to the bass, the Quarks aren’t a good performer even with the best of seals. The bass lacks texture and rumble and thus sounds rather one-note. Deep sub-bass is reduced to a generic hum and as a result you don’t notice the subtleties in fast-flowing basslines.

The midrange appears to be the bread-and-butter of this kind of tuning and the Quarks mostly delivers on the “clarity” front. The upper-mids are prominent followed by a recession in the lower-mids and this leads to a sense of “cleanliness” in the midrange. However, due to the driver limitation the entire midrange ends up sounding dry and lifeless. The tonality of the midrange is correct, but it lacks engagement.

As for the treble, it is rolled off post 6/7KHz. This results in muted cymbal hits and a sense of compression in the high registers. Staging is hampered as a side-effect and you get a very in-your-head presentation. Imaging is also mostly left/right with no distinction between ordinal and cardinal directions. Overall timbre is dry though not as artificial as the cheap BA drivers in this range. Overall resolution is middling as well owing to the textureless bass and rolled-off treble. Dynamics are disappointing too due to the lack of perceivable end-to-end extension.

A very middling display, overall, only redeemed by the tuning choice (neutral midrange) which is rarely found in the budget range.

Bass: 3/5
Mids: 4/5
Highs: 2.5/5
Soundstage: 2.5/5
Imaging: 3/5
Dynamics: 2.5/5

FREQUENCY RESPONSE GRAPH​

SELECT COMPARISONS​

vs Moondrop Spaceship​

The Moondrop Spaceship is priced slightly higher ($20) and has been the cheapest single-dynamic offering in Moondrop’s lineup before Quarks.

In terms of build quality, I’ll give the edge to Spaceship due to its metal housing. Comfort is similar between these. However, the sound is where things get interesting and both tend to target a neutral signature. In my opinion, Moondrop Spaceship executes the neutral signature better with superior technicalities and more natural timbre. The driver on the Spaceship is seemingly superior to that of the Quarks as well.

Both of these IEMs are bass-lite but the Spaceship bass has more texture (with a tip change of course). Midrange isn’t as dry on the Spaceship and has better male vocal rendition. Treble also has more sparkle and definition on the Spaceship. Soundstage is slightly wider and imaging is more precise on the Spaceship.

The biggest issue with the Spaceship, however, is how power hungry it can get. You’ll need a good source to power them fully and that’s a contradiction given most people aiming for budget IEMs will pair them with budget sources. Either way, in terms of sound alone, the Spaceship is better than the Quarks and well worth the extra $7.

CONCLUDING REMARKS​

I hoped the Moondrop Quarks would be a stand-out due to the initial fanfare, but alas. In fact, it’s the tuning target alone that acts as the saving grace for the Quarks since it is mediocre in terms of everything else e.g. build quality, bass performance, timbre etc.

If you want a budget IEM with neutral tuning, the Moondrop Quarks can be worth looking into, though be prepared for third-party eartips. Even then, Moondrop Quarks doesn’t quite become the budget miracle I hoped it would be. So it becomes just another option instead of being something more.

iFi Audio hit the homerun with the original Hip-DAC. It had excellent build, the design was unique, and the sound was different to most in the market with a warm, rich tuning that could power most reasonable headphones and IEMs.

The release of the Hip-DAC2 came as a surprise to me as I didn’t think the Hip-DAC was being outperformed by its peers. In fact, the Hip-DAC is still on of the best portable DAC/Amps under $250. On paper it appears that the Hip-DAC2 is mostly geared towards Tidal enthusiasts, having a major improvement in MQA decoding capabilities.

Let’s see if the Hip-DAC2 can prove itself to be just as good as its predecessor.

This review originally appeared on Audioreviews.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. iFi Audio was kind enough to send me the Hip-DAC2 as a loaner.

Earphones/Headphones used: Dunu Zen, Dunu Zen Pro, Final FI-BA-SS, Campfire Andromeda 2020, Sennheiser HD650, Sennheiser HD560S, Final Sonorous III.
Firmware versions: 7.30, 7.3b
Price, while reviewed: 190 euros. Can be bought from WOD Audio.

Click to expand...

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY​

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES​

iFi Audio went for a minimalist package with the Hip-DAC2. You get the essentials: a type-C to USB type-A female cable (for connecting to phones), a USB type-A male to female cable (for connecting with the PC), and a type-C to USB type-A male cable for charging.

There is an optional case that you can buy but it cost 29 euros extra.

BUILD QUALITY​

Build quality of the Hip-DAC2 mimics that of the original Hip-DAC and it is excellent. The housing is sandblasted aluminium with a Sunset Orange color scheme (vs Petrol Blue on the original). The volume pot has a silver-gray finish this time around whereas the OG had a golden knob.



There are two buttons on the left side of the volume pot (xBass and PowerMatch respectively) and two headphone outputs on the right side (4.4mm balanced and 3.5mm single-ended). The bottom of the device houses a USB type-A male port for connecting to devices, and a type-C port for charging.



The volume pot also acts as a power button and has two LEDs on both sides to indicate remaining charge (white for >75%, green for >25%, and red for >10% capacity). These LEDs also show the current sample rate and file format. The following image shows all the colors and their corresponding sample rate or format (image courtesy of iFi Audio).




Engaging either xBass or PowerMatch lights up the tiny white LEDs underneath the buttons. Overall, excellent build quality with no noticeable room for improvement.
5/5

HANDLING​

The Hip-DAC2 is fairly lightweight at 125gm, but due to the 70mm width can be awkward to hold in hand. This becomes more noticeable when you’re stacking the DAC/Amp with a large phone (most modern phones are large anyway). As a result, I preferred to use the Hip-DAC2 with my laptop rather than on-the-go with my phone. Also, the aluminium shell is quite slippery, so not the best experience when using as a portable device.
3.5/5



BATTERY LIFE
Clocking at around 8hrs of playback time, the battery life on the Hip-DAC2 is decent if unremarkable. The 2200mAh battery pack could have been upgraded over the original but that would increase weight and thickness so it’s a compromise iFi has to make. Recharging takes about 3 hours on a typical phone charger.
3.5/5

INTERNAL HARDWARE​

iFi Audio are most comfortable with using the BurrBrown chipset and here it appears again. The BB DSD1793 chipset offers native DSD encoding and with the updated XMOS controller can now decode MQA files at a hardware level. This feature, admittedly, is of little use to non-TIdal HiFi users but it doesn’t hurt to have an extra feature.



The potentiometer is fully analog, thus not facing some of the limitations that digital potentiometers may have. However, being analog in nature, it may degrade over time. The Global Master Timing clock has been upgraded here over the original Hip-DAC. The amp sections remains unchanged on paper, with quad JFET OV4627 op-amps (customized for iFi Audio). The amp circuit also uses a dual-mono design for the balanced output.



Other extras include the xBass feature which is an analog EQ and mostly aims to “fix” the sub-bass roll-off issue on open-back headphones. In reality, many open-back headphones suffer from distortion in those regions and applying an EQ might cause further distortion and clipping. The other feature is the PowerMatch button that acts as a gain switch for headphones (iFi advises keeping it off for sensitive IEMs).

Speaking of power outputs, the Hip-DAC2 outputs 0.4W @ 32ohms from the balanced out and 280mW @ 32ohms from the single-ended output (which also supports their proprietary S-balanced tech). The voltage swing can go as high as 6.3Vrms from the balanced out and this comes handy when driving high impedance dynamic driver headphones.

The PCB design is excellent and the components are high quality so I have no qualms about the internals of the Hip-DAC2. I would have loved it even more had it had a true line-out with fixed voltage output. Pairing the Hip-DAC with external amps could make it a great desktop solution. Maybe something for the Hip-DAC3.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES​

The general sound of the iFi Hip-DAC2 can be summarized as warm-neutral. It has the characteristic iFi Audio warmth with smooth treble and an engaging midrange. The bass is mostly neutral but can be pushed higher with the xBass switch.

One area where the Hip-DAC2 falls short of its peers is the soundstage width. You won’t have the stage width of some of the ESS chipset-based DACs in the price range. On the plus side, the imaging was precise for the most part, provided you have headphones/IEMs with good imaging. Treble also doesn’t exhibit the rather common “glare” you find in many dongles these days.

One thing to note is that changing the firmware can bring subtle changes to the sound due to changes in reconstruction filter. I used both the default 7.30 firmware and the 7.3b firmware. The former had a more laid-back treble and had a slightly wider stage, while the latter had sharper treble with more up-front upper-mids. Do note that these are subtle changes and won’t drastically alter the sound.

Overall transparency and resolution was good for the price point, though again I could hear some roll-off in the upper-treble frequencies and separation was nothing exceptional. Moreover, the background hiss is noticeable with sensitive IEMs, so if you want a very dark background the Hip-DAC2 will disappoint.

PAIRING NOTES​

Sennheiser HD650​

The Sennheiser HD650 is one of the few headphones that scale according to the source quality. On paper, the Hip-DAC2 has the required voltage swing to power it, but reality is a mixed bag. The HD650 got loud from the balanced out but lacked the dynamics it can display on a more powerful amp. Separation was not the best either. I would not recommend the Hip-DAC2 for such high impedance dynamic drivers if you want to maximize their potential.

Final Sonorous III​

Final Sonorous III are closed back pair of headphones and very efficient. Despite the efficiency they are quite transparent to source quality. The Hip-DAC2 drove them excellently with no loss in dynamics and the bass was quite pleasant. The upper-mids had more glare than usual, though, and the treble extension was lacking somewhat. Nonetheless, I would call the Hip-DAC2 a good pairing for efficient dynamic driver headphones.

Hifiman Sundara​

On the planar magnetic side, we have the Hifiman Sundara. With a 94dB @ 37ohms efficiency, these are not the easiest headphones to drive. The Hip-DAC2 did get them loud with good enough dynamics. Moreover, the xBass switch was handy to add some slam and physicality to Sundara’s otherwise flat, dry bass. I would call these two a good pairing, though Sundara can do better when paired with high end amps.

Dunu Zen and Dunu Zen Pro​

The Dunu Zen and Zen Pro both exhibited hiss from the balanced out of the Hip-DAC. However, the overall sound was quite pleasant. The Hip-DAC2 was not as resolving as the Questyle CMA-400i or Lotoo PAW 6000 with the Dunu Zen and Zen Pro, but none of its $200 peers sound any better with these IEMs so there’s that.



In general, the Hip-DAC2 pairs well with moderately efficient IEMs and some inefficient ones. The warm signature complements somewhat analytical headphones and IEMs. On the other hand, I would not recommend it for power-hungry planar magnetic headphones and IEMs, or very high impedance dynamic driver headphones. Headphones and IEMs with a warm tonality might not be the best pairing as well, e.g. Final E5000.

SELECT COMPARISONS​

vs iFi Hip-DAC​

There is little to externally differentiate between the original Hip-DAC and the Hip-DAC2 other than the different paintjob. In terms of sound, the changes are mostly minor. The Hip-DAC2 has more transparency in the upper-mids (OG Hip-DAC sounded smoothed out in that region) and slightly wider stage. The imaging also seems somewhat more precise though I’m not too convinced about this improvement.

Most noticeable difference will be for those who believe in MQA. I am not an MQA user and these supposed improvements were thus untested. I mostly stuck with DSD and PCM files and for those, the OG iFi Hip-DAC is nearly as good as the newer version.

vs Apogee Groove​

Apogee Groove has a very different amp architecture and is not really smartphone-friendly due to its higher power-draw and lack of internal battery. The amp architecture is also very different and has a very high output-impedance that messes with most multi-driver IEMs.

I found the Groove to pair really well with high impedance dynamic driver headphones, esp the HD650 and the likes. Some inefficient single-dynamic IEMs like the Final E5000 also pair excellently with the Groove. Unfortunately, the Groove is abysmal with low-impedance low-sensitivity planar magnetic headphones. They are also not as intuitive to operate as the Hip-DAC and lacks the xBass/PowerMatch features.

Overall, the Hip-DAC2 is more universal whereas the Groove is superb with a select few headphones and IEMs but below-par with the rest.

CONCLUDING REMARKS​

Holistically, the iFi Hip-DAC2 is a minor improvement over the original. I don’t think existing Hip-DAC owners need to upgrade to the Hip-DAC2 unless they are fully into the Tidal ecosystem and appreciates hardware MQA decoding.

That being said, those who are looking for a battery-powered DAC/Amp for desktop or laptop use and occasional phone pairing, the Hip-DAC2 is pretty much one of the best under $200. The original Hip-DAC is still available at Amazon Germany and costs $20 less, but I think you can just get the newer version since the price increase is marginal.

The Hip-DAC2 remains one of the best portable DAC/Amps under $200 and rightly earns my recommendation for using with desktops and laptops. Sadly, it is still not a good pairing for sensitive IEMs and leaves room for improvement when powering planar magnetic headphones. Something’s gotta give, after all.

BLON has been around for a while as an IEM/Headphone manufacturer (circa 2014 as per their logo). However, they reached stardom with the BLON BL-03 which have earned a place in our Wall of Excellence as the de-facto budget IEM. Since the breakout success of the BL-03, BLON has tried to re-capture the lightning in the bottle but never gained the same traction.

Enter BLON BL-MAX, their latest attempt at improving upon the BL-03, or perhaps providing something different enough to co-exist (just as the BL-05S were). Priced well under $50, the BL-MAX face stiff competition, even from within the family itself. Do the BL-MAX justify their existence, or are they doomed to fall into obscurity? Let’s find out.

This review was originally published on Audioreviews.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Dunu was kind enough to send me the Luna as part of the Review Tour (thanks Tom!)

Sources used: Questyle CMA-400i, Hidizs AP80 Pro
Price, while reviewed: $36. Can be bought from KeepHiFi.

Click to expand...

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES​

BLON is notorious for their below-par (often atrociously poor) accessories. This time around, though, they decided to at least provide a good quality cable. The stock cable of the BL-MAX is quite good IMO and I don’t see any reason to go for a third-party one unless you are too bothered by the (slight) stiffness. The stock tips, as always, are horrible and must be ditched if you care about fit. Finally, there is the fabric carrying pouch.

Overall, it’s an improvement for BLON but things can get better.
3/5

BUILD QUALITY​

Build quality of the BL-MAX is solid. Each earpiece has a two-piece metal assembly (zinc alloy) with a visible-but-unobtrusive seam. There is a singular vent near the nozzle and at the bottom you have the protruded 2-pin connectors (not my favorite). The backplate has a chrome-finish that’s prone to picking up smudges and scratches and looks similar to the earcups of the Apple Airpods Max.



It is a fact that the BL-MAX shells are rather… maximized and looks quite menacing in the photos. However, the inner-side is mostly ergonomic and slowly tapers into a more “human-like” shape. Overall, the build quality is as good as one should expect at this price with the scratches being a concern.
4/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT​

Comfort seems to be a major point of discourse when it comes to the BL-MAX. For me it was not an issue once I swapped tips. For others, they found the housing to be too big to wear. I can only talk about my own experience but I also acknowledge that others may have issues given the unconventional shape.



As for isolation – it’s above-average once you get the right tips to fit.
3.5/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS​

BLON BL-MAX doesn’t need much amplification and ran fine on the Sony NW-A55 (which has fairly weak amplification). Eartips are another story, however. I highly recommend changing tips. Spinfit CP-145 worked great for me, your mileage may vary.

DRIVER SETUP​

The BLON BL-MAX is their first dual-driver IEM with a 10mm CNT driver (likely 1st gen) for the lows and mids, and a 6mm micro-driver for the highs. The micro-driver uses a “lightweight” diaphragm as per the promo materials but the exact composition is missing. I assume it’s a PET/PEN diaphragm since a metal plating would surely be advertised.



An interesting thing is the orientation of the drivers which are stacked together vertically. This kind of driver assembly was first used on JVC’s FX-T90 and a “throwback” revival on the BL-MAX reminds me of the olden days.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES​

In a nutshell, the BL-MAX has a sub-bass boosted V-shaped signature with darker treble. Some also call this a W-shape these days.

Given the sub-bass prominence one would expect that the bass would be skull-shaking but in reality it’s not that dense of a bass response. You do hear the sub-bass rumble and some mid-bass punch but due to the driver limitation texture is lacking. The slow decay exacerbates the problem with the mid-bass sounding rather one-note. Fast-flowing bass sections are often reduced to a hum that fails to portray the rhythmic nature of these notes. I have seen some suggesting to EQ the bass to be even more prominent but I’d advise against that since this CNT driver is already at its limit.

Mids are quite alright though there is the obvious lower-mid recession that drowns out male vocals and low-notes in bass-heavy mixes. Fortunately, the upper-mid has adequate amount of gain and thus female vocals are well-articulated, so are string instruments and guitar riffs. Treble meanwhile is characterized by a noticeable peak around 5KHz that tends to make leading edge of cymbal hits somewhat exaggerated. However, the treble rolls-off quickly after that with perhaps a slight peak around 8KHz.

None of these treble are too noticeable in most songs since the sub-bass masks the peakiness. However, in songs with sparse instrumentation (acoustic tracks, singer/songwriter stuff) you may experience the unevenness in the treble region. The treble lacks extension and air and sounds darkened up top as cymbal and hi-hats decay abruptly, with no sense of airiness or sparkle.

Due to the recessed mids, soundstage feels “wide” but in reality it’s not very deep or tall. Imaging on the other hand was surprisingly decent and could even portray some “ordinal” directions well. Instrument separation was above average. General resolution is below average, and dynamics (both sudden changes in volume and gradual ones) are compressed. Compressed, as in: you don’t feel the immediacy of a sudden bass drop, or the minute changes in volume level of instruments/vocals. However, most budget IEMs fail in this category so no big deal there.

Bass: 3.5/5
Midrange: 4/5
Treble: 2.5/5
Staging: 3.5/5
Imaging and Separation: 4/5
Dynamics and Speed: 2.5/5

BLON BL-MAX FREQUENCY RESPONSE GRAPH​

Channel-matching is very good for a budget IEM, so a job well done on that front.

SELECT COMPARISONS​

vs BLON BL-03​

The OG superstar of the BLON family still remains unchallenged and seems to have been one of the rare “justified” hypes in recent years. The BL-03 is cheaper than the BL-MAX, has a worse fit, and requires both cable and tip changes.

However, once you have managed to get a fit, the BL-03 has a more analogue-ish tone with a warm tuning that offers a colored-yet-appealing midrange. The treble is also more present than the BL-MAX.

BL-MAX strikes back with better imaging, staging, instrument separation, and a deeper bass-reach. The sub-bass on the BL-MAX is better than on the BL-03. If you prefer to have a more mid-centric tuning the BL-03 is still an excellent IEM. For those who think the BL-03 needs more sub-bass or find the upper-midrange shouty – the BL-MAX can be a good alternative.

vs BLON BL-05S​

The BLON BL-05S is my personal favorite BLON till date. It offers the best technicalities among all BLON offerings that I’ve tried and the tuning is pretty solid as well. The fit is a notable improvement over the BL-03 and even the BL-MAX but the cable and tips still require swapping out.

Once you change the cable and get appropriate tips, the BL-05S sounds better than the BL-MAX in nearly all categories except for sub-bass rumble (BL-05S is rolled-off in that region). Imaging and separation is class-leading on the BL-05S so the BL-MAX don’t sound that impressive anymore. However, the BL-05S has a controversial color and I know many who didn’t buy simply because of the jade-green paintjob. BL-MAX has their own idiosyncrasies though with the oversized shell, so it’s a toss-up between them on aesthetics.

For my personal taste and given the much improved technicalities, I will pick the BL-05S over the BL-MAX. If you think the BL-05S sound thin in the mids or too dry in the bass for your liking – BL-MAX might suit you better.

CONCLUDING REMARKS​

The BL-MAX did not stand out or impress in a hyper-competitive market and got overshadowed by its own brethren. It’s a complicated situation where BLON is somewhat bogged down by their own success.

BLON has been ramping up their release cycle lately with new IEM releases appearing almost every month. On one hand, it’s good to have more options in the market, and the potential for another “budget gem” is ever welcome. On the other hand we got this “scattershot” approach where brands try random stuff to see what sticks.

The BL-MAX does not look like a scattershot to me as the design and driver assembly hint towards a more planned approach. However, BLON did not get it right with their first dual-driver IEM, esp since dual-dynamic setups are hard to pull off. I hope BLON goes back to the drawing board, retunes the drivers/swaps them for something better, and while they are at it – redesigns the shell since it has caused fitment issues for some.



Test tracks (as Tidal playlist): https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/04350ebe-1582-4785-9984-ff050d80d2b7

FIIL has made a name for itself in the True Wireless and Wireless earphone/earbud/headphone space. They have a large collection of Bluetooth audio devices and most of them seem rather interesting in their respective price brackets.

The FIIL CC2 is an update to the original FIIL CC that was positioned as an Apple Airpods alternative. The half in-ear design and similarly open acoustic structure makes the CC2 rather different from the in-ear designs out there. The competition is strong in the True Wireless space, so let’s see how well the FIIL CC2 holds up.

This review was originally published at Audioreviews.

The ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. FIIL was kind enough to send me the CC2 for evaluation.

Sources used: Google Pixel 6, iPhone SE

Price, while reviewed: $70. Can be bought from Amazon US.

Click to expand...

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES​

FIIL CC2 has a fairly compact packaging that covers the essentials. You get the earbuds themselves housed inside the carrying/charging case and a charging cable. Given the earbud style design, there is no need for silicone eartips, though I wish they had one of those silicone wings that helps better fit the earbuds.

The charging case, however, is fantastic. It’s a CNC-milled aluminium shell that houses an ABS plastic chamber (the chamber contains charging circuitry etc.). I love the design of the carrying case and it definitely stands out among the crowd.
4/5

BUILD QUALITY​

The earbuds themselves are made out of plastic that has a metal-like finish in the stem and matte black driver housings. Each stem houses the battery and required wireless modules. At the bottom of each earpiece you will find two gold contact-points for charging and a mic. At the top, you get the status LED. At the side there is a dot that acts as a touch-input. Tapping it twice/thrice performs several operations (customizable in the app).



The earbuds are quite lightweight, though nothing feels flimsy or cheap. Solid build quality, overall, even if nothing extraordinary.
4/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT​

The FIIL CC2 earbuds have an Apple Airpods “inspired” shape (also called half in-ears), though there are differences in curvature of the driver housing. For me it was fairly comfortable but after a while the hard plastic shell became distracting. The fit wasn’t the most secure for me as well, though my friends had a much better time and they could even go on a run with these in their ears.



So I guess the fit will vary but should be fine for most people (unless you have non-earbud friendly ears like mine). Isolation is almost non-existent, however, so don’t expect these to drown out traffic/commute noises.
3/5

SOURCE, CONNECTIVITY, AND BATTERY LIFE​

I used my Pixel 6 and Sony NW-A55 for most of the critical listening. I also tried with an iPhone SE and my laptop. The FIIL CC2 worked fine with all of them. Battery life was very good for my use since I didn’t listen to them longer than an hour. Simply sliding the earbuds back in the case recharges them and with just a few minutes of charging I could go on for another hour or so.

The problem with the battery life is mostly down to the continuous playback time: it’s about 3 hours or so if you use them without putting them back in the charger. The charging case holds charge for ~18 hours which is very good and I needed to charge the case once a week. It’s only if you are using the earbuds consistently for more than 3 hours shall you run into problems with battery life.

As for connectivity: Bluetooth connection was fairly stable. I didn’t notice any lag or random dropouts from any of my devices (ranging from BT 4.0 to BT 5.2) You can also install the FIIL App and customize the presets/change EQ modes/assign gestures. Finally, a small note about call quality: the FIIL CC2 mic records sound better than the much more expensive Apple Airpods Max. I had no problem talking with others even in moderately noisy environment and calls sounded loud and clear.
4.5/5

DRIVER SETUP​

The FIIL CC2 uses a 13.1mm single-dynamic driver with a Titanium-plated dome and PET surround. The acoustic structure itself is open and thus expands the soundstage beyond your head, at the expense of noise leakage and isolation.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES​

The general sound signature of the FIIL CC2 can be described as warm with a lower-treble tilt.

The most noticeable aspect of the sound is the sub-bass roll-off. You only hear sub-bass frequencies well from above 40Hz. The rumble factor is missing in action, though the moderately bumped up mid-bass does add some punch to the bass. Either way, the bass is not very textured is mostly tuned to give a sense of rhythm rather than cater to the bass afficionados.

Being very particular about bass myself, I was a bit disappointed but at least FIIL played within the limitation of the driver and acoustic structure rather than being overzealous with bass boost and add distortion.

Thanks to the mid-bass boost (which is fairly moderate and mostly thickens the lower-mids rather than cloud them) the vocals come through well even in some bass heavy mixes. However, there is some strange mid-range coloration going on. To my ears, the mid frequencies start to rise from 500Hz and then suddenly go down around 800Hz. Then it starts rising again from 1000Hz and peaks at 3.2KHz or so (to my ears).

So there is adequate pinna gain but the strange peaks between 500-1000Hz can make male vocals sound strangely colored and nasal at times. Female vocals were mostly fine and didn’t sound shouty to my ears. String instruments were decently portrayed though I think they could do with a bit more clarity (mostly due to the lower-mid tuning I guess).

As for the highs, the FIIL CC2 opt for a sizeable lower-treble peak at ~5.8KHz and then another mid-treble peak ~7KHz, after which the treble rolls off rather quickly post-10KHz. The 5-6KHz peak is definitely noticeable and brings cymbal hits forward and makes certain acoustic instruments sound metallic. It also makes some percussion instruments sound compressed. Overall, this treble peak isn’t too problematic (e.g. doesn’t introduce sibilance) but should definitely be EQ’ed down in the FIIL app IMO.

Lastly, the staging is rather open and definitely a neat trick of the FIIL CC2 due to its open acoustic design. Imaging is also better than average for the price range. Separation was good, but the overall resolution was rather average. Also note that the FIIL CC2 lacks in dynamics due to the sub-bass roll-off and lack of upper-treble.

Bass: 3/5
Mids: 4/5
Highs: 3/5
Soundstage/Imaging: 4.5/5
Speed/Dynamics: 3/5

SELECT COMPARISONS​

vs Apple Airpods​

The Apple Airpods are nearly 3x as much expensive and doesn’t come with as neat a carrying case as the FIIL CC2. However, if you’re an Apple user it will integrate seamlessly with all your Apple devices. For someone like me who only use an iPhone sporadically – this is not a selling point. So I’ll focus on comfort and sound aspect mostly.

The FIIL CC2 was more comfortable for me than the Airpods, though both lacked isolation. The FIIL CC2 app is also something the Airpods lack (and CC2 is more customizable as a result) but then again if you are getting Apple products you do not do a lot of customization either way. As for sound, the Airpods are noticeably worse than the FIIL CC2.

The bass is looser and distorts easily on the Airpods in bass heavy sections. In the mids, the FIIL CC2 resolves slightly better than the Airpods with better separation. The treble is rolled-off on both but the CC2 has the lower-treble peaks that gives a sense of enhanced clarity and presence of high notes. Staging is deeper on the CC2 though both has an out-of-your-head staging, just that the Airpods feel more congested due to the bass tuning. Imaging is more precise on the CC2 as well.

Overall, I find the FIIL CC2 to have noticeably better sound quality than the most popoular True-Wireless earbud on the planet.

CONCLUDING REMARKS​

The FIIL CC2 is designed really well and has crossed off most of the checklist: good battery life, decent comfort, good call quality, above-average sound quality. The one area where it falls short is isolation but that’s an intended design decision.

However, based on sound quality alone, the FIIL CC2 will fall short of other wired earphones in the price range. Then again, that applies to even the most expensive wireless headphone out there.

So considering the limitations and the current state of the competition I can recommend the FIIL CC2 for someone who is looking at an Airpods alternative. It sounds better than the Airpods and while it lacks the seamless software integration of the Apple product, the companion app along with the large price gap makes the FIIL CC2 a good option.

Hidizs have been around the block for a while now, mostly focusing on portable DAC/Amps, dongles, and the occasional DAP/IEM. The AP80 Pro is their update to the original AP80, and it brings in a dual-DAC architecture and a balanced output. The rest of the device is rather intriguing too with DAC support, MQA decoding capabilities, and sporting Hiby OS which has a lot of bells and whistles to tweak the sound.

Without further ado, let’s see if the Hidizs AP80 Pro can justify its $170 price tag.

This review was originally published at Audioreviews.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Hidizs was kind enough to send me the AP80 Pro for evaluation.

Firmware version: 1.5

IEMs/Headphones used: Final FI-BA-SS/E5000/Sonorous III, Dunu Zen, Campfire Audio Holocene, Meze 12 Classics V2, Etymotic ER2XR

Price, while reviewed: $170. Can be bought from Hidizs website (please note: this is an affiliate link, proceedings will go to a charity of choice)

Click to expand...

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES​

The packaging is fairly minimal but you get all that you need to get started: a type-C charging cable, an OTG cable, and a horrible looking silicone case. The case does its job but makes the entire device look ugly which is a shame given the great design. Nothing is left out, but nothing stands out either in terms of supplied accessories.
3.5/5

BUILD QUALITY AND HANDLING​

The Hidizs AP80 Pro was quite a bit smaller than I assumed it to be. It fits right in the palm of your hand though the sharp edges can feel uncomfortable. The design is a popular one: aluminium frame sandwiched by two sheets of glass. The screen protectors are pre-applied and that’s a good thing.



The scroll wheel is a bit of a mixed bag. It’s rather sturdy (doesn’t wobble as much as many others) and has defined clicks. However, the clicks feel mushy and the movement has a scratchiness to it. I am nitpicking but hey – I am a bit too particular about rotating knobs.



The playback buttons have good feedback, however, and I love that Hidizs put all the ports at the bottom of the device (unlike many flagship DAPs out there). On the left side you’ll find the microSD card slot (up to 512GB+, absolutely necessary since the Hidizs AP80 Pro lacks in-built storage). The top is bereft of anything.



Overall, the Hidizs AP80 Pro has a good build and the design is rather unique indeed. I do wish the scroll wheel was better (despite using ALPS potentiometer).
4.5/5

DISPLAY AND USER INTERFACE (UI)​

The display is a 2.45″ Samsung IPS panel (480*360) with capacitive touch layer underneath. Since the display isn’t laminated, it shows a loss of contrast when viewing from an angle (and not the best under direct sunlight). Display brightness is quite good though, and the pixel density is good enough to hide pixellation from working distance.

Hiby OS is what Hidizs is using here, and it’s a pretty solid DAP OS. It takes ~10 seconds to boot, and then you go straight into a “launcher” of sorts. Here, you can access the actual music player, or use the FM Radio/Pedometer/BT DAC/eBook reader (why?)/System Settings/About menus. It’s a pretty straightforward launcher though I wish there was a faster way to get back to the launcher screen from within the music player app (right now you have to exit the app and then only you can get to the launcher screen).

I think the most impressive/noteworthy part of the Hiby OS is its MSEB feature. It’s a sort of DSP/Parmetric EQ combo that allows you to fine tune aspects of the output such as warmth/brightness/bass rumble/male vocal thickness and so on. It’s fun to play with if you’re into tweaking the sound of your DAP, and can help in fixing some tonality issues in many IEMs.

However, the implementation here on the AP80 Pro isn’t as good as the one found on Hiby R6 2020, or even the Hiby R3 Pro Saber. Both of those had a more convincing tweak to the sound whereas on the AP80 Pro it feels like you’re just using a multi-band EQ and never really have the same control on shaping the sound.



Sliding up from the bottom of the screen brings a menu that’s not unlike iOS’ Control Center. Here you can adjust the volume/brightness, control playback, and switch Bluetooth on/off, select gain level (low/high), switch between DAC or Storage mode when connected to USB, and finally switch between line-out/headphone output mode. Use the last one with caution though since it just maxes out the volume to reach the nominal 2Vrms output level (it’s not a true line out where there is only voltage gain).

Speaking about the performance of the DAP, it’s pretty good and much better than a certain Fiio M6. However, you won’t get even low-end smartphone level of smoothness. There will be missed swipes and taps and the entire UI runs at 30fps or lower so things won’t be very smooth. It’s absolutely usable though and a far cry from non-touch DAPs like Questyle QP1R in terms of usability.
4/5

BATTERY LIFE​

Battery life was about average especially from the balanced out. You get between 8-10 hours of playback based on the device/volume level used mostly due to the 800mAh battery used. This is far from the battery life you get from some competing DAPs, namely Sony NW-A55 (~35 hours) or the Cowon Plenue D (~90 hours, it’s not a typo). In AP80 Pro’s defense – those don’t have quite as much output power or balanced circuitry as the Hidizs DAP. However, we are considering raw battery life only, so it’s an area where Hidizs can do better. The battery charging speed is fairly good though and should top the DAP up within an hour and half.
3/5

PAIRING NOTES​

The Hidizs AP80 Pro is not a powerhouse and won’t run the Sennheiser HD600 and the likes well. There’s a noticeable lack of bass extension and slam with the HD650, for example. Final Sonorous III fared much better though the bass wasn’t as well-controlled on the AP80 Pro as it is on desktop sources.

As for IEMs, even with the sensitive Final FI-BA-SS I couldn’t notice any hiss and the sound was fairly dynamic. Dunu Zen had a good pairing though the upper-mid glare was more noticeable here. Best pairing was with the Meze 12 Classics V2 and the Campfire Holocene.

TECH SPECS​

Hidizs decided to use the tried and tested Sabre ES9218P DAC chips in dual-DAC configuration, and are using the built-in amp circuit of these DACs. This isn’t a bad thing really since it allows you to get reasonably good amp performance in a small package. I couldn’t find the output impedance figures anywhere though, bummer. Full specs are here.

TONALITY, TECHNICALITIES, AMP PERFORMANCE​

The Hidizs AP80 Pro has a slightly colored tonal profile, with a bit more focus in the bass region and some emphasis in the upper-midrange (a common tonal trait of these ESS chips). There is some dryness in the midrange that makes male vocals sound a bit distant and coarse. This can be somewhat mitigated by the MSEB tweaks but I prefer not to use DSP/EQ too much myself. The bass and treble could be a bit more resolving given the competition.

The best part about the AP80 Pro’s sound signature has to be its soundstage which is quite wide and never feels closed-in even with IEMs that can feel narrow on some DAPs. Imaging isn’t as accurate as higher-tier DAPs but for the price I don’t expect much better. Separation is also very good provided you have a resolving enough IEM.

Speaking about amp performance, the balanced output was powerful enough to drive the Final E5000 quite loudly, but the E5000 didn’t have quite the bass control that you can get on something like Questyle QP1R/Apogee Groove. Also the balanced output won’t run pesky planars, though some low-end planars like Hifiman HE-400se sounded alright.

Still, for these headphones I’d recommend a desk amp. The balanced output also has better channel separation. I’d personally recommend using the balanced output on the AP80 Pro since it’s noticeably better than the single-ended output.

All in all, the Hidizs AP80 Pro is a good performer for the price bracket. It has good staging and separation capabilities but doesn’t stand out in the other performance criterion. The amp section is fairly powerful from the balanced out but won’t run high impedance headphones that well so it’s mostly for moderately sensitive IEMs and headphones.
4/5

SELECT COMPARISONS​

vs Hiby R3 Pro Saber ($210): At $40 extra, the Hiby R3 Pro Saber gives you WiFI capabilities (supports Tidal playback) and a more powerful balanced out. It also noticeably increases the battery life. You do lose out on the superior industrial design of the AP80 Pro and the Hidizs DAP has a better display.

That’s all on paper though. In terms of absolute sound quality, I can’t really notice much difference between them. The Hiby R3 Pro Saber has a bit more sterile tone (not a good thing in my book) but counterbalances that with better MSEB implementation (also the OS is more feature-rich on the Hiby R3 Pro Saber). The extra output power is handy if you want to push some higher impedance headphones but with most IEMs this extra power didn’t really matter.

In terms of specs, the $40 extra for the R3 Pro Saber is well worth it. However, if you’re after absolute sound quality and not the extra bit of power and can live without Tidal playback, the Hidizs AP80 Pro will give similar performance at a lower cost.

vs Sony NW-A55 ($200): I’ll say it outright – the Sony NW-A55 is my most favorite DAP around the $200 price bracket. It’s got a great industrial design, the display is fabulous, the UI is snappy, and the sound signature is gorgeous (as Gordon Ramsey would say). The best part about them are the modded firmware by a certain MrWalkman and they bring different tuning to the stock signature.

The Sony DAP is hard to find (it’s biggest con), lacks balanced output, and doesn’t have a lot of output power. Oh, it also uses the forsaken WMPort so you gotta carry that cable around. Battery life is exceptional though at ~35-40 hours of playback. Standby times are also excellent as I rarely turn it off and still have enough juice left for on the go use.

As for sound, the Sony NW-A55 reigns supreme in midrange rendition. The mids on the Sony DAP is unlike anything you’ll hear in this range and has a analogue-ish feel to it. The bass and treble is about similar on both DAPs, though I felt the bass to have slightly better texture on the A55. Staging and separation is where the AP80 Pro pulled ahead. Also, Sony NW-A55 doesn’t have anything like MSEB (though it has Sony’s own proprietary DSP based tricks).

Between these two, I’ll personally pick the Sony NW-A55. If you need a balanced out and more bells and whistles – the Hidizs AP80 Pro may be a better fit for your use-case.

CONCLUDING REMARKS​

Looking at the rest of the <$200 DAP market, the Hidizs AP80 Pro seems like a good value proposition. I don’t see a major weakness here. The issues I have are not really deal-breakers and competing DAPs have similar/worse problems. The display is good, the UI has quite a lot of features, and the design is a standout.

The middling battery life and the finicky touch response are the only sore points. Among its competitors, I do have a soft spot for the Sony NW-A55, but if you want better staging and separation over a more refined midrange tonality – the Hidizs AP80 Pro will serve you better than most other DAPs in this range.

Cayin is no stranger to amps. In fact, they make some of the best desktop amps out there, including the venerable iHA-6 and the top-dog, the HA-6A (one of the best amps I’ve ever had the pleasure to listen to, by the by). The Cayin C9 is their flagship portable amp, meant to be more transportable than portable given the ~0.5kg of weight.

Being a flagship and perhaps the best showcase of Cayin's technical achievements so far, the C9 comes with a hefty price-tag of $2K. That's a pretty penny and demands top-tier performance. Let's see if the C9 delivers.

This review was originally published on Audioreviews.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Cayin C9 was sent to me as part of the EU Review Tour (thanks Andy!)

IEMs/Headphones used: Dunu Zen/SA6, Final FI-BA-SS/E5000, UM MEST mk. 2, Campfire Audio Holocene, Sennheiser HD650, Hifiman Ananda

Price, while reviewed: $2000. Can be bought from Musicteck.

Click to expand...

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES​

In terms of accessories, you get two high quality interconnect cables (a 4.4mm to 4.4mm balanced cable, and a 3.5mm to 3.5mm single-ended cable). You also get a type-C cable for charging (supporting QuickCharge), a screw-driver (for removing the battery bay), and some spare screws. That’s about it, no carrying case or anything. The accessories aren’t plentiful given the price-tag but you do get all the basic necessities.
3.5/5

​

BUILD QUALITY​

Cayin C9 has a two part design: the front part has the amp circuit along with the controls/switches, and the back side has the battery bay which can be slid out. The top of the device is aluminium with CNC-cut windows (covered by glass) that houses the NuTubes, and the bottom of the device has a sheet of glass on it (I do wish this portion was also aluminium for consistencies’ sake). The tubes glow green when turned on and takes about 3/4 seconds to warm up.



The front of the device has… everything. Well, everything bar the pre-amp/line-in toggle button (on the left side of the device, you need to press it along with selecting pre-amp input mode on the front panel to activate the mode) and the USB-C port/battery indicators (on the back of the device, with the battery bay). Both the 3.5mm and 4.4mm inputs/outputs are on the front, along with the power switch/operation indicator LED button. There are toggles for (from left to right) line-in/pre-amp input mode, gain (High/Low), Timbre (Solid state/Tube), operation mode (Class-A/AB).

Lastly , there is the volume knob which is an ALPS rotary encoder and has quite high precision from my experience with no channel imbalance even at extremely low volumes (it’s electronic and resistance-ladder based with 130 discrete steps). The knob takes some force to rotate though, and it’s somewhat recessed into the housing to prevent accidental volume changes (which can be damaging due to the extremely high output power on the C9).

I don’t really have any complaints about build quality here.
5/5

USABILITY​

The Cayin C9 is more of a transportable than a portable device. In other words, they need to be stationed somewhere (a desk/bedside) and not really portable in a shirt/pant/coat pocket (unless you love unsightly bulges). Other than that, it’s quite easy to operate the device once stationed on a desk. Changing between modes is easy to do without looking once you get the layout memorized. However, due to all the controls being on the front, it can a pain to hook it up as a sole headphone amp with a desktop DAC (then you need to reach on the back to connect/disconnect headphones and IEMs). As of now it is more suited to connecting with DAPs than desk setups.



Another interesting aspect is that there is a slight delay every time you change modes. This is something you have to take into account for on-the-fly A/B comparison as the changes introduced by the tube mode, for example, won’t be instantaneous.
3.5/5

BATTERY​

The Cayin C9 uses four 18650 Li-ion batteries and apparently switching batteries may bring subtle changes to the sound signature (I did not verify this). It supports quick charge so recharging is quite quick, and I managed ~8 hours on a single-charge in class-A/High gain mode from the balanced out. This is not a stellar showing but given the power and performance here it is within expectations. Do note that Cayin have built several protection mechanisms in the battery powered circuitry (and you cannot bypass battery power here, not sure why would you want to anyway since the battery power is better than direct AC input for this particular use-case). You can read more about the power delivery method here.

AMP ARCHITECTURE​

The internal architecture of the Cayin C9 is fully discrete and fully balanced. Cayin also didn’t use a traditional IC/Op-amp based circuitry, rather opted for fully discrete design. The volume control is resistance-ladder based with 130 discrete steps.

Instead of trying to explain all the nitty-gritties in detail (which isn’t really my forte) I’d instead link to the Cayin head-fi thread (click here). There you will find amp schematics alongside a closer look at the internal components.


Toshiba 2SK209 JFET for the solid-state amplification. Image courtesy: Cayin

Korg Nutubes for the tube timbre. Courtesy: Cayin

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES​

The Cayin C9 is an absolute chameleon of an amp when it comes to tonality and technicalities. Between the class-A/AB mode and solid-state/tube timbre, you can have 4 different signatures, and this is quite helpful when it comes to pairing IEMs with a specific sound signature. Please note that due to the way the mode-switching works in this amp (has a 2-5 seconds delay depending on mode) some of the A/B comparisons below are based on auditory memory and listening notes. In other words: take them with some salt (though I am fairly convinced about the different bass reproduction in class-AB mode and the general characteristics of the tube mode).

CLASS-A (SOLID STATE)​

This is my most favorite mode, and apart from very bass-heavy stuff I preferred almost everything in my collection in this mode.

The best part about the class-A mode is the bass rendition. This is, by far, the best bass reproduction I’ve heard on a portable amp. The sheer grunt of the sub-bass (provided you have a suitably extended IEM) is unmatched. No DAP I’ve tried till date including the likes of Lotoo PAW Gold Touch, Sony WM1Z, Questyle QP1R, or the A&K SE200 could come close. I went through a huge portion of my library to simply enjoy the basslines in a completely different manner.

The sheer control Cayin C9 has over the sub and mid-bass is also uncanny. Snare hits are authoritative, sub-bass rumble is very much present, but it doesn’t overwhelm and actually corrects the bass-bleed issue in certain IEMs (Final E5000, for one). The best part about the bass: its density, given you got a good bass reproduction on the transducer side of things. The Cayin C9 isn’t a miracle-worker of course even in class-A mode. If you are pairing it with a BA-only IEM, the bass can only be so good. You’ll miss the texture and slam of good dynamic-drivers and that’s expected. Thus, the class-A mode is especially suited for dynamic driver IEMs/Headphones and the efficient planar magnetic ones.

All this talk about bass made me almost ignore the delightful midrange in the class-A mode. There is an analogue tone to the entire sound and vocals sound especially rich. However, transients aren’t softened at all and there’s a sense of transparency to the entire presentation. The stage depth is another aspect that seemed best on class-A mode, though I’d attribute it to the sub-bass response that is often perceived as depth while listening to tracks with an elevated sub-bass line. Separation was stellar with balanced out and I don’t think it can get any better in terms of perceived channel separation.

CLASS-A/B (SOLID STATE)​

If you found the class-A mode to be a bit bass heavy and the mids to be somewhat up-front, then the class-AB mode evens things out. The bass is less authoritative and the midrange esp vocals get slightly pushed back. So you end up with a more relaxed, wider presentation overall. I would recommend this mode with bassy IEMs or headphones. Channel separation was excellent in this mode as well.

NUTUBE + CLASS A, A/B
Last but not the least: NuTubes. The Korg NuTubes are miniaturized triode vacuum tube that uses vacuum fluorescent display technology to emulate the class tube distortion. Basically: you get the tube sound without having large, heat-generating, extremely microphonic vacuum tubes. More info can be found here.

That’s the sales pitch at least. In practice, I didn’t find Korg NuTubes to be as tonally rich and colored as traditional tubes. Cayin’s own N3Pro, for example, has a more drastic and noticeable coloration via JAN6418 tubes. The coloration here is subtler. When coupled with class-A mode, the bass becomes somewhat loose and lacks the texture, definition, and authority vs the solid-state mode. Resolved detail is also masked somewhat. Female vocals sound richer, however, and some harshness/shrillness is smoothed over. Treble detail is also masked to a degree esp the attack-decay of cymbal hits aren’t as pristine as they are on the solid-state mode.

In the end, I found the NuTube to work best with the class-AB mode for my tastes and gears. With some bright or neutral IEMs the tube mode works quite well in reigning down the harshness. However, don’t expect the stellar separation and resolution of the regular class-A mode with the tubes engaged.

PAIRING NOTES
The Cayin C9 made nearly every IEM/headphone in my collection sound, well, better. Given the numerous modes I think one can mix and match and make it work with any IEM. However, the Campfire Andromeda 2020 had audible hiss even at low gain, so if you own very sensitive IEMs you may want to use an iFi IEMatch in-between. Final FI-BA-SS, meanwhile, didn’t hiss much even though it can detect hiss on many sources.

There was a slight amount of hiss on the Dunu Zen but the end result was simply stunning when pairing the Cayin C9 with Lotoo PAW 6000. I used the balanced line out mode and the presentation was very dynamic. The resolved detail was desktop class and frankly – I can see myself ditching even high-end DAC/Amp setups for this combo (LP6K + Cayin C9). Cayin C9 + Questyle CMA-400i was less drastic a difference though the sound was softer and more rounded than the regular headphone out of the CMA-400i.



Lastly, I paired the Cayin C9 with the A&K SE200 and it was another excellent pairing. The A&K’s AKM output gained even better microdynamics and I could listen to the Sennheiser HD650 in its full glory. Many prefer this particular headphone from OTL tube amps so I decided to try the tube mode on the C9, but the end result wasn’t aligned to my tastes. Your mileage may vary.

Overall, I found the Cayin C9 to take on the characteristics of the DAC/DAP it’s connected to while enhancing some parts of it (mostly bass response, channel separation, and dynamics). As such, I’d recommend the Cayin C9 even for TOTL DAPs like Lotoo LPGT, provided you are willing to splurge for the diminishing returns.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs iFi Diablo​

The iFi Diablo ($1000) is a powerhouse of a portable DAC/Amp that’s mostly intended to drive power-hungry headphones. It is excellent with inefficient planars (apart from the most demanding ones like Hifiman HE-6/Susvara) and as such works better in terms of powering planars than the Cayin C9.

That’s about it, though. The amp section on the Cayin C9 is superior to the Diablo in terms of tonal richness, bass reproduction, and powering IEMs and efficient headphones. The stellar separation of the C9 cannot be found on the iFi Diablo as well, and staging is more cramped as a result on the iFi Diablo. Moreover, it doesn’t have as many different modes as the Cayin C9 incl. the NuTubes.

As an amp, the Cayin C9 is indeed superior to the iFi Diablo. However, at half the price the Diablo also has a built-in DAC section and doesn’t rely on stacking as the Cayin C9 does, which is something buyers shall take into account.

vs Cayin iHA-6​

In the end, I decided to compare the Cayin C9 with other desktop amps because that’s what most of the target audience would be looking into (desktop-class performance in a more portable format). The Cayin iHA-6 ($700) is one of the best amps under $1000 IMO, and I love pairing it with the iFi Neo iDSD (review coming soon for the iHA-6 soon). The iHA-6 is huge and heavy so if the Cayin C9 can somewhat replicate the feeling of transparency you get with the iHA-6 – that’s a major win.



Turns out that the Cayin C9 is actually… better than the iHA-6. Wait, hear me out. It’s not better in terms of power, iHA-6 can push 7Watts (!) into a 32ohm load from the balanced out whereas the C9 manages a mere (!) 4Watts. However, when not driving super-demanding planars, the Cayin C9 simply has better imaging and dynamics (esp microdynamics). The iHA-6, despite being similarly transparent in the midrange, sounds edgier in treble and not as effortlessly resolving. Another issue with the iHA-6 is that it’s beyond overkill for IEMs and might even blow the drivers out if you’re not careful. Moreover, iHA-6 has very high noise-floor for sensitive drivers.

The realization that an amp 1/8th size of the venerable iHA-6 can outperform it in most scenarios is rather shocking for me, but that’s how it is. The C9 is almost 4x the price of the iHA-6, but it seems you do get your money’s worth of performance at a much smaller footprint.

vs Headamp GSX Mini​

The Headamp GSX-Mini ($1800) is one of my all-time favorite solid-state desktop amps and something I recommend everyone to try out. Given its desktop nature, it completely outshines the Cayin C9 in terms of output power and headphone driveability, though with moderately sensitive planars like Final D8000 Pro/Meze Empyrean you’re not really gonna need extra juice out of either of them.



I’ll skip over build etc. since it doesn’t really make sense when you’re comparing apples to oranges (desk amp vs transportable amp), but in this case there aren’t many competition to the C9 so desktop amps it is. However, one thing I must note: the volume knob on the GSX-Mini. It’s fabulous, class-leading. I want to fiddle with it for absolutely no reason, it’s that good.

With that out of the way, let’s talk about sound. There is a distinct difference in presentation between these two amps. The Cayin C9 goes for a transparent signature with slightly warm/analogue midrange and a sizeable increment in bass texture. The Headamp GSX-Mini takes a more laid-back approach with the bass but focuses on midrange and treble more. Outstanding detail retrieval is its calling card and there it does beat out the Cayin C9 marginally (when paired with full-size headphones).

However, the Cayin C9 strikes back with superior staging/imaging. The GSX-Mini can feel a bit closed-in in comparison. As a result the GSX-Mini works great with planars like Arya which have a naturally wide staging and the sound gains more focus with the GSX-Mini (if that’s what you want). The Cayin C9 meanwhile works better with IEMs and headphones that have relatively more intimate staging (e.g. Dunu Zen, Focal Utopia).

Overall, with the correct matching/pairing of headphones, the GSX-Mini does outperform the Cayin C9 in terms of resolved detail. That the Cayin C9 competes with a full-on desktop amp priced similarly is testament to what Cayin has achieved with the C9, and I am left even more impressed at this point.

CONCLUDING REMARKS​

If you’re someone who owns a premium DAP (>$1000) with a high quality line-out and intend to make the absolute most out of your IEMs and less demanding headphones (as in, less than the Susvara/1266 Phi/HE-6) – the Cayin C9 will pretty much be an endgame addition at this point. The weight of ~500gm makes it hard to carry around but I am mostly using it while on the desk/lying down and it works absolutely fine that way.

The biggest issue of the Cayin C9 is its price-tag of $2000. Only the most effusive of enthusiasts would pay that much for a headphone amp that improves upon the intangible aspects of the sound you get from a high quality DAP. However, once you hear it there’s no going back and the dynamism it brings is truly one-of-a-kind.

Cayin chased perfection with the C9, and I daresay that they came dangerously close to it. I’ll miss listening to it, but hopefully not for long as I plan on getting one for myself.

I'll keep this review short, and won't go through the usual details about packaging and such. I bought the Final F3100 with my own money, and thus have no need to display spectacular honesty ().

Let's head straight into sound. The F3100 is all about the mids. They have a singular focus: the midrange, and I think Final tuned the mids really well here. Do note that you'll need to go for a deep fit to get the best sound out of these. I used tips a size smaller than I usually do. These resulted in a rather even frequency response from the upper-bass to the treble region.

Speaking about the midrange, female vocals sound absolutely phenomenal. I was listening to Elisa's entire discography while writing this review on the F3100 and I must say - it sounded as good as anything you can find in this range. However, many of her songs have sparse instrumentation with just acoustic guitars and light cymbal hits accompanying the track. On tracks where there were heavy bassline (Dancing, for one) it sounded undercooked and made the song lose its usual authority.

Bass, indeed, is the Achilles' Heel of the F3100. It has horrible bass. There is some mid-bass presence that at least makes the snare hits sound somewhat passable but that's about it. I think this is a limitation of the driver used (and also due to the size constraint) and that's a shame. Even with a bit more even bass response the F3100 would vie for a genuine recommendation. But alas.

The treble is inoffensive, rolls off rather early post 8KHz. There is a lack of edginess in the sound and that keeps things inoffensive. However, it might be a bit too safe at times, your mileage may vary. The FR below pretty much summarizes the entire thing.



What the FR doesn't tell, is imaging/separation/soundstage. Separation is actually quite good, and the staging isn't as congested as Etymotic IEMs. However, imaging lacked precision, and it was mostly left/right.

To quickly go through the rest of the stuff: the accessories are decent, the build is excellent (and it's one of the best fixed-cable IEMs out there in terms of build quality). Isolation is supreme with deep fit, rivaling that of the Etymotic IEMs. It needs above average power to drive well, but nothing spectacular. I mostly used the Questyle QP1R for the review.

In conclusion, the F3100 won't replace the Etymotic ER2XR. A newcomer like KBEar Neon has better bass extension, and will likely cater well to many if they are after a neutral-ish signature. What the F3100 does well though is the vocals. It's such a specialist in that regard that I feel a bit disheartened knowing the other shortcomings.

I take out my F3100 for late-night vocal/acoustic/soft rock sessions, but beyond that it doesn't get much use. Final made too much of a specialist here, a one-trick pony, and that trick runs out of magic quite often.

INTRODUCTION​

KBEar released the Neon outta nowhere, and at first glance I assumed the existence of a Knowles BA driver at this price-point (where most IEMs are using Bellsing BA drivers) was supposed to be the sole Unique Selling Point.

To my complete surprise, the KBEar Neon had another trick up its sleeve and a darn good one – its tuning. I never thought KBEar would come up with something that goes for neutrality to the degree that the Neon has gone, and it’s quite fascinating indeed.

This review originally appeared on Audioreviews.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. KeepHiFi was kind enough to send me the KBEar Neon for review.

Sources used: Questyle CMA-400i, Hidizs AP80Pro
Price, while reviewed: $50. Can be bought from KeepHiFi

Click to expand...

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES​

The packaging is typical for the price-range, no surprises there (check the Photography section if you’re interested in the looks of the package). As for the accessories: love the cable, like the carrying case, hate the tips. The cable is really nice: supple, doesn’t tangle, has a tight braid, and rather noise-free. It’s a 4N SPC cable, so I expect it to get yellow over time with usage (lower purity).

I’d recommend a tip-change, however, esp a small sized one (more on this in the sound section).
4/5

BUILD QUALITY​

The IEM has a bullet-type shell, not unlike those Final E/F-series IEMs. The IEM shells are made of UV-cured resin and are supposedly tougher than typical ABS shells. The translucent shells give a view of the driver which is nice. The front cap, however, is metal, and houses the dampening filter (from what I gathered). The back of the housing has raised 2-pin connectors and fits the stock cable really well (third-party cables might not fit as snugly). Pretty nice build overall.
4.5/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT​

Bullet style shells are generally very comfortable for me, but I’ve met a few people who find them intrusive so if you’re one of them, try these before buying. Also, these IEMs require a deep fit and the shell size isn’t really ideal for that. It’s a bit too thick in terms of shell diameter, even thicker than the Final E5000. Fortunately with small tips things worked out well for me. Isolation was pretty good as well.
4.5/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS​

I’ve mostly used the Questyle CMA-400i since I’ve been at desk for most of the last week (home office etc.). However, they were driven really well by the Hidizs AP80 Pro ($150, review coming soon) so with an entry-level DAP you’re good to go. They don’t need much power to drive (14ohms, 105dB/mW @ 1KHz) but is sensitive to output impedance changes (and also changes the FR if you put an extra resistor in the line). For eartips: I used the ePro horn tips (small size) to facilitate deep fit.

DRIVER SETUP​

The KBEar Neon uses a single, unvented BA driver (Knowles ED-29689). KBEar didn’t mention if they’re using a Knowles damper but I’d guess they are using some form of damping in front of the driver nozzle (based on how it sounds).



The following listening impressions are made on the following setup: stock cable + ePro horn tips + Hidizs AP80Pro.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES​

The general sound signature of the KBEar Neon can be termed as “neutral”. The bass is almost flat and lacks the rumble around the sub-bass region in typical BA fashion. However, due to the mid-bass being almost in-line with the lower mids, there is no sterility or thinness in the midrange representation. Similarly, the pinna gain (~3KHz) is not too heavy handed with just ~6dB of extra boost vs the lower-mids. This results in up-front male and female vocals with none having the shouty/thin characteristics. Vocals are one of the best aspect of the KBEar Neon, after all.

Treble meanwhile rolls off after 9KHz and doesn’t really allow for a lot of sparkle. KBEar did add a bit of a boost ~8KHz to bring back some clarity. This works on most tracks but in some poorly mastered tracks the 8KHz peak was a bit more noticeable. However, despite the flat tuning (which is similar to DF-neutral apart from the upper-mids being more pulled back), there are some issues with the transition from upper-mids to treble.

I feel like the slope from the 3KHz to 7KHz region is a bit too steep. As a result, there is a distinct lack of clarity in this region. Many go for neutral tuning hoping for more clarity around this region and KBEar Neon won’t cater well to those needs. Transients are somewhat blunted too (likely due to heavy damping in front of the driver), making the KBEar Neon more on the smooth, rounded side rather than a resolution-monster. Moreover, the 8KHz peak has more of a contrast with its preceding frequencies as a result, resulting in some added grain in treble.

Soundstage, in typical deep-inserting IEM fashion, was mostly focused on the width rather than depth/height. Placements of instruments are mostly on a flat plane, so you don’t get the so-called “holographic imaging”. Dynamics are not much to write home about as this is a single-BA IEM and is mostly constrained by the nature of the driver (and also some tuning decisions). Separation was good on slower, less busy tracks, but tracks with a lot of instruments tended to blur some of the instruments (e.g. Tool’s Chocolate Chip Trip). Timbre had a sense of BA-artificiality to it.

All in all, the KBEar Neon acts as a showcase of KBEar’s version of neutrality. I like it for the most part but I do think the lower-treble region can be lifted by a couple dB or so for better clarity. Other than that: solid tuning, mostly enjoyable neutral sound signature.

Bass: 3.5/5
Mids: 4.5/5
Treble: 3/5
Imaging/Separation: 3/5
Staging: 3/5
Dynamics/Speed: 3.5/5

FREQUENCY RESPONSE​

Measurements done on an IEC-711 compliant coupler. 8KHz peak is exacerbated by coupler resonance but there is some noticeable emphasis around that region. Deeper fit shifts the peak a bit further.

​

SELECT COMPARISONS​

vs Etymotic ER2XR ($100): The Etymotic ER2XR is priced (usually) 2x the price of the Neon. However, at times they’re on sale for $60 (though mostly US only). Nonetheless, at the time of writing, the price is $100, so the comparison will be made on that basis.

Build quality is good on both. The cable on the ER2XR is worse in terms of haptics. The other issue with the ER2XR (a big issue) is its fit. I can’t use it for more than 20 mins as it causes pain to my ears. I am not down with torturing myself for a pair of IEMs so exercising caution is advised.

The sub-bass is boosted on the ER2XR vs the KBEar Neon. The mid-bass is more fleshed out on the KBEar Neon, however. I personally prefer the texture and rumble of the ER2XR bass, but I really like how KBEar tuned their mid and upper-bass regions. Snare hits are really well portrayed as a result.

The midrange has more clarity on the ER2XR due to the reduced mid-bass. It does make the lower-mids sound somewhat lean. Female vocals get more focus as a result. Treble has better clarity and extension on the ER2XR. Soundstage is about same on both, imaging slightly better on the KBEar Neon.

I’d probably pick the KBEar Neon myself as I can actually use it without feeling the pain of wearing Etymotic IEMs. If you can withstand Etymotic fit (or crave it even) the ER2XR is the more resolving pair with better timbre.

CONCLUDING REMARKS​

If budget is a concern and you don’t wanna deal with the Etymotic fit, KBEar Neon is one of the few options in this price range if you’re after neutrality. The name, Neon, refers to the inert gas and signifies this tuning decision rather aptly. However, I do think the treble tuning needs to be re-thought for their next “neutral reference” IEM (perhaps the Helium?) and trying other driver/housing types might be a good idea too.

For now, I can recommend the KBEar Neon to those who want a neutral signature that doesn’t sound lean or dry in the midrange.

The moment Apple removed the headphone jack from its latest iPhone 7, it spelt doom for the headphone jack itself on all flagship devices. It’s incredible how something as innocuous as the 3.5mm jack became the bane of existence for Apple and how they called it “courageous”, but that rant is best delivered elsewhere.

This is a review of the Apple Airpods Max, Apple’s most expensive headphone, and one of the most expensive bluetooth headphones out there. If you are someone who is enamored (!) by the Apple ecosystem and also an audiophile, this review shall address your concerns regarding the tonal and technical proficiency of the Airpods Max.

If, however, you are someone who wants the latest trend, I think you can skip the rest of the review and just get the Airpods Max right away (the prices are dropping nowadays). It is definitely the most advanced Bluetooth headphone out there right now, and the competition will take a year to catch up at the very least. However, caveats apply, as always.

All relevant specs here.
This review originally appeared on Audioreviews.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. I bought the Airpods Max with my own funds.

Sources used: Apple iPhone 11, Apple iPhone SE, Google Pixel 4XL
Price, while reviewed: $550. Can be bought from Apple’s Web-store.

Click to expand...

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES​

The Airpods Max come with the (now infamous) “Smart Case” and a lightning-to-USB-C cable. That’s about it. The “smart case” is the worst headphone case in existence and $5 Aliexpress cases with questionable design decisions are less useless.

This smart case is an absolute abomination in design (it looks like a silicone bra), the material choice (attracts gunk/dust and gets dirty real quickly) , the absolute lack of protection (doesn’t even cover the headband), and the absurd requirement for the Airpods to be kept in the cover to put them in deep sleep mode (they don’t turn off otherwise). Usability nightmare.
1/5

BUILD QUALITY​

Premium, super-solid, futuristic — these are the operative words. The Airpods Max is built exceptionally well. It’s mostly anodized aluminium with some rubber and plastic parts. There is a curious lack of branding all around, no Apple logo/branding to be seen anywhere.

Let’s talk about the headband first since I find the headband design quite interesting. It’s a two-piece metal construction with the inner steel frame adding rigidity whereas the outer frame (rubber coated) houses the upper-portion of the headband (a fabric layer). The sliding mechanism for size-adjustment is also very solid, though I wish there were some markers for finer adjustments.

The earcups themselves are two chunks of aluminium and are packed with several mics, sensors, receivers, and buttons. This is the most sophisticated earcup design I’ve seen till now and is an impressive feat of engineering.

The right earcup has two buttons up top: the rotary dial (digital crown, as Apple says) that acts as both volume and playback control (press down to play/pause, press twice to skip), and a square button that toggles between Active Noise Cancellation (ANC) on/off. Lastly, The lightning port (ugh) is at the bottom for charging.



Opting for lightning instead of type-C is baffling, but I guess they thought of the ease of use for existing iPhone users. The left earcup is bereft of any controls but has an antenna cut-out for RF transparency.

What’s not immediately apparent but catches your attention once you look closer: the numerous microphone holes in both of the earcups. In fact, there are a total of nine microphones. Eight of these mics (two on the top and two of the bottom of each earcup) works for the ANC and the remaining one is used for voice pickup. Two of the eight ANC mics also help in voice pickup, and that rounds up the entire mic assembly.

Other than that there are other interesting design decisions. The earcups can rotate into a flat position for storage, and there is a spring-loaded swivel mechanism which I haven’t seen anywhere before (and a great design decision IMO).

The earcups attach/detach magnetically, and there’s an IR sensor inside each earcup (underneath the cutout in the earcup on the inner-side) that detects if you’ve worn the headphones or not (something that doesn’t work on Android/Windows for some reason).

A highly sophisticated build with premium materials. I guess I can’t really ask for more.
5/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT​

The earpads have a cloth exterior with memory-foam inner. Unfortunately, the clamp force is a bit too high. Competing products like Sony 1000XM4 and the Bose QC35ii have superior wearing comfort, and that acts as a detriment.



The headband material is surprisingly comfortable though and distributes pressure evenly across the top of the head. It’s the clamp around your temples that is uncomfortable. The ~400gm weight is also noticeable while wearing.

As for noise isolation, the Active Noise-Cancellation here is class-leading indeed. You can only hear faint irregular noises, but most noises like hum of your laptop, the noisy bus engine are well taken care of.

I also like the transparency mode and found it fantastic during commute (as you can hear the surroundings while crossing the street, or trying to follow a conversation).
4/5

CONNECTIVITY​

The BT reception is generally strong, but there were some connection drop issues with older iPhones that had BT 4.0. With BT 5.0 devices and the newer iPhones (that are compatible with the H1 chip) the connection was rock-solid. Pairing was also quite simple irrespective of OS/device.

The biggest downside here is the lack of any lossless codec as Apple is using the archaic AAC codec even in their flagship headphone. It’s a major shame and the BT compression is quite noticeable in many tracks. Call quality is also middling as the voice sounds somewhat muffled.
4.5/5

AIRPODS MAX DRIVER SETUP​

Apple doesn’t tell much about the driver setup apart from that it’s 40mm. Looking at iFixit’s teardown I think it’s a PET diaphragm with a PVD metal plating (likely Titanium). The driver looks cool in a matte-black finish but that’s about it. I don’t think there’s much to write home about here (otherwise we wouldn’t hear the end of it in Apple’s promo materials).

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES​

The Apple Airpods Max has a warm, slightly V-shaped (or U-shaped, as some say) sound that focuses more on the “fun” side of things rather than going for neutrality.

The bass response is definitely north of neutral with a sizeable sub-bass boost but the mid-bass is left untouched, resulting in a clean bass-response with no mid-bass bleed. Bass is fairly textured but lacks in definition and speed, partly due to the driver limitation and partly due to the BT compression that takes a toll on the bass region.

The midrange is perhaps the best aspect of the Airpods Max. The recession in the lower mids tend to drown out male vocals in some tracks with lots of instrumentation, but that’s about my biggest complaint here.

The slight warmth in the lower-midrange coupled with lack of shoutiness in the upper-mids and generally correct tonality makes the Airpods Max good at reproducing both male/female vocals and string instruments. Acoustic guitars sound especially nice with crisp attack and a natural decay.

The treble is where things start to get divisive. With the ANC on, there is a noticeable rise in the 9KHz peak and the treble becomes fatiguing. With ANC off, however, that issue is mostly mitigated, and in the transparency mode it is completely gone.

It’s ironic that a headphone that went through so much trouble for ANC sounds its worst with that feature turned on. If you are treble-sensitive and want/have the Airpods Max, I’d highly recommend keeping the ANC off/transparency mode on.

As for the rest: resolved detail is middling. This is about as resolving as the $65 Philips SHP9500 and I’m not exaggerating in the slightest. In busy tracks, the cymbals turn mushy and it’s hard to pick apart leading edge of notes.

The staging is fairly tall but lacks height and depth. Apple uses heavy DSP to give you a sense of space (esp when listening to songs with Dolby Atmos) but such tracks are rare and most of all: the DSP tricks sound artificial and lacks the natural stage expansion of an open-back headphone. However, compared to other BT headphones, the staging here is above-average indeed.

Finally, imaging is fairly accurate. Center-imaging suffers though, as is the case with most headphones. Dynamics are fairly good with the macrodynamic punch being delivered with authority (though the sub-bass emphasis can make snare hits and pedals sound a bit muted). Microdynamics are decent for a BT headphone but nothing to write home about.

Bass: 3.5/5
Mids: 4/5
Treble: 3/5
Imaging/Separation: 3.5/5
Staging: 3.5/5
Dynamics/Speed: 3/5

SELECT COMPARISONS​

vs Sony 1000XM4 ($300): The Sony 1000XM4 is widely popular for a few good reasons: it’s very comfortable, it’s got the branding, and the sound signature is a bass-boosted V-shaped that many find “fun” to listen to. It’s also got LDAC support and good ANC.

However, the Airpods Max has better build and controls, and the ANC on them is superior. Also the sound has better midrange resolution and imaging. Almost twice-the-price better? I don’t think so, but hey – it’s Apple.

vs Bose QC35ii ($200-ish): The Bose QC35ii has been on the blocks for a long time and I find it to be a very enjoyable pair of BT headphones. The ANC is fantastic (nearly as good as the Airpods Max) and they are supremely comfortable to wear. The lightweight helps in carrying too.

The sound signature is more mid-bass focused than the Apple Airpods Max and tends to sound thicker in general with less treble presence. A non-fatiguing sound that’s middling in resolution but very inoffensive.

The Airpods Max, again, has superior build and ANC. However, the tonal profile is different enough to cater to different audiences. Moreover, the price is markedly lower on the Bose. It’s an inferior headphone to the Airpods Max no doubt, but for the price, it’s a very good performer.

CONCLUDING REMARKS​

The Apple Airpods Max has stunning looks and perhaps the best balance of sound among wireless headphones around $500. There’s one BT headphone that’s superior in almost all aspects to the Airpods Max, the Hifiman Ananda BT, but it retails for twice as much ($1000) and is an open-back headphone. Plus, the design isn’t anywhere as cool. In terms of raw sound quality and comparing against wired offerings, the Apple Airpods Max stand no chance. It’s slightly worse than the Philips SHP9500 and that tells it all. Sennheiser HD600/650 duo are on an entirely different dimension altogether, and the Hifiman Sundara/Beyerdynamic DT1990 are technically far more proficient.

However, you don’t get the Airpods for sound quality. The entry level Airpods are about as resolving as $10 earbuds, and Millions of people bought them. The price point is a bit too high on the Airpods Max though and for non-audiophile, style-conscious consumers it might be a bit too high a premium to pay. If you are someone who loves the Apple “ecosystem” (though said ecosystem barely helps here) and got the budget for it, Airpods Max will probably earn you more style points than anything else out there. The sound without ANC is quite good and the easy to use control scheme can be refreshing.

Unfortunately, I can’t recommend the Apple Airpods Max to the regular audiophile as they are overpriced, over-designed, and under-performing. They look cool, but you can’t see them when worn. You can feel them though, and the high weight coupled with high clamp-force is not ideal. The sound quality is way below average and will be bested by certain wired headphones under $200.

If you really need a BT headphone, the Bose QC35ii will be an inoffensive, inexpensive option with good ANC as well and great comfort. The Airpods Max, meanwhile, belongs more in lifestyle photo-shoot than actual real-world use.