Reviews by kmmbd

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.

Sony needs no introduction.

I mean, you have used at least one of their products in your lifetime. Thus, let’s cut to the chase. The Sony IER-Z1R is their flagship (universal) in-ear monitor. Priced at $1700 retail, these are true top-of-the-line contenders in the IEM space and is looking for a place among the best of the best earphones around.

Does the Sony IER-Z1R justify the hefty price-tag, or is it another underachiever? Let’s find out.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. The IER-Z1R was a loan unit from a friend.
This review originally appeared on Audioreviews.org

Sources used: Cowon Plenue R2, Sony NW-A55, Sony WM1A, A&K Kann Alpha
Price, while reviewed: $1700. Can be bought from Sony’s Official Website

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES​

An accessory set fit for a king, preceded by a regal unboxing experience. The IER-Z1R puts most flagship packaging to royal shame *cough* 64Audio *cough*. It’s a TOTL product through and through and Sony spent considerable time into the packaging and accessories. The jewelry box like assembly with sliding trays keep the various items into their own compartment. The stock cables are built well and is very ergonomic with no touch noise, but they are a tad too long for my liking. Does help when you connect the IEMs to desktop amps though. There are too many tips to count and you get an oversized box to store the IEMs with felt-lining inside. Overkill, impractical, but very cool.
5/5

BUILD QUALITY​

The Sony IER-Z1R is built and sized like a tank. The zirconium alloy shells are absurdly large. Everything but the nozzle is super-sized, including the recess into which the mmcx port sits. As a result one must choose after-market cables carefully. Most third-party cables have a thinner mmcx stem that will be literally eaten up by the Z1R (thus I’d recommend the Sony stock cable or the kimber cable).



Back to the housing, the backplate has a perlage pattern often seen on luxury watches (a metal tip rotates on top of the metal plate to form such a pattern). The shape of the housing mirrors the shape of the inner acoustic cavity (more on this later) and thus have a unique design rarely seen elsewhere. The top of the IEM houses the color-coded channel markings, where I can see something that resembles a vent. Other than that, no other vents or asymmetries in the housing.

The design stands out and draws attention, as is customary for Sony’s signature line of gear.
5/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT​

Comfort = horrible. Fit = atrocious. Isolation = above average (when pushed deep into the canals, basically how these IEMs are supposed to be worn). Wearing the Sony IER-Z1R for any length of time is a challenge and will definitely be the deal-breaker for most people. Auditioning the IEM before purchasing is strongly advised.
1/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS​

The best source for the Sony IER-Z1R is Sony’s own WM1A Walkman DAP. People often talk about “synergy” between source and IEM, and very few pairings showcase such synergy. I myself tried the Z1R mostly with the Cowon Plenue R2 during review, however, and used the stock Sony Hybrid tips. Later on I tried it with the WM1A and that did improve upon my issues with the mids. If you are planning to get an IER-Z1R, the WM1A/WM1Z DAPs are recommended.

DRIVER SETUP​

The Sony IER-Z1R has a triple-driver hybrid setup, with two dynamic drivers in charge of bass/mids and upper-treble, and one BA driver in charge of the treble.

The largest driver in this array is the 12mm bass/midrange driver that has a Magnesium dome with Aluminium-coated LCP surround. This ensures better pistonic motion and a very high excursion. The excursion is further aided by a resonance chamber and tube structure in the back of the driver. All of these results in the signature hard-hitting, dense bass of the Sony IER-Z1R.

The upper-treble tweeter also has a very interesting design. It’s a 5mm micro-dynamic driver with Al-coated LCP diaphragm and offers up to 100KHz response — a figure that’s inaudible by all humans but aces the numbers game. In practical use, the 5mm driver has very fast transients and offers the timbral accuracy of a dynamic driver instead of the artificial BA timbre or the fleeting, lightweight nature of EST tweeters.

Lost in all these is the miniscule side-firing BA treble driver that mostly handles lower and mid-treble. It’s a Sony proprietary T-shaped armature pin and has better timbre and slightly slower decay than typical Knowles BA drivers.

Sony doesn’t just stop here, rather they place these drivers in a coaxial orientation in a 3D-printed magnesium alloy chamber. The material choice is to reduce resonant frequencies and also the unique design results in a straight sound path for each driver, thus avoiding the usual cross-over tubes. Very fascinating driver setup all in all, but it’d all be for naught if the sound quality isn’t up to the mark. Fortunately, that’s not the case at all.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES​

The Sony IER-Z1R has a V-shaped sound signature, but that’s a reductionist statement to say the least. The IER-Z1R lives and breathes bass. The sub-bass sets the foundation of the entire sonic delivery and boy oh boy if this ain’t the best bass response in an earphone on this forsaken planet. I’ve heard IEMs with even more emphasized bass or faster bass, but the delightfully textured bass on the Z1R is second to none when it comes to providing the sense of rhythm. The slam, the slightly extended decay (unlike the super-fast BA bass), the subterranean reach of the sub-bass — it’s the whole package. The mid-bass is no slouch either (unlike the DF-tuned IEMs around) and snare hits/pedals have superb definition/body. Macrodynamics are some of the best I’ve ever heard. If you’re a bass-head, this is your endgame (as long as your ears are large enough).

The other aspect of the IER-Z1R that is apparent right away is the sense of space it portrays. The stage width is as good as many full-size open-backs. The stage depth is remarkable, and coupled with precise imaging you truly get that out-of-the-head experience. The one aspect where it falls short of the likes of, say, Hifiman Ananda in terms of staging is the stage height. This is where the large drivers on full-size headphones flex their muscles.

Despite the bass focus the treble on the IER-Z1R is… perfect. It has adequate sparkle and air without veering into the “bright” zone. Cymbal decays are well-extended and even in sections with super-fast cymbal hits the notes don’t smear into each other. Transient response overall is excellent. There is a slight peak around 5.5KHz but that never became a bother for me personally. This is where insertion depth comes into play because with a less-than-adequate insertion the treble becomes splashy. If I had to nitpick about the treble response it would be the slightly soft leading edge of notes. This rounded nature of upper-frequency notes help in avoiding listening fatigue but can take away the rawness of crash cymbals. Nonetheless, Sony has made a good trade-off IMO and the treble is nearly as good as it gets in the TOTL range.

Unfortunately, Sony focused a bit too much on the bass and treble and the midrange played second-fiddle to both. The mids here are just about okay I’d say. Male vocals sound somewhat muffled and female vocals, despite having more focus than male vocals, are robbed off of the emotion that certain IEMs in this price are capable of displaying. Also instrument separation and microdynamics weren’t as great as I hoped it would be, partly due to the recessed lower midrange. String instruments lacked the bite and their undertones were often muddied by the bass. Mid-range performance is definitely the weakest link in the IER-Z1R signature and that’s disappointing given the stellar bass and treble.

To summarize: if you like V-shaped sound signature and aren’t too bothered about the subtleties of vocals — this is it, this is the IEM to end all V-shaped IEMs.

Bass: 5/5
Midrange: 3.5/5
Treble: 5/5
Staging: 5/5
Imaging/Separation: 4.5/5
Dynamics/Speed: 4/5

SELECT COMPARISONS​

vs Campfire Andromeda ($1000): The tuning of the Andromeda and the Z1R couldn’t be more different. Whereas Campfire Audio went for a relatively balanced tuning for the Andromeda 2020, Sony is proud of their bass driver and tuned the Z1R with sub-bass focus in mind. Bass is where these two IEMs differ the most. Andromeda 2020 has typical fast BA bass that’s nimble without being punchy. The Sony IER-Z1R’s bass is slower but makes up for that with slam and punch and sub-bass that rattles inside your eardrums.

Midrange is where the Sony pulls back a bit whereas the Andro 2020 (in contrast to the Andro 2019) gains some presence. Vocals are more prominent on the Andro 2020 and midrange in general is better executed, I’d say. String instruments esp shine on the Andromeda.

As for the treble, the Campfire Andromeda 2020 has really well-executed treble that’s smooth, non-fatiguing, and well-extended but pales in comparison to the treble on the IER-Z1R. Cymbal hits have a presence and crunch that’s just missing on the Andromeda 2020.

In terms of soundstage/imaging, the former goes to the IER-Z1R whereas the Andro 2020 has slightly better center-imaging than the IER-Z1R but similar cardinal/ordinal imaging otherwise.

If you want visceral bass punch and some of the best treble under $2000, the Sony IER-Z1R shall be your pick. However, the Andro 2020 has a more balanced tuning and acts as a complimentary tuning to the IER-Z1R’s exciting delivery. Comfort is also much better on the Campfire Andromeda, so there’s that.

vs Final A8000 ($2000): The Final A8000 is their current single-DD flagship and sports a pure Be diaphragm driver. While the A8000 has north-of-neutral sub-bass rise, it pales in comparison to the level of mid-bass thump that the Sony IER-Z1R provides. However, the A8000 bass is faster and will cater well to those who prefer a nimble bass presentation.

In terms of midrange, I prefer the A8000’s vocals by a margin over the IER-Z1R. Final knows how to tune the midrange and the vocals/string instruments are as articulate as they can be on the A8000. Every subtle nuance is highlighted including vocalists breathing in/out. Timbre is another strong point here with the metallic tinge of steel strings being evident against the more natural, softer tone of nylon strings.

The treble region is where the Sony IER-Z1R pulls ahead with no sharp 6KHz peak (A8000’s biggest downside) and more extended upper-treble. This leads to an even wider soundstage (though A8000 has very good stage width). Imaging is about even on both with center-imaging being slightly less accurate on both IEMs. Overall resolution is about similar on both, with the more resolving A8000 midrange being counter-balanced by the smoother yet better extended treble on the IER-Z1R.

Between these two, I’d pick the IER-Z1R if you can get a fit and don’t bother too much about midrange. However, the A8000 is a great choice if you prefer well-realized vocals/string instruments, a faster bass response, and don’t mind the 6KHz peak/willing to tune it via PEQ.

vs 64Audio U12t ($2000): Finally, Goliath vs Goliath. The 64Audio U12t is one of the best IEMs available around the $2000 mark and is one of the best all-BA IEMs out there. By swapping the APEX modules you can also increase the bass response in them (M20 offers a bit more bass). This comparison is made with the M20 module.

The U12t has perhaps the best BA bass out there, and it’s quite a feat indeed. However, it can’t out-muscle the physical grunt of the Sony IER-Z1R’s bass response. The mids are better tuned on the U12t, as is a theme in this comparison. The treble is where we find interesting differences. The U12t goes for a smoother treble presentation with rounded notes, whereas the IER-Z1R has a more immediate sense of attack that gives cymbal hits/hi-hats a really nice bite. I think depending on taste you might prefer one over the other, I myself find the Z1R’s treble response more appealing.

Soundstage is wider and taller on the IER-Z1R but stage depth is about par on the U12t. Imaging is tad more precise on the U12t, though these are marginal differences. Where I found more palpable was the difference in coherence. U12t, despite the 12 drivers, sounded more coherent than the IER-Z1R. Also a slight note about build/accessories: Sony IER-Z1R is quite a bit ahead on those aspects.

In conclusion, if you want a smoother, laid-back listen with great all-round performance, the 64Audio U12t will serve you really well. For those who need more excitement and fun-factor, the Sony IER-Z1R shall be on the top of your list.

CONCLUDING REMARKS​

In hindsight, it’s quite easy to review and recommend the Sony IER-Z1R. If someone wants the best bass available in an IEM, they should definitely try the IER-Z1R. It’s an unabashedly fun, colored tuning that works well across various genres.

The big elephant in the room: the fit. Without a deep, snug fit you’d have a hard time finding what makes the IER-Z1R so special, making it rather necessary to trial these beforehand.

If you can get a fit, and if you love bass — the Sony IER-Z1R is a no-brainer really. I am yet to find something that tops it as the bass-head endgame, and if you know that’s what you want and got the right-sized ears — get ready for some brain-rattling.


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

Budget single-DD IEMs are on the rise lately, and KBEar decided to join the party as well with the KS1. This time they’ve ditched the way-overused “Balanced armature driver in the nozzle” bit and I am glad they went that route.

Let’s see if the KS1 has what it takes to stand its ground.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Wendy Li of KBEar was kind enough to send the unit. Disclaimer

This review originally appeared on my blog.

Sources used: LG G7, Sony NW-A55

Price, while reviewed: ~13 euros. Can be bought from KBEar’s AliExpress store.

Click to expand...

Build: The KBEar KS1 has a rather generic build with a white/black ABS housing and a gold metal nozzle. There are two vents on the inner-side of the IEM. The faceplate design is rather simplistic. 2-pin ports are slightly recessed but not completely so, thus making it more suitable for TFZ-type connectors. The shell quality is good for the price though the seams are quite visible.

All in all, good build quality that falls short of excellence.
4/5

Accessories: The KS1 comes with a bunch of tips and a super-tangly, thin, nightmarish cable. The cable has to be the worst part of the package since it manages to tangle itself up if you even look at it wrong. I’d recommend one of those budget upgrade cables if you plan on to use the KS1.

As for the tips, they were fine for me though some failed to get a good seal. I will recommend KZ Starlines if you’re having some fit trouble.
3/5

Comfort: Given the pseudo-custom shell design and its lightweight nature, the KBEar KS1 is very comfortable to wear. Isolation is decent with stock tips and excellent with Final E-type tips.
4/5

Driver Setup: The KS1 uses a dual-magnetic circuit dual-cavity dynamic driver with a PET diaphragm. The former ensures Tesla level of magnetic flux whereas the latter boosts bass frequencies. For a budget device this is a fairly interesting driver setup indeed.



All sound impressions were done with the stock cable and tips.

Sound: The presentation of the KBEar KS1 mostly leans towards the low frequencies and exhibits a warm, V-shaped tuning, though treble is mostly kept in control.

The bass here is voluminous and definitely the star of the show with large, thick bass notes. Couple with that the slower decay and you get a sub-bass-oriented presentation that caters well to modern bassy genres. Sub-bass frequencies extend until 25Hz though the sub-sonic rumble is missing to some degree. That being said, sudden bass drops still have the punch they need, though it’s somewhat flabby due to the slower driver. Moreover, bass texture is lacking even compared to the price bracket.

Given a V-shaped response, many would assume the midrange to be overly recessed which fortunately isn’t the case at all. Male vocals do take the back seat but they aren’t drowned out. Female vocals are even more up-front and the midrange in general has a good timbre, thanks to the mids peaking ~2.5Khz. There’s no shoutiness whatsoever. Acoustic instruments sound fine though the undertones seem to get more focus due to the bass heavy tuning. Finer details like the subtle plucks of strings are lost.

Finally, the treble is inoffensive. It’s just there to make sure that things don’t sound overly dark but it takes the furthest seat in the entire presentation. Cymbals hits sound muted, they easily smear into each other, and there is hints of splashiness despite the recessed treble. It doesn’t draw much attention to it, but when you pay attention to the treble — it’s not good in terms of resolution/timbre.

Soundstage is decently wide, stage depth is lacking. Imaging is basically left and right, no center-imaging to speak of. Ordinal imaging also suffers. Dynamics sound compressed, so large swings in volume aren’t portrayed well, neither are minute gradations in volume.

Overall, the sound is competent if unremarkable and will cater well to those who need a bassy signature.

Bass: 3.5/5
Mids: 4/5
Treble: 2.5/5
Imaging/Separation: 2.5/5
Staging: 3/5
Dynamics/Speed: 2/5

Amping/Source requirements: The KBEar KS1 is very easy to drive, no specific amping needed.



Select Comparisons
vs Rock Obsidian ($10): Rock Obsidian is another single-dynamic offering and goes for a “darker” signature than the KBEar KS1. It does have more refined treble and the lower-mids are quite lush, making them sound engaging/inviting in certain genres. The bass focus also shifts towards mid-bass rather than sub-bass though this may vary upon tip change.

Soundstage is deeper on the Obsidian, imaging is also more accurate. It does require above-average amping to sound its best which is kinda odd for such a budget offering. As for the rest, the housing is metal which is definitely a step up from KS1’s plastic housing, but the cable is non-replaceable and even worse than the KS1 cable so there’s that.

For my money, I’d likely pick the Obsidian given a good amp in stow. However, for driving with regular phones and due to the flexibility that the detachable cable offers, KS1 will be a more practical purchase.

vs KZ ZST X ($15): KZ ZST X offers a similar shell design and has a slightly better stock cable/tips. However, the ZST X timbre is definitely more “artificial” in tone and the treble has more instances of splash than the ZST X. Staging is similar on both though the ZST X has an edge in imaging.

The ZST X is a fun sounding IEM but due to the BA+DD config it sounds less coherent than the KS1. If you’re not too particular about coherency issues/timbre I think the ZST X is a good option. Otherwise, KS1 is the better pick.



Conclusion
Single dynamic drivers are going through a resurgence and the KBEar KS1 is testament to that. It’s build decently, is good to go in stock format, and it sounds pretty good for the price. In the end it’s the price that’s the most attractive part of the KS1. The bang-for-buck factor is good enough to ignore the mundane treble response, below-average imaging, and overzealous at times sub-bass.

On a simlar note, I am glad KBEar went with the single-driver route instead of stuffing the nozzle with a cheap, unrefined BA driver. Less can be more after all.

Moondrop needs no introduction nowadays after being one of the most consistent manufacturers out there in terms of releases and their adherence to hitting “target curves”, or a specific frequency-response in other words.

The Moondrop Aria 2 (2021) is their latest release that, on paper, succeeds their age-old model, the Aria (which had a shell similar to their now discontinued Crescent). Confusing naming schemes aside, the Aria refresh is nothing like the old model with a very different shell design along with a detachable cable (whereas the previous model had a fixed cable). Moreover, it seems to compete directly with their own Starfield and might even retire the old model given its lower price tag.

Let’s see if the new Aria 2 is a worthy refresh, and if it can carve itself a spot in the ultra-competitive budget segment.

This review originally appeared on Audioreviews.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Nappoler Hu from HiFiGo was kind enough to send me the Moondrop Aria 2 for evaluation.

Sources used: Questyle CMA-400i, Sony NW-A55 (MrWalkman modded), LG G7
Price, while reviewed: $80. Can be bought from HiFiGo.

Click to expand...

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES​

The packaging, in usual Moondrop fashion, has an anime box-art. Other than that the accessories are mostly standard: a cloth-braided cable, 6 pairs of eartips, a small carry case, a pair of tweezers to replace the nozzle filters, and some spare nozzle filters. While the tips and case works fine, I’m a bit annoyed with the stock cable. Now, it’s an upgrade over Starfield’s noodle-like cable but the ergonomics are poor and it gets tangled very easily. The sheathing is also stiff and forms kinks very easily. I’d recommend an upgrade cable if budget permits.
4/5

BUILD QUALITY​

The build quality is excellent with an aluminium alloy housing. The matte black paintjob has a soft-touch finish and the rose-gold pattern on top adds a bit of character to the shells. There are two vents on the inner-side to alleviate pressure. The 2-pin ports are recessed which is great for long-term durability. Finally, the nozzle doesn’t have any lips to secure the tips but it does grip the tips better this time around (unlike the Starfield nozzles where tips would slip out). The paintjob also seems more durable than the Starfield one (which chipped off easily) but time will tell. So far so good.
5/5

COMFORT AND ISOLATION​

Due to its snug-fit and lightweight nature, the Aria has very good wearing comfort. Isolation is above-average too and with the right tips you can drown out quite a bit of outside noise.
4.5/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS​

For the purpose of this review, I primarily used the Questyle CMA-400i and LG G7 as sources. The Aria 2 runs well on most sources, though with better sources it does seem to scale. I’ve found it to pair the best with Questyle CMA-400i but then again it’s a desk setup and costs quite a bit. On a budget, the LG G7 worked just fine, with the Sony NW-A55 providing a very dynamic and engaging presentation.

The stock tips are fine but I opted for Spinfit CP-145 as it seemed to slightly widen the stage without sacrificing on the tonality/technicalities.

DRIVER SETUP​

Aria 2 opts for a 10mm LCP (Liquid-Crystal Polymer) along with an N52 magnet system. The voice coil is just 35 micron thick and there’s also a brass cavity on the back to reduce resonance. Finally, the high frequency waveguide disperses high-frequency waves to reduce resonance peaks. LCP diaphragms have been used in legendary single-DDs like the Sony EX-1000, though in that case the diaphragm size was much larger (16mm) and the diaphragm stiffness also reportedly higher. However, given the price constraint at play here (1/6th of the EX-1000ST) it’s great to see LCP diaphragm here instead of the more mainstream CNT, Ti/Be-plated PET, or DLC diaphragms (though the latter costs more usually).



One interesting tidbit: Moondrop recommends 100hrs of burning to ensure that the drivers are in “optimal” condition. They even provide some burn-in instructions in the user-manual (comes in the box). I usually don’t bother with IEM user-guides but this one time I’m glad I read it. Whether or not you’re a believer in burn-in, it’s interesting to see that Moondrop is recommending this as they’re usually very focused on measurements and such (burn-in usually doesn’t show up in FR graphs). I decided to follow the guidelines and burned-in for ~60 hours or so before forming my impressions. It doesn’t hurt after all.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES​

The Aria 2 has a warm, upper-mid centric presentation that has some similarities with the Harman In-ear target curve. Fortunately, the upper-mids aren’t as pronounced as the Harman IE target and the mid-bass has more body, resulting in a more even and natural transition from sub-bass to upper-bass and lower-mids subsequently.

The standout feature on this one has to be the bass response which, IMO, is one of the best under $100. The bass reaches all the way down to 20Hz and provides excellent rumble. Best of all: it doesn’t slope right away as it moves into the mid-bass unlike some recent IEM releases that gives rise to what I call “2.1 subwoofer effect” (you feel that the sub-bass is detached from the rest of the frequency). As a result, the bass frequencies are all well-portrayed and the sub-bass focus sounds tastefully done. Snare hits are authoritative, double-pedals have a full-bodied nature to them, and most of all male vocals don’t sound thinned-out. Bass texture is great, and bass speed is above-average.

As we move into the lower-mids, it does some warmth from the mid-bass bump but this is where I encounter my first issue with the Aria 2. The male vocals sound somewhat distant, although they’re perfectly intelligible. The finer articulations (vocalists inhaling/exhaling, subtle shifts in the delivery) are not as well portrayed as a result. Female vocals are much better portrayed however though again the lower-ranges suffer from recession. On the plus side, these are excellent when it comes to rendering acoustic guitars. The leading edge of guitars sound crisp while having a certain heft to them. Distortion guitars are not as well portrayed however due to less energy around the 4KHz region, but this also helps in reducing listening fatigue so there’s that.

Finally, the treble, and there’s not much to say here. It’s inoffensive without being boring. The treble rolls off fast post 11KHz and doesn’t really offer a lot of sparkle or air. Cymbal hits sound somewhat muted and the resonance after the hit is absent. There’s a slight peak ~10KHz in the official graph which seems more like driver resonance and didn’t really bother me during listening sessions. I should also add a note about the timbre which is very natural here and doesn’t suffer from the artificiality of the typical BA drivers (and even some metal-coated PET diaphragms).

Dynamics are quite good, especially macrodynamics are class-leading. Micro-dynamic shifts (gradual changes in volumes) are portrayed fairly well though some of the competition does that better. Staging is good overall in terms of width/height, though stage depth is lacking vs the higher-tier IEMs. Imaging is not as precise as I find on competing IEMs so I’d say it’s about average for the price bracket. Separation is good, however, owing to faster transients of the LCP diaphragm, though I do find the leading edge of notes to be somewhat soft which robs some instruments off of their excitement/engagement factor. The better transients also aids in complex tracks though the treble does seem to get drowned out in that case.

Overall, I find the Aria 2 to have a very versatile sound profile that works well across a variety of genres. The presentation is dynamic with a very natural timbre and excellent rendition of acoustic guitars/percussion instruments. Due to the wide stage, instruments aren’t congested and separation is very good as well. However, the male vocals might sound recessed, the imaging isn’t as precise as I hoped it to be, and stage depth/treble extension is lacking. Given its budget nature though, I’m willing to forgive a lot of that.

Bass: 4.5/5
Mids: 4/5
Treble: 4/5
Imaging/Separation: 3.5/5
Staging: 4/5
Dynamics/Speed: 4/5
Timbre: 4.5/5

SELECT COMPARISONS​

vs Moondrop Starfield ($109): The Starfield received mostly rave reviews upon launch, though I myself found it very average on all fronts apart from the mid-range (vocals, to be specific). It was kind of a one-trick pony and I didn’t find the trick to be entertaining enough to warrant a super-positive review. I’d not discuss differences in build/accessories here as they are mostly similar (though Aria 2 cable is better).

The Aria 2 fixes most of my issues with the Starfield. The bass is much tighter with faster transients, acoustic guitars and percussion instruments don’t sound as “mushy” anymore, and the treble actually has some life in them. The stage is also wider and taller on the Aria 2, though stage-depth is similar on both (as in average). They measure similarly on FR but during listening the difference these technical upgrades are very noticeable. The one area where the Starfield trounces the Aria 2 is the vocal performance with Starfield having a more up-front/engaging vocal delivery. That’s about it though, and I’d pick the Aria 2 over the (more expensive) Starfield 11 out of 10 times.

vs Final E3000 ($50): The Final E3000 has long been one of my favorites under $100 and the Aria 2 has challenged it well for that throne. In terms of build quality, Aria 2 gets brownie points for having a detachable cable (though the supplied cable is far worse than E3000 stock cable). Both are very comfortable IEMs and offer good isolation.

The sound profile is quite different between them. The E3000 is a laid-back sounding IEM with warm, thick notes and an uncanny ability to separate the vocals from the rest of the instruments. In fact the biggest difference between the E3000 and the Aria 2 is how the former projects a wide, deep soundstage. Vocals are also more lush on the E3000, though they are even more recessed than the Aria 2. In terms of bass response, the Aria 2 is more sub-bass focused whereas the Final E3000 has mid-bass focus. Thus, the snare-hits/double-pedals sound even more substantial on the E3000 whereas Aria 2 can reproduce bass rumble better. Treble is about similar on both though the E3000 has slightly better sparkle and energy in the leading edge of cymbal hits. Imaging is also better on the E3000, though it falls behind the Aria 2 in complex tracks due to slower driver. Finally, microdynamics are superior on the E3000 with the Aria 2 having better macrodynamics.

One thing to note is the amping requirements which is higher on the E3000. Aria 2 is far easier to drive. All this makes the Aria 2 an easier pick for those who want more balance across the spectrum and don’t want to invest in a source. If you have a good source, however, the Final E3000 is still a very unique offering and will be right up your alley if you want a non-fatiguing, laid-back yet impressively wide presentation.

vs BLON BL-05S ($40): This is a comparison that many requested due to the BL-05S punching way above its price-tag in terms of technicalities. Let’s get into it, then.

In terms of build, the Aria 2 wins simply because of a more agreeable color, though I’m lately finding the BL-05S less of a turn-off. The stock accessories are also super-terrible on the BLONs so Moondrop gets an easy win here. Comfort/isolation is also better on the Aria 2.

Now, let’s get into the sound. The BL-05S has more focus on clarity with a more prominent upper-mids presence. The bass suffers on the BL-05S as a result with the Aria 2 having a superior bass response. In fact, the improvement in bass alone warrants an upgrade to the Aria 2 if you’re using BL-05S and need more “thump” in the lows. In the mids, I find the BL-05S to be better for female vocals and electric guitars. Treble also has more sparkle on the BL-05S though cymbals can sound a bit splashy at times on the BL-05S (which the Aria 2 avoids). Timbre is better on the Aria 2, so is soundstage width and height and the overall dynamics. Stage depth and imaging, however, is better on the BL-05S, so is the separation (surprisingly so).

It’s quite ironic that the BL-05S, despite being half as costly, is besting the Aria 2 in a few technical aspects (mainly imaging and separation). However, I find the Aria 2 an easier listen with far superior comfort/isolation and of course: bass. I can also see many getting both these IEMs to cover all bases (Aria 2 when you need a more smooth listen, BL-05S for the metal/rock sessions).

CONCLUSION​

The Moondrop Aria 2 is a wholesale upgrade over the Moondrop Starfield on many fronts, despite the apparent similarity in the FR graph. I was very disappointed with the Starfield so the Aria comes as a form of redemption for the budget Moondrop offerings, among which I’ve only like the Crescent so far (and they don’t even make them anymore).

For me, the Aria 2 is now a default recommendation in the $100 range and renders many of its peers/predecessors irrelevant, if not unremarkable. It doesn’t excel in many technical aspects but as an all-round package it is very hard to beat. The stock accessories are good enough to get you going, the bass response is fantastic, the mids sound just right (albeit the lower-mids recession can sound a bit odd), and the treble is inoffensive for the most part aiding in long-term listening. Add to that good dynamics, separation, and stage width, and we’ve a new winner.

Well done, Moondrop, and I hope you guys keep it up.

Final Rating: 3.5/5 (2023 Update)​

The disappearance of the 3.5mm jack from the mobile phones was rapidly followed by the emergence of “DAC/Amp dongles”, and the Audirect Beam 2SE is yet another contender for the DAC/Amp of your choice award under the $100 price bracket.

My first encounter with Audirect was their original HiliDAC Beam which sounded great but was a bit large in size. I missed out on trying the original Beam 2, but fortunately could try out this Beam 2SE which is a slightly cut-down version of the HiliDAC 2S and comes with a single-ended output only. It’s not a bad thing though since in this price-range I don’t see too many dual-mono DAC configurations (thus the balanced out will mostly be not as good as fully balanced setups). There are some who does offer a balanced out but they also have poor single-ended output so buyers are forced to get aftermarket balanced cable.

The competition is stiff, so let’s see how far can the Audirect Beam 2SE stand out from the crowd.

This review was originally published on Audioreviews.
Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Nappoler Hu of HiFiGo was kind enough to send me the Audirect Beam 2SE for evaluation.

Earphones/Headphones used: Dunu studio SA6/Dunu Zen, Final E3000, Moondrop Starfield, Koss Porta Pro X, Sennheiser HD650

Price, while reviewed: $90. Can be bought from HiFiGo.

Accessories: The accessories are exactly what one would expect at this price-point: a lightning to USB-C cable, a USB-C to USB-C cable, and a type-C to type-A adapter (for connecting to the PC). The cables are of good quality and seems robust enough to last a while. No complaints.
4.5/5

Build: The Audirect Beam 2SE has a solid build. The side-rails seems to be an aluminium alloy and has a chrome-like finish to it. Two sheets of tempered glass is sandwiched between the rails. Underneath the top glass sheet there is an LED below the Audirect logo that glows in different colors based on audio format/bitrate, e.g. it glows magenta when playing MQA files on Tidal. On the left hand side of the device there is a solitary button which acts as a gain switch (low/medium/high gain) and the LED above the buttons glows in green (low), orange (med), or red (high) depending on gain level. Personally I’d have preferred a volume rocker too which seems to be an oversight.

On the bottom of the device there is the type-C port and that’s about it. Solid, minimalist design that checks most of the boxes (barring volume control).
4.5/5

Ergonomics/Portability: The Audirect Beam 2SE is very compact and thus it’s easy to carry around while attached to the phone. The weight is higher than the likes of Apple dongle but it’s not a big deal IMO. The big issue with the Beam 2SE, unfortunately, is how hot it gets during operation. It’s not that it’ll leave blisters on your palm but the heat will surely be very uncomfortable in hot summer days. On the flipside, you can use the Beam 2SE as a hand-warmer during winter so perhaps it’s not all bad.
4/5

Technical Specs and Compatibility: Let’s get the official specs outta the way first:

DAC chip: ES9281C PRO with HyperStream II Quad DAC Technology.
Clock: Two ultra-low femtosecond phase crystal oscillators.
MQA level: Decoding.
PCM Decoding: 32Bit/384kHz.
DSD Decoding: DSD128.
Output Impedance: <1Ω.
Output Power: ≥115mW(16Ω), ≥120mW(32Ω), ≥6.8mW(600Ω).
Frequency response: 20Hz -40kHz (-0.18dB)
THD+N: 0.0003%.
Dynamic Range: 118dB.
SNR: 118dB.

Regarding DAC chip implementation, Audirect seems to have opted for the built-in amp circuit instead of any custom op-amp solution. The Sabre DAC is also an 8-channel one where the output of each 4 channels are combined to reduce noise (thus the Quad-DAC moniker). Suffices to say that these are not exactly “true” quad-DAC, as in there aren’t 4 actual ES9218 Pro chipsets inside. However, the performance gains are measurable indeed and can be seen in the very good SNR and THD+N values (for a product of its class).

In terms of device compatibility, the Audirect Beam 2SE is excellent. It was practically plug and play with every device I’ve tried it on. On the iPhone SE it was recognized right away and could render MQA files right out of the Tidal app (the front LED glows purple). On Android it’s a bit more involved as you’d require something like USB Audio Player Pro (paid app) or Hiby Music (free app) to get bitperfect playback and unlock full volume of the device. On Windows it was again very simple and I could select the Audirect beam 2SE from within the desktop Tidal client and it was rendering MQA files without a fuss. Same applied to Linux (my distro: Pop! OS) though I didn’t try Tidal playback on it (Tidal support on Linux is spotty to say the least).



DAC/Amp Performance: Audirect Beam 2SE goes for a fairly analytical presentation. It’s not overly sterile but there is definitely a lack of warmth in the bass and mids. This is not unlike most other ES9218 implementations though Audirect Beam 2SE sounds less sterile than, say, something like the Shanling Q1 or the LG G7. The treble has a hard leading edge which results in somewhat metallic presentation, and I am personally not a fan of this aspect of the Beam 2SE. However, this can be said for nearly every single dongle under $100 barring the Apple dongle (which has its own set of issues) that I’ve tried thus far, so I won’t hold the Beam 2SE too culpable.

In terms of staging/imaging, you don’t get the depth or instrument placement that some higher tier DACs are capable of. For the price range though the staging is a bit wider than average, though depth is just about what you’d expect. Instrument separation wasn’t that impressive either and I suspect dongles with balanced out and dual DACs (in dual-mono config) will do a better job in terms of separation (simply because of size constraints).

What did surprise me (and positively so) was the dynamism on offer. Audirect Beam 2SE has a fairly dynamic presentation for a dongle in its price-class and this is an area where it’s clearly better than many of its peers.

The amp section is above average. It drove nearly all of my IEMs rather well barring Final E5000. The Final E3000, Moondrop Starfield and such warm-sounding IEMs paired really well with the Audirect Beam 2SE. Unfortunately I can’t say the same when it comes to more “neutral” IEMs. Thus, both the Etymotic ER2XR and Final FI-BA-SS sounded more sterile than usual. in terms of high impedance loads, I won’t recommend using anything above 150ohms. E.g. the Sennheiser HD650 sounded poor out of the Beam 2SE with a noticeable lack of bass depth and very lacklustre treble extension. For such headphones and power-hungry planars I’d always recommend a desk setup.

A little note about hiss: the Beam 2SE didn’t hiss with the two sensitive IEMs I’ve got in collection: Final Fi-BA-SS and Dunu Zen when powered from the phones. However when connected to my desktop PC there was some electrical hum which I believe was due to some ground loop between my PC and the Beam 2SE. On my laptop there was less hiss but the playback wasn’t as noise-free as it was on the phones.

In the end, the Audirect Beam 2SE is fairly competitive in terms of sound, and the MQA rendering feature might sway potential buyers. However, I can’t call it outstanding in terms of sonic performance.
4/5

Power Consumption: The Audirect Beam 2SE isn’t a frugal device in terms of power consumption. It drains noticeably more power than the Apple dongle esp at high gain. Thus for on-the-go usage I’d recommend not going over medium gain. Unfortunately I can’t provide exact mW figures due to not having a measuring device at hand, but I will get such a device for future tests.
3.5/5

Select Comparisons​

vs Apple dongle ($10): The Apple dongle is the de-facto standard of dongle DAC/Amps, for me at least. It’s cheap, it measures well, and the sound signature is fairly balanced. The big difference between the Apple dongle and the Beam 2SE is the output power with the Beam 2SE being able to get harder to drive IEMs and headphones noticeably louder. Also there is no MQA certification or gain switching on the Apple dongle. It does have a less “glary” sound signature and also is quite forgiving of hiss and such. Moreover, it’s very power-efficient so your phone won’t be as juiced out. In terms of bang-for-buck, it’s hard to beat the Apple dongle, but the build quality is horrible and Beam 2SE will outlast it by a long shot.


vs LG G7 ($250): This is my everyday phone and also kinda portable player. The LG phone has an older gen ESS DAC chip inside but also comes with MQA certification. However, LG doesn’t allow you to switch gain so you’re left with sub-par output levels on <50 ohm impedance loads. In terms of sound, the LG G7 has a more sterile sound. The dynamics are also better on the Beam 2SE, so is stage depth (LG G7 and their other offerings have a very two-dimensional presentation). I could find some merit in buying the Beam 2SE despite having an LG “audiophile” phone if you need a presentation with deeper staging and better dynamics/punch. However, there are some features missing on the dongle that the LG phones provide, namely reconstruction filter selection, some DSP effects, and a half-decent EQ.


vs Audioquest Dragonfly Black ($99): The Dragonfly Black is a product that I’m not a very big fan of. I find it to have middling output power and the presentation has a “fuzziness” to it, as in, the notes sound overly rounded. I think this can be helpful to tame some bright IEMs but often the resolved detail just feel lacking. The staging isn’t also anything to write home about. I think the Beam 2SE is a superior product overall, be it build quality, connectivity, output power, or overall sonic improvement.


vs E1DA PowerDAC V2 ($60): The E1DA PowerDAC V2, despite the mouthful name, is a very capable device. It has gobs of output power (0.5W into 32ohms), has an excellent companion app, and provides a balanced output. However, it gets extremely hot during operation and isn’t really suitable for connecting to a phone. I put this comparison here though in case someone is willing to use the Beam 2SE as a laptop DAC/Amp, and in that case the PowerDAC V2 provides a more powerful, albeit less versatile alternative.



Conclusion

The Audirect Beam 2SE provides a solid, if uninspiring performance, and that’s it in a nutshell. It will be an improvement over your phone’s DAC chip in terms of power output and stage depth/dynamics, and it will be competitive among the other options in its own price class. In terms of absolute sound quality it’s not gonna beat the budget desk systems out there. However, given the portability of the device, MQA rendering ability (for those who value it), and above-average output power from the single-ended out I can definitely see it as a viable option in the <$100 price bracket.

Edit 27/08/2021: FR and extra pairing notes added

Single-dynamic driver IEMs have been a rare breed in the flagship territory for a while.

In the years past, most TOTL stuff have either been all-BA or hybrid designs. A subtle letdown for those who prefer a single dynamic setup due to the coherency and the dynamism they are capable of producing.

Dunu raised some eyebrows at the beginning of last year when they announced the Dunu Luna — a $1700 pure Be-foil totting single-dynamic flagship that introduced a number of “firsts” for both the company and the IEM scene in general. The Dunu Zen is a somewhat downscale version of their flagship but this time it’s totting an Magnesium-Aluminium alloy driver. Parallels can be drawn between Focal Utopia/Dunu Luna and Focal Clear/Dunu Zen and you wouldn’t be wrong.

That being said, the Dunu Zen isn’t just some cut-down model, rather it’s got its own identity in terms of tuning along with the ECLIPSE driver system that’s been specifically developed for this model (and will be used in future Dunu models).

As usual, there’s a lot to cover here, so let’s get right into it.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Dunu was kind enough to send me the Zen as a review loaner (thanks Tom!) Disclaimer

This review was initially published on my blog/Audioreviews.

Sources used: Cowon Plenue R2, Questyle CMA-400i, iFi Hip DAC

Price, while reviewed: $700. Can be bought from Dunu’s Official Website.

Build: If Batman had an IEM, the Dunu Zen would probably be it.

A 316L stainless steel body with a glossy piano-black finish, a slit on the back for Dunu’s proprietary ACIS (Air Control Impedance System) mechanism (now installed as a module), and another vent near the nozzle. The Zen’s build in a nutshell. The circular radiant pattern on the back gives the Dunu Zen a distinct look. The design has some similarities with their flagship, Dunu Luna, with a side-mounted stem that houses the mmcx port but the Dunu Zen has its own design language. Compared to the Luna there aren’t as many subtle design cues but for less than half the price I’m not expecting those either.

The shells feel positively dense, has a unique design, and has no visible imperfections. Biggest issue: it’s a fingerprint magnet and difficult to photograph (!) but those are nitpicks at best.
5/5

Accessories: For the unboxing and a look at the accessories, I’d just link to the unboxing video I made:



Let’s just say that the Dunu Zen sports the best stock cable you’ll get under $1000 mark. Everyone should take a note from Dunu when it comes to the quality and quantity of accessories they provide. The Dunu Zen does have a lot of similarities with the Dunu Studio SA6’s accessory pack though the former comes with an extra airplane adapter and a nice shirt-clip. Also there are some extra pairs of tips that are eerily similar to Sony hybrid tips. Aside from those there are the Dunu signature blue and white tips, though I wish the blue ones had a less stiff stem.

If I have to really nitpick: I wish they came with some Spinfit CP-145/CP-500 tips. That’s about it.
5/5

Comfort/Isolation: Isolation is good, though one must note that the Dunu Zen leaks sound due to the ACIS vent. Comfort is excellent as well with a snug fit. Due to the weight of the shells though the fit isn’t as secure as some resin-shell pseudo-custom designs out there.
4/5

Driver Setup: Dunu debuted a new driver system with the 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 has a 13.5mm dynamic driver system with a Magnesium-Aluminium 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 and this entire assembly reminds me of the Focal Clear driver (which is one of the best dynamic driver systems out there btw).

Another interesting thing about the driver dome here is that it occupies a larger area than the typical driver systems. The magnet assembly is also unique in that it’s a ring-type motor and has 1.8T magnetic flux which is the highest among all single-DD out there to my knowledge.

What all this means is that the Dunu Zen’s driver system allows it to have superior driver control, much better excursion, and faster transients than most other single-dynamic systems out there (with the exception of the Be-driver IEMs).

The following images can be referenced for more detail (All are courtesy of Dunu).



Dunu definitely has poured a lot of work into this new driver system, but it will all be for naught if the sound quality doesn’t live up to the engineering efforts. Fortunately, that’s not the case.

All sound impressions are made with the Dunu Zen + stock cable (2.5mm/4.4mm plugs) + Spinfit CP-500 tips.

Sound: Dunu Zen has a mostly warm presentation with some emphasis in the upper-mids and mid-treble. The upper-treble is rolled-off whereas the sub-bass gets a boost around the 60Hz region which then slowly tapers off as it reaches 20Hz.

Before proceeding further with the sound impressions, I must talk about the effect tips/insertion depth have on the Dunu Zen’s signature. After trying out several tips I noticed a pattern. The Dunu Zen sounded the best when the distance between the mesh on the nozzle and the output bore of the tip was minimized. Having a larger distance would negatively affect separation/imaging and emphasize the peaks ~2.5KHz and ~8KHz. This leads to a shouty, shrill presentation that I didn’t like personally.

Minimizing the distance with the Spinfit CP-500 tips, by sliding the eartip stem down to the base of the nozzle (pictured below) and then going for a snug fit (by trying to push the IEMs as far in the canals as possible) resulted in a superior presentation. The upper-mid peak only showed up on certain recordings and the 8KHz peak was far less intrusive. Instrument separation and imaging also improved noticeably.

One negative thing about reducing the gap between the nozzle and tip-bore is that it reduces the soundstage width. Given the tonal improvements it’s a worthy sacrifice IMO.



When set up optimally, the Dunu Zen’s bass response stands out the most. The mid-bass texture is some of the best I’ve heard out of an IEM across any price point. Yes, it’s bested by the Sony IER-Z1R’s bass texture but that thing puts almost every IEM to shame when it comes to bass. It’s a wholesale upgrade over any IEM out there that uses a balanced-armature driver for bass and even most hybrid setups. Another aspect of the bass that stood out was the reverb which coupled with the natural decay resulted in an almost physical bass-response. This driver, however, is capable of much more and you can EQ it into a sub-bass monster. With the Cowon Plenue R2’s “Mach3Bass” DSP preset the bass response is frankly bass-head level and almost trades blows with the IER-Z1R. Then again, that’s DSP-based cheating in a sense so I’d only refer to it as a fun experiment.

The transition from bass to mids is handled well with the corner-frequency at ~300Hz adding some body to the mid-bass without clouding the lower-mids. It does add a bit of heft and warmth to the lower-mids and coupled with the emphasized upper-mids (~10dB higher than lower-mids) you get an almost euphonic midrange presentation. Warm, rich, engaging — these are the operative words when describing the Dunu Zen’s midrange. The 2.5KHz peak though can be exaggerated in certain tracks with high pitched female vocals/guitar distortion and can even get slightly shouty, though it never got uncomfortable for me. Your mileage might vary. Male vocals are superb though with baritone vocals getting special treatment. String instruments are put on the forefront and acoustic guitars esp has a nice bite to them.

The treble, then, is the most contentious part of the Dunu Zen’s signature (along with the upper-mid peak though it looks scarier on the graphs IMO). It rolls off drastically after 11KHz or so. Dunu does explain that this is due to the Zen’s driver having higher distortion in the upper-treble region but this also put off those who prefer an airy, ethereal treble. To offset this treble peak, perhaps, Dunu decided to add more presence near the 8KHz region and this can be detrimental if you’re listening to poorly mastered tracks. On most well-mastered material this treble peak didn’t really bother me and even in some shoddily mastered songs I never felt any sibilance or shrillness. Cymbals, hi-hats have slight emphasis on the leading edge of the notes and in busy passages the cymbal hits never bled into one another. It’s the resonance that’s often lost, as can be heard in Lamb of God’s Ruin (2:40 onwards). The treble is resolving enough overall, but I do admit a bit more air would be beneficial.

All that being said, the most underrated part of the Dunu Zen is its overall dynamics, especially how well it handles microdynamics (gradual shift in volumes). Macrodynamics are no slouch either with sudden bass-drops being delivered with gusto. The dynamics are definitely aided by the speed of the driver. The Dunu Zen has the second-fastest dynamic driver I’ve heard till date, with the top spot being taken by the Dunu Luna and Final A8000. Transients are near-instantaneous in their delivery and this leads to a sense of speed that’s hard to come across in the single-dynamic IEM space. No, it won’t beat a planar magnetic headphone for speed but given the physical constraints Dunu did a mighty fine job.

Then comes the soundstage and while the stage depth and height is some of the best in its price class, it’s the stage width that takes a hit. The instruments are placed very close to the listener which somewhat increases note-size. Some might prefer a less intimate and more spacious, ambient listening. For them the Dunu Zen’s presentation will likely be disappointing. However, the superb imaging and instrument separation makes up for the intimate staging, for me at least. For a single-dynamic driver the separation and imaging is truly impressive. Cardinal/ordinal/center imaging is spot on, even convincingly portraying events that are occurring behind you. The separation is also aided by the superior microdynamics with instruments playing at different volumes having their individual place in the stage without overlapping or smearing.

TL;DR: If you can get the ideal fit, Dunu Zen will deliver one of the most dynamic, rich sound out of a single-dynamic setup under $1000. It boasts a tactility of notes across the spectrum that’s very difficult to come by in its price range, esp in all-BA and hybrid setups.

Bass: 5/5
Mids: 4.5/5
Treble: 4/5
Imaging/Separation: 4.5/5
Staging: 3.5/5
Dynamics/Speed: 4.5/5

Amping/Source requirements: The Dunu Zen needs a source with low-noise floor since it’s susceptible to hiss. Also I’d recommend a source with low output impedance. It’s very easy to drive otherwise with 112dB sensitivity and 16 ohms impedance. I personally got the best performance out of Questyle QP1R (desktop source) and Cowon Plenue R2 (portable source), 2.5mm out.



Going even higher up the source chain, Dunu Zen + Lotoo PAW 6000 + Cayin C9 is perhaps one of the best "combos" I've ever heard. The C9 is frankly incredible and even with the very faint hiss at high gain, I can't let go of them. The PAW 6000 is no slouch but with the C9 the transparency goes up another notch. Zen sounds almost grandeur in this setup, absolutely love the presentation.



Select Comparisons

vs Fiio FD5 ($320): The Fiio FD5 is Fiio’s flagship single dynamic model but is priced quite a bit below that of the Dunu Zen. There are some similarities though: both are using high magnetic flux N52 magnets and both are totting DLC coating to some extend (though Fiio further PVD coats the DLC diaphragm with Be).

In terms of accessories, build, and comfort — the Dunu Zen has the upper hand by a margin, esp when it comes to the cable. Zen’s stock cable is miles ahead. The Fiio FD5 does come with the handy Final mmcx assist but that’s about it. When it comes to sound, the FD5 does have better upper-treble reach but it’s a poor imitation of the Dunu Zen’s bass response at best. The midrange is also more engaging on the Dunu Zen. Imaging, separation, dynamics — all are the Zen’s forte, only the soundstage width is better on the FD5 (though height and depth, again, goes to Dunu Zen).

To my ears, the 2x prime premium of the Dunu Zen over the Fiio FD5 is worth it.

vs Dunu Studio SA6 ($550): I think these IEMs are more complementary than competitive. One is an all-BA setup whereas the other is a single-DD offering.

Both are built well but opt for very different design materials and philosophies. Studio SA6 is a pseudo-custom, 3D-printed resin shell whereas the Zen is an all stainless-steel affair. I’d give the build to the Zen since I’m a sucker for metal housings. As for comfort, I personally prefer the ergonomics of the SA6 more due to its snug fit (the Zen has a slightly looser fit). Both are comfortable for longer wearing sessions, but I’d pick the SA6 if I had to monitor stuff for hours, for example. Both come with similar accessories but I much prefer the tip collection on the Zen. Given its price tag though the SA6 has phenomenal accessory set that rivals many $1000+ options. Zen is more source picky than the SA6. If you want to drive your IEMs out of a budget dongle (though I don’t know why anyone would do that with IEMs like the SA6/Zen) then the SA6 is the better choice. Both scales with higher tier sources but Zen is more transparent to underlying source characteristics.

Now the sound is where things get interesting. In terms of overall signature, the Studio SA6 is definitely more “balanced” of the two, with the Zen having more mid-range emphasis.

Breaking things down, the bass is where things become very stark. The Studio SA6 has excellent bass for an all-BA setup but it can’t hold a candle to the Zen’s texture/articulation of bass notes. Snare hits for example have a physicality that’s missing on the SA6. However, sub-bass rumble is more evident on the SA6 in atmospheric mode. But bass notes are not as well defined as the Zen or even other unvented bass BA drivers (this is an issue with the vented Sonion BA: trades off absolute bass control for slam/physicality).

In the midrange, the SA6 is a bit more laid back and this works well with a variety of genres. Zen’s more up-front midrange might make it too up-front in some recordings (mostly Pop songs with an already emphasized female vocal). I do prefer the male vocals on the Zen more. String instruments are superb on both but Zen highlights the undertones better.

Lastly, the treble. Here in terms of absolute extension, the Studio SA6 is better. However, cymbals sound more lifelike on the Zen. It lacks the airiness I find on the SA6 but the initial hit and subsequent decay sounds more natural to my ears. Sustain instruments (e.g. violin) showcase a more natural decay on the Zen than on the SA6. In the end, this will be dependent upon one’s preferences. If you like the crispness of BA treble and want more extension then the SA6 will be the better fit. If you want a more natural decay and lifelike overtones, Zen is likely the way to go.

As for the rest: timbre goes to Zen, hands down. SA6 is less fatiguing in comparison (I wouldn’t call either fatiguing though, but SA6 is more relaxed). Imaging/separation is superior on the Zen whereas the SA6 has a wider stage (though stage depth/height goes to the Zen). Dynamics are also better on the Zen though for an all-BA set the SA6 is no slouch.

Last but not the least, the value proposition. I think the studio SA6 offers more value in general. The tuning is more suited to a range of genres, the accessories are practically same barring some extra tips and airplane adapter, the fit is slightly better and the overall sound quality is pretty close. The tuning switch is also pretty handy.

That being said, the Dunu Zen is the superior IEM, at least for my tastes/music library. I’m a sucker for a single-DD (esp a well-tuned, technically proficient one) so I guess this is where my bias shines through. Then again, this hobby is mostly a chain of biases and preferences so it’s alright.



vs Dunu Luna ($1700): I’ve already reviewed the Luna and the Dunu Zen shares a number of similarities with its big brother. First, the basics. Build, accessories, comfort are all better on the Luna. For the price premium though, one should expect this. Luna, though, is more source sensitive than Zen.

Now I’m gonna go straight into sound. In terms of tuning the Dunu Luna is more of an acquired taste than the Dunu Zen. The Dunu Luna has a rolled-off sub-bass and a pretty emphasized 4KHz region (though again, the graphs are scarier than reality). This makes the sound signature more colored and due to the bass roll-off certain genres aren’t done full justice. That being said, the Luna bass is more textured in comparison and has far superior speed. In fact, the Dunu Luna has the fastest dynamic driver in any IEM I’ve heard till date (incl. the likes of JVC FW-10000 and Final A8000). In terms of transients, it’s hard to best the Luna. Dynamics are also superior on the Luna. Resolution is higher, and treble has better extension and articulation. Imaging, staging, separation — all these are just better on the flagship model.

The Dunu Zen though offers a lot of the Luna’s performance at less than half the price, while having better sub-bass extension (thus making it more genre-versatile). Moreover, both the Zen and the Luna offers the same “headphone-like presentation” that’s hard to come by in IEMs. So if you’d want the test of Luna without breaking the bank: Zen’s got your back.

vs Final A8000 ($2000): Final Audio’s flagship IEM doesn’t quite offer the dizzying array of accessories you get with the Dunu Zen, and the cable is more pedestrian to boot (I so hope they included a balanced cable with this one). I do prefer Final A8000’s carrying case more. IMO it’s the best case-design out there.

In terms of build and comfort they are about par. However, it’s the sound where the differences lie. Similar to the Dunu Luna, Final A8000 is a single pure Be-foil driver and offers nearly the same zippy transients, speed, and technical prowess of the Luna.

The sub-bass on the A8000 is not as rolled-off as the Luna and thus it offers a direct challenge to the Dunu Zen. I do think the Zen is bested by the A8000 in both bass response and upper-mids presentation. That being said, the Dunu Zen has a warmer lower-midrange which I personally prefer. Also, A8000 has a presence region peak ~6KHz which was somewhat fatiguing for me. Dunu Zen doesn’t have such issues. Center-imaging was surprisingly slightly better on the Dunu Zen as well.

The sound signature is different between the A8000 and Dunu Zen, so is the technical prowess where the Final pulls ahead. But again, for less than half the price, Dunu Zen doesn’t sound like that much of a downgrade, and I even enjoy it over the A8000 on poorly mastered tracks (A8000 is brutally revealing).

vs Sony IER-Z1R ($1700): This is more of a David vs Goliath fight due to the Z1R being Sony’s universal IEM flagship and having a more than 2x price premium, but the conclusion isn’t so cut and dry.

First up: packaging and accessories. The Z1R unboxing experience is as royal as it gets and the Dunu Zen seems fairly pedestrian in comparison. However, when it comes to the actual accessories, the Dunu Zen has the Z1R beat IMO. The tip collection on the Z1R is still great but Dunu just has far superior cables and the quick-switch plug is sheer genius. Also I prefer the Dunu Zen carry case over the jewelry-box like Z1R case which looks awesome but has poor practicality. Next, build quality. Both are well built but the Z1R’s Zirconium shell has a density which is very hard to beat. The Zen build is no slouch by any means but I just can’t get over the steampunk vibe of the Z1R.

Regarding fit and comfort: this one goes to the Zen, hands down. The Z1R is proper huge and won’t fit small ears at all. Also the Z1R requires the nozzle to be fairly flush with your canals so not everyone will find it a pleasant experience. I find it fairly well fitting but still the weight and sheer presence of it persists. The Dunu Zen meanwhile simply disappears in comparison. It’s a heavy IEM but the weight is well-balanced IMO.

Finally, the sound. If I have to summarize: IER-Z1R has the better bass and treble, Dunu Zen has superior midrange (esp vocal and string instruments rendition). Now, a bit more detail. The bass on the Z1R is truly world-class. It’s the best bass I’ve heard till date. The tactility, the sheer physicality and slam, the texture, the sub-bass rumble — it’s practically flawless bass for my tastes. The treble meanwhile has good amount of sparkle and air frequencies are portrayed well. This also gives rise to a massive soundstage and imaging is also very precise (though the Dunu Zen has similarly precise imaging to my ears, but the stage is considerably narrower).

The Zen has great bass but it’s not as good as the Z1R. Also the Zen lacks upper-treble extension which can be problematic for those who needs an airy presentation. However, when it comes to the vocals, string instruments, grand piano — Dunu Zen is my pick simply because the Z1R puts the male vocals/string instruments in the backseat whereas cymbals, bass, female vocals take the front stage. Also the Zen sounds more coherent (though the Z1R is remarkably coherent for a hybrid). Zen also has better center-imaging (center-imaging is a bit diffused on the IER-Z1R in comparison due to the sheer width of the soundstage).

So yeah, the IER-Z1R is every bit the flagship it’s supposed to be, but for an IEM that retails for $1000 less, the Dunu Zen is no less enjoyable and I even prefer it depending on track/genre/mood.



Conclusion

This review turned out to be a lot longer than I expected. For those who need a quick summary: The Dunu Zen is one of the, if not the best single-DD options available under the $1000 mark. It sits at the zenith of single-dynamic IEMs in that price bracket, from my experience at least.

Technically it’s right up there with some of the multi-BA options and bests Dunu’s own Studio SA6 along with a few others. Tonality-wise, if you can get the ideal fit (shouldn’t be too difficult with tip rolling), you’re gonna have a blast with most of the genres.

It’s not without its drawbacks and that upper-mid peak can be quite contentious, along with the lack of upper-treble air (though this isn’t as big a deal for me, your mileage may vary). For the majority of the tracks I listen to, however, the Dunu Zen has been absolutely fantastic. Moreover, it gives you much of the Dunu Luna’s technical prowess at $1000 less. Its dynamics are hard to beat, and if you are someone who values the coherency and presentation of a single dynamic-driver the Dunu Zen is something you must try.

Overall Rating: 4/5 (2023 update)​

Highly Recommended if you’re after a near-flagship single-dynamic driver IEM.

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

It’s hard to stand out in the IEM space lately.

New brands pop up every now and then with claims of performance that far belies their price-tag, having measurement graphs that seem just about perfect, hitting a specific target curve. Driver count that would seem overkill even in $1000+ IEMs just a few years ago.

It’s really hard to stand out.

Dunu, having dealt primarily with single/multi dynamic drivers and hybrid IEMs for the past decade or so decided to move towards multi-BA setup again. Their new Studio series of IEMs are strictly multi-BA setups and have two models for now: SA3 and SA6. The SA6 is the higher-tier model and aims to bridge the gap between kilobuck IEMs and the relatively budget offerings. I’ve been using the Studio SA6 for the past four months (almost) and I believe now I’m ready to share my long-term verdict, i.e. not a rushed review to gather some sweet, sweet SEO.

So, is the DUNU Studio SA6 a stellar showing, or just another also-ran? Read on.

This article was originally published on Audioreviews.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. DUNU-Topsound was kind enough to send a review unit of the Dunu Studio SA6. Disclaimer.

Sources used: Questyle CMA-400i/QP1R, Cowon Plenue R2

Price (while reviewed): $550



Build: I’ve made a lot of fun of resin shells in the past since most of them are very generic and look shoddy compared to certain stainless steel finishes out there.

The Dunu Studio SA6 manages to make me eat a humble pie.

The quality of the resin itself is immaculate. No bubbles, no grain, no unevenness. Practically flawless in terms of appearance and haptics with UV-curing and an enamel-like finish that doesn’t attract fingerprints. The Studio SA6 looks pristine even after months of use. The faceplate is stabilized wood underneath where each pattern and color-combo is going to be unique for each earpiece. This is a nice perk and so far I’ve liked every single faceplate I’ve seen. Some might want more customization but I like the randomness myself (esp since they all look good to varying degrees). Then again, this is something one gotta decide for themselves.



The nozzle is a bit short and stout but with the eartips on it should fit snugly. There are three bores in the nozzle, each connected to the bass, mid, and high drivers. I’ll discuss further about the driver configuration in the sound section. There is a single vent beside the 2-pin connector (recessed, thankfully) on the underside of the IEMs. This allows the Sonion vented woofers to have greater excursion than a closed design.



Finally you get to see the switch which is quite easy to flick with your fingernails (even when wearing the IEMs). This is a welcome departure from other designs where one requires fiddly SIM-card ejector like tools to toggle the DIP switches.

Overall: fantastic build quality. I can’t find a single flaw or point of contention.
5/5

Accessories: The Dunu Studio SA6 packaging is smaller than expected, as usually products in this price-bracket come with oversized packaging. Despite the below-average sizing it’s chock-full of accessories. First up: the cable, and this is the centerpiece of attraction no doubt. It’s their DUW-03 cable that retails for $200 as of the time of writing. The cable is an 8-core SPC affair, braided in Litz config. The termination is Dunu’s patented “quick-switch” modular plugs where you can easily swap out plugs by pulling at the plug end. It’s also spring-loaded so the mechanism didn’t get loose after multiple swaps. My biggest gripe about the cable is that it’s a bit too solid, a bit too heavy. I’d have preferred a lighter PVC jacket, but then again — heavy duty cables tend to be heavy. As a bonus, you also get two extra terminations: 2.5mm and 4.4mm pentaconn. Nice!

Then we have the case, which has a blue PU leather outer and felt-padded innards. The case has a small compartment for storing the extra terminations and such so that’s a nice touch.



Next up: eartips. There are 11 pairs of eartips in total: 3 pairs of black tips, 4 pairs of white tips, and 4 pairs of blue tips. I personally found best results with the white tips but I’d suggest trying them all out.

Finally, you get a cleaning tool and a 6.35mm converter. The only thing missing is a shirt-clip but with a cable this nice I’m willing to ignore that.
5/5

Comfort and Isolation: Due to its pseudo-custom fit and moderate nozzle length, the Dunu Studio SA6 offers a very snug, stable fit. I’ve worn it for hours and didn’t feel the need to take it out. Isolation is also above-average despite the vent in the housing. However, there can be some pressure-buildup inside the ear while pulling them out so I’d recommend not yanking them out of your ears and taking it slow.
4.5/5

Now, let’s talk about the sound.

The Dunu Studio SA6, as the name suggest, is a 6-BA setup. Dunu’s website didn’t mention the exact model number of said BAs but the bass drivers are two Knowles 38D1XJ007. This particular model has a very high excursion for a BA driver and also has better textured bass than its Knowles counterparts. In fact, I think this is the only woofer/bass driver manufacturers should use if they want some decent bass response out of an all-BA setup. Moving on, the mid-range driver is an unspecified Knowles model, though I presume it’s a full-range Knowles driver customized to only have responses in the midrange frequencies. Finally, the treble driver is also unspecified but I believe it’s a Knowles SWFK-31736 dual-tweeter.

The tubing and crossover circuit inside is also interesting. Despite only one tuning switch, the circuitry is quite elaborate. The internal wiring is also SPC for those who keep track of these things. Finally, the tubing has similar length for the mid and treble drivers but the one for the Sonion woofers has a longer pathway. I suspect this is to improve bass rumble (apparently increasing tube length for the bass driver can improve bass response). Each tube also houses an acoustic filter to act as dampers.



The general sound signature is mostly balanced with a warm, bassy tilt when the switch is put to “on” position. I did all my listening in this mode as the fuller lower-mids sound more natural to me. I won’t call it neutral because the upper-mids are a bit colored than dead-on-neutrality, though that’s not a bad thing in this case.

Sound impressions are made with Final E-type Clear tips and stock cable. The switch was set to on position.

Bass: There usually is a lot of contention regarding BA bass drivers. They lack the excursion, texture, and slam of their DD counterparts but does offer faster transients and nimbleness. That being said, bass without physicality feels undercooked so I myself am not a fan of BA bass.

The Dunu Studio SA6 changes that notion by a margin, though not entirely so. First off, these vented Sonion woofers are superior to the Knowles/unvented bass drivers when it comes to overall physicality and slam. Sudden bass drops have a body that’s missing on most BA-only IEMs. Secondly, there’s actual bass decay which is a bit similar to DD bass unlike the other BA drivers where there is no reverb which leads to a sense of artificiality.

As for the bass itself, there is a noticeable sub-bass emphasis but it doesn’t get into overkill category. The sub-bass frequencies are boosted over the lower-mids by about +5dB which is just about right for me. Many modern IEMs (e.g. ThieAudio Clairvoyance) boosts this region by ~10dB vs the lower mids which gives rise to the “2.1 subwoofer effect” that I personally dislike (sub-bass sounds detached from the rest of the sound). Fortunately the SA6 is rather coherent and the transition from bass to mids is quite even-handed. The mid-bass has slightly thicker notes than neutral which gives more body to snare hits and double-pedals. Flicking the switch to “off” position does thin down the snare hits slightly so if you want a closer to reference representation you can have that as well. In fast flowing bass section there was no smearing at all, though the bass didn’t quite have the same articulation as a good DD, or the scalpel-precision of typical BA drivers.

Where the bass falls short is the texturing and rumble you only find on good quality DD IEMs. Also if you are into super-nimble BA bass then you won’t get that here since the bass has a bit longer decay than typical BA setups.

To summarize: this is perhaps the best BA bass you can get around the price bracket, but still falls short of excellent DD bass. Something’s gotta give.
4/5

Mids: The midrange is where the Dunu Studio SA6 truly shows its prowess. It’s near-immaculate, at least for the genres I listen to/my taste (Rock/Metal/Pop/Singer-songwriter). The biggest issue with the midrange is the slight coloration in the upper-mids that makes higher-pitched vocals sound somewhat strained on some tracks (e.g. Billy Talent’s Surrender), but this is so rare that I’m inclined to blame the mastering for it.

With the switch turned on, the lower-mids are full and provides adequate heft to Baritone vocals, e.g. Colin Hay’s I Just Don’t Think I’ll Ever Get Over You. The upper-mids peak around 2.5KHz and are ~7dB higher than the lower mids and this provides adequate pinna gain without sounding diffused or shouty. At the same time acoustic guitars and guitar riffs get adequate bite. In terms of tuning and tonality — this is pretty much spot on. Another thing of note is the timbre which is quite natural but does exhibit some BA artificiality in cymbal-heavy tracks. The Studio SA6 does keep the timbre fairly natural and that’s commendable given its all-BA nature and how even many higher-tier IEMs ignore the timbral characteristics for sheer technical proficiency.

Beyond the tuning itself, the resolution is very good for the price bracket. You don’t get the macro and microdynamics of higher end IEMs (and that’s likely the biggest weakness of the SA6 if I am to nitpick) but what you get here is again — excellent, if not class-leading for the price bracket.
5/5

Treble: The treble tuning is what I’d call safe on the Dunu Studio SA6. The presence region is characterized by two dips: one at 4KHz, and another at 6KHz. The 6KHz dip in fact sounds more like a frequency cut that tones down the sibilance region. Whereas the 4KHz dip is barely noticeable, the 6KHz trough manifests as slightly hazy lower-treble. So if you are into super-sharp cymbal hits or pitch-perfect violin tones, the SA6 just might let you down a bit. However, this also allows the Studio SA6 to be very suitable for long-term listening as peaks in presence region can lead to listening fatigue. I myself am sensitive around that region so I’m fine with Dunu’s decision of de-emphasizing those frequencies. That being said, on tracks like Lamb of God’s Ruin this toned down lower treble makes crash cymbals sound somewhat tamed, which might not be the most ideal presentation in this case.

Upper-treble has above-average extension but nothing to write home about. After around 11Khz or so I couldn’t really hear much of it. There are certain competing IEMs that extends further in this region so if you prefer an airy presentation the Dunu Studio SA6 might not be the ideal choice. For me though this treble is overall done very well and I can’t ask/expect more at this price-range.
4.5/5

Soundstage: The overall staging is average, with decent height and depth but not much width. The stage depth is lacking a bit vs certain other IEMs in the price bracket though stage height adds some much needed dimensionality to the music. In short: well-rounded staging that doesn’t feel narrow or intimate but isn’t a stand-out either. This can likely be tweaked via tip change so I’d encourage trying various eartips and finding one that provides the best staging.
4/5

Imaging: Imaging has good cardinal and ordinal positioning though center-imaging is diffused as usual. This leads to the loss of some subtleties in vocal and lead instrument positioning, for example. Spatial cues are well portrayed even if they have a slight fuzziness in terms of location. Instrument separation is a strong point, however, and will satisfy most if not all buyers in the price bracket.
4.5/5

Source and Amplification: At 113dB sensitivity and 60ohm impedance the Dunu Studio SA6 can be run off of most budget dongles. It does scale somewhat decently with higher tier sources as I’ve found on the Questyle CMA-400i desktop DAC/Amp but you’d get ~90% of the performance out of decent dongles alone.



Select Comparisons

vs Moondrop Blessing2 ($320): The Moondrop Blessing2 (1DD + 4BA) has become a default recommendation for many under $500. The Studio SA6 aims to challenge for that spot.

In terms of build, comfort, and accessories — the Dunu Studio SA6 absolutely obliterates the Moondrop Blessing2. Blessing2 looks ghetto in comparison to the craftsmanship of the Dunu IEM. Also the thick nozzle on the Blessing2 can be a bit of a pain (though it was not for me).

As for the sound, the bass texture and overall dynamics is the only criteria where the Moondrop Blessing2 has the upper-hand. Bass slam, punch, articulation are superior on the Dunu Studio SA6. In terms of the midrange, the Blessing2 midrange is mostly clarity-focused, having both lower-mid thinness and some shoutiness. This pretty much makes the Blessing2 midrange a no-go for me since I prefer more body to the vocals/tones and I’m averse to shoutiness.

The treble is where the Blessing2 does showcase better performance, even though it’s marred by a strong BA timbre. Imaging is slightly better on the Blessing2 with more defined positional cues but instrument separation is still better on the Studio SA6 IMO.

In short: I think the Dunu Studio SA6 is worth the ~$200 price premium.

vs Sony IER-M7 ($550): Being close to the Studio SA6’s price, Sony’s IER-M7 (four T-shaped BA drivers, Sony proprietary) becomes a viable alternative. In terms of build and accessories again the Dunu studio SA6 pulls ahead though the IER-M7 does offer a really nice tip collection (better than the Dunu one). Comfort is very good on both, with the Sony having slightly better isolation.

In terms of sound signature, what stands out the most for the Sony is its timbre which is very natural, organic and doesn’t really sound like a BA driver. If you are someone who needs natural timbre I think the IER-M7 deserves an audition. Now, the bass has more slam and physicality on the Dunu Studio SA6. The lower-mids are very good on both, and I personally think the IER-M7 has a lush tone that works well with vocal-focused genres. The treble is where the Studio SA6 pulls ahead, and same applies to instrument separation. Imaging, however, is slightly better on the IER-M7. Overall resolution is also higher on the Studio SA6.

In short, if you need a lusher, more organic presentation then the Sony IER-M7 is a good alternative. If you need better bass/dynamics and more resolution in general, the Dunu Studio SA6 is the better choice.

vs Dunu Zen ($700): Dunu Zen is the step-up model from the Studio SA6, at least in terms of Dunu’s product placement. These two are very different however with the Zen being a single dynamic-driver model vs the 6BA affair on the Studio SA6.

In terms of accessories, they are pretty similar. In terms of sound signature, though, they complement each other rather than compete. The Zen is capable of visceral DD bass (depending on track) with supreme texture, whereas the SA6 is a more nimble affair in comparison and has a more easygoing tuning in general. The Zen has superior macro and micro dynamics whereas the Studio SA6 has slightly more upper-treble extension.

To summarize: the Studio SA6 is the better value IEM, but the Dunu Zen is the better IEM, at least to my ears.




Conclusion

For me, there are two types of IEMs: the specialists, as in those who focus on a specific part of the frequency range and/or excels with certain genres. Then there are the generalists: those who play most genres well but doesn’t excel at any of them. The latter category is safe to recommend but often becomes boring and lacks the soul that makes an IEM special.

Dunu Studio SA6 bucks that trend. It’s a generalist IEM that’s truly special in its overall sonic delivery. The bass is near-DD like in terms of extension and slam, the midrange is masterfully tuned, and the treble despite its safe tuning doesn’t skimp on resolution by much. Soundstage, imaging, instrument separation, dynamics — all are very competitive for the price bracket. The superb build and class-leading accessory set are just a couple extra cherries on top.

Dunu has a breakout hit with the Studio SA6 and it deservedly earns my highest recommendation.

Overall rating: 4/5​

#HighlyRecommended. Still (2023) one of the best in its price-bracket.

Test tracks

Reecho is a relatively newcomer in the IEM scene. They seem to have garnered some recognition thanks to their Seasons Series of IEMs (Spring, Summer) which tried to make a niche in the $100–150 bracket.


Reecho Insects Awaken is their latest release and seems to be their “flagship” of sorts, at least in the international market. It’s a 4BA setup and at $330 aims to take on some of the favorite mid-rangers, which is never an easy task. Quite a bit to explore, thus without further ado.

This review was originally published on Audioreviews

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Penon Audio was kind enough to send a review unit of the Reecho Insects Awaken. Disclaimer.

Sources used: Questyle CMA-400i, Cowon Plenue R2

Price, while reviewed: $300. Can be purchased from Penon Official Store.

Build: Reecho Insects Awaken (man I’m gonna have a hard time getting used to this name) has a 3D printed resin shell, which is quite common nowadays. What’s not so common is the hand-painted shells where the colors are apparently poured inside the cavity and thus has subtle differences between units which makes each of them unique. I personally like the faceplate artwork, it’s quite appealing.



Since this is an all-BA design there’s no visible vent. The nozzle has two separate bores (one for the bass, another for mid+treble from what I gather). The nozzles have differing size too which is at times overlooked in certain designs.




Overall, I like the design and find the build solid. The only thing I’m not a fan of is the flush 2-pin connector which doesn’t feel as secure as recessed ones.
4.5/5

Accessories: The packaging of the Reecho Insects Awaken is a looker indeed. I personally don’t like to describe boxes but this here demands a few words. The IEMs are placed inside a multi-tiered jewelry-box like contraption. The doors swing outwards and you slide out each compartment for the IEMs/cables/tips etc. Very neat and unlike anything I’ve found in the price bracket.



Unfortunately, the stellar unboxing experience doesn’t quite translate to the accessories. There is no compact carry case, for one, as you’re supposed to use on the compartments in the box as carrying case (they are too large for that purpose). Moreover, the cable on mine came with reversed polarity so I had to go for another cable in my possession. This might be a unit-specific issue and you will get a new cable in such cases as a replacement but it’s an inconvenience nonetheless.

Fortunately, the tips are of good quality, and the cable itself looks well-built. Just that I expected more when I started unboxing them.
3.5/5

Comfort and Isolation: Due to their pseudo-custom design and surprisingly lightweight nature, the Reecho Insects Awaken has superb wearing comfort. They also isolate noise well due to the sealed housing.
4.5/5

Now, about the sound.

The Reecho Insects Awaken is a 4 balanced armature configuration, with two Knowles RAF-32873 full-range drivers tasked with tackling the bass (15–500Hz), and the composite/dual Knowles 30017 driver handling the midrange/treble. The unique thing about this implementation is that Reecho used two full-range drivers solely as bass drivers. They achieved this is by employing a dual-acoustic ultra-low frequency acoustic filter where one filter handles frequencies between 5–50Hz and the other deals with frequencies between 50–500Hz. I was personally a bit perplexed as to why they didn’t just use a vented BA (for better bass slam) or one of the Knowles bass drivers in tandem but after listening to the Insects Awaken I came to respect Reecho’s decision.

The general tuning is sub-bass focused/V-shaped with extended treble.

Sound impressions are made using the Spinfit CP-145 tips and stock blue tips. Stock cable was replaced with $35 CEMA Electro Acousti OCC one (2.5mm)

Bass: The bass on the Reecho Insects Awaken has a strong sub-bass focus. It has a pretty sizable boost between 20–80Hz and thus emphasizes the sub-bass notes by ~10dB over the lower-midrange. In case of a regular dynamic driver IEM this amount of sub-bass rise would only make sense in a bass-head tuning. However, due to the BA drivers and their lower excursion, this sub-bass doesn’t become overzealous for the most part.

Sub-bass rumble is adequate, though it doesn’t sound as good as some dynamic driver offerings in this range. Mid-bass has good amount of body and slam making snare hits sound satisfactory. There’s no discernible bass bleed into lower-mids, though in bass-heavy tracks the sub-bass masks male vocals. Bass does lack texture as is common with BA drivers. In fast flowing bass sections the drivers seem to smear the notes a bit, sadly.

In short, the bass-focus will satisfy those who listen to a lot of modern music. It won’t replicate the rumble and texture/thickness of a good ol’ dynamic driver but for an all-BA offering it’s quite good indeed.
4/5

Mids: The lower-mids on the Reecho Insects Awaken, as stated before, is recessed compared to the bass/upper-mids/treble. Aside from the masking effect, the male vocals are also a bit behind female ones in songs where you’ve both of them. Baritone vocals lack their usual heft as a result. Fortunately the upper-mids are devoid of any shoutiness and remains smooth, non-fatiguing throughout. There’s a peak at 3KHz that’s just about on the same level as the sub-bass shelf which reigns in the shrillness.

All is not rosy, however, as we encounter the dreaded BA timbre here. The vocals sound alright but string instruments lack the body and tactility one might expect. Same applies to percussion instruments.

One thing that’s above-average here is the microdynamics. Subtle gradations in volume is well portrayed unlike many other offerings in the range. Resolved detail is also above-average.
4/5

Treble: The treble on the Reecho Insects Awaken is quite extended. It does have a peak around the presence region (5.5/6KHz) and then starts gradually rolling off. This peak can become a bit problematic on some cymbal heavy tracks as it brings the leading edge of cymbal hits on the forefront, but at the same time this was quite enjoyable in some of the metal tracks that I regularly listen to (e.g. Lamb of God discography). The audible extension goes until ~12KHz or so after which the treble becomes muted. This leads to sensation of airiness to some degree. Rest assured: the Reecho Insects Awaken is not a dark sounding IEM and will cater well to those who want some airiness in the presentation.
4/5

Soundstage: Staging has good width, average height, and good depth. It won’t give you an out-of-the-head experience but won’t sound congested either. Layering of instruments is also quite well executed. I found the Reecho Insects Awaken to be very good for watching movies and gaming for these reasons.
4/5

Imaging: Vocals are projected slightly at the front while instruments surround them. Spatial cues originate from cardinal and ordinal positions unlike some other IEMs in the range. Instrument separation is great in most cases (for the price) but can suffer in tracks that have heavy bass emphasis (the sub-bass focus congests the air between instruments). For most cases, however, the imaging/instrument positioning is excellent.
4.5/5

Source and Amping: At 13ohms and 110dB of sensitivity, the Reecho Insects Awaken is very easy to drive. However, it is prone to source hiss, so I’d recommend a source with low noise floor. Also I won’t recommend connecting it to sources with high output impedance and high voltage swings.

Bang-for-buck: The competition is stiff at around the $300 bracket. You got the perennial favorite Moondrop Blessing 2/Blessing 2 Dusk, the neutral-head’s bible Etymotic ER2XR, and the plethora of other multi-BA/hybrid offerings that pop up in this particular bracket every now and then and get hyped to the moon. Despite all that, I find the Reecho Insects Awaken to be competitive in terms of sound quality and it looks gorgeous to boot. It does lack the visceral bass thump/tactility of a dynamic driver in a hybrid configuration (very popular lately). However, those who’d prefer an all-BA setup due to the faster transients of such drivers and won’t mind/want a V-shaped tuning will find the Insects Awaken a good option.
4/5



Select Comparisons

vs Cayin YB-04 ($400): The Cayin YB-04 is a relatively obscure model but has quite a bit of similarity with the Reecho Insects Awaken in terms of driver setup/price. The Cayin YB-04 also has a dual-BA for the low-end and two BA drivers for mids and highs. In terms of build quality, I prefer the Cayin model over Reecho Insects Awaken simply because of how dense it feels in hand. As a result, comfort suffers though, and the Reecho Insects Awaken is far more comfortable to wire (and also has a more snug fit).

As for the sound, the YB-04 has a very anemic low-end and has more upper-mid/lower-treble emphasis compared to the Insects Awaken. This results in a sense of better perceived clarity at the expense of potential listening fatigue. Soundstage is similar on both but imaging is better on the Insects Awaken. Given the superior bass response and a warmer presentation in the mids, I’d pick the Insects Awaken over the YB-04 myself all things considered. However, if you want more clarity and even more extended treble, the Cayin YB-04 will be the better pick.

vs Moondrop Blessing2 ($300): The Moondrop Blessing 2 (and the Crinacle tune version dubbed Blessing2 Dusk) has pretty much become the standard in the sub-$500 category. Compared to the Insects Awaken, the Blessing 2 has a similar build but inferior comfort. The Blessing2 has a thick nozzle and that can be problematic for many.

However, if you can get past the fit issues the Blessing2 has an overall superior sound to the Insects Awaken IMO in terms of overall technicalities. Due to being a 1DD+4BA model, the bass on the Blessing2 has better texture and dynamics (even though it’s nowhere near the best bass in this price bracket). The vocals on the Blessing2 has better articulation and the lower mids are fuller, though it can get slightly hot on certain tracks which the Insects Awaken avoids. Treble has similar extension though the sense of air is better felt on the Insects Awaken. Soundstage is wider on the Insects Awaken but depth/height is similar. Where the Blessing2 trumps the Insects Awaken is even better imaging (the Blessing2 has pretty much the best imaging in its price-class, along with a couple IMR IEMs). One thing that’s a big issue on the Blessing2 is its incohorency. The dynamic driver sounds radically different from the BAs which showcase even stronger BA timbre than on the Insects Awaken.

To summarize: if fit is not an issue and you don’t mind the incohorency — the Moondrop Blessing2 will be the better buy (though I hate the stock cable). However, if you want a more coherent presentation, wider stage, airier treble, and more agile sub-bass response the Reecho Insects Awaken might suit you better. I personally don’t like the Blessing2 that much due to the incohorency so there’s that.

vs Dunu Studio SA6 ($550): The Dunu Studio SA6 retails for $220 more than the Reecho Insects Awaken and thus does not really share the same price bracket. However, since I already have one in possession and both are all-BA offerings I decided to do a little comparison.

The Dunu Studio SA6 has a six BA driver setup with two vented Sonion woofers that offer near-DD like thump/rumble. You can also control the amount of low-end with a switch on the housing. It has a more snug fit and far better accessories than the Insects Awaken. In terms of sound, it is indeed a wholesale upgrade on all front. Probably the stage width is where Reecho gains some upper-hand but overall resolution, staging, separation is perceptibly superior on the Dunu Studio SA6.

That being said, whether it’s worth spending the extra $200 on the Studio SA6 for the superior bass response and fuller lower-mids is something a buyer should decide themselves.



Conclusion
Reecho Insects Awaken doesn’t do much wrong, frankly. It’s tuned well, has no glaring tonal flaws, and the issues it suffers from are more inherent to BA tech itself (timbre/lack of bass texture). I can recommend the Reecho Insects Awaken to those who want an all-BA IEM with a slight V-shaped tuning and good imaging. The Reecho Insects Awaken works across a variety of genre and will suit movies/gaming purposes as well. It’s flown under the radar so far due to the hype surrounding Blessing2, but those who wasn’t impressed with Blessing2’s incoherency or had fitting issues should give this one a try IMO.

On the next release I hope they don’t scoop the lower-mids as much as it’s done on this one, and also employs vented Sonion woofers instead of the current Knowles one. Reecho seems to have found a good tuning formula and managed to pique my interest with that, so I am eager to see what they come up with in the future.

Overall rating: 3.5/5​

#Recommended. An overall solid offering that suffers from some BA timbral issues.

KBEar generated a lot of buzz when they announced the Believe.

“Is it truly a pure Beryllium (foil) driver?” — asked the dumbfounded onlookers. Why won’t they? The only two pure Be foil diaphragm drivers that are out in the market, Final A8000 and Dunu Luna, cost $2000 and $1700 respectively.

KBear Believe had a list price of $180.

Naturally, some were skeptical of the authenticity of the driver, and that led to long and winding story which I’d rather not go through here. In the end, if the KBEar Believe justifies its price tag in terms of sound quality I won’t give two-hoots about the underlying driver. Yes, there is always the question of ethics in false marketing, but KBEar at least seems to have sourced the diaphragm with firm belief that were pure Beryllium foils. As the flagship in KBEar’s earphone lineup, a lot rides on it, further magnified by the Beryllium hype.

Will the Believe turn skeptics into believers?

This review was originally published on Audioreviews

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. My dear friend @Hooga was kind enough to loan me his unit of KBEar Believe. It will be sent back to him once the review is done. Disclaimer.

Sources used: Cayin iHA-6+iFi Neo iDSD, Questyle QP1R, Questyle CMA-400i

Price, while reviewed: ~$150 (with discounts). Can be purchased from KBEar official store

Click to expand...

Build: If you’ve seen the KBEar Diamond, you’ve seen the KBEar Believe. While there are some changes in the overall dimension, they mirror each other in general ergonomics. The biggest change is the color inlet in-between the carbon-fiber weave. It’s now a shiny blue hue instead of the plain gray one of its predecessor. It looks slick IMO, and definitely makes the Believe stand out. The shell color has also changed from olive-green to black. The gold nozzle remains, along with the dense CNC-milled aluminium build. There are two vents: one underneath the nozzle and beside the 2-pin connectors. There was no driver-flex even with deep seal.

Overall: a solid build that won’t keep you asking for more.
5/5

Accessories: I can’t comment on the packaging/accessory set as I requested only the KBEar Believe earpieces to help with logistics. Please refer to other reviews to know more.

Comfort and Isolation: The shells are fairly comfortable to wear as the nozzle has adequate length and the housing has no sharp edges. Isolation is also above-average. I think this is one IEM that you can wear for long.
4/5

About the sound…

The KBEar Believe is a single-dynamic driver IEM with a 9mm pure Beryllium (Be from hereafter) diaphragm attached to a PET surrounding. The thing is that Be is too rigid a material to be used as driver surrounding (which needs to be flexible to aid in the pistonic motion of the diaphragm). This is so far the biggest challenge in the pure Be foil-based driver diaphragms. Dunu solved it by using their own special glue and a newly developed PET surrounding which should be lighter than the ones typically used.



It also uses stronger N52 magnet to achieve higher magnetic flux (exact figures not given) and adopts a “long-stroke design” which seems to be basically a design that allows higher driver displacement from the base of the diaphragm, resulting in higher driver excursion (read: better driver control and such).

At this price-point I frankly don’t expect as many innovations as Dunu, for example, managed to integrate. As long as the Believe sounds good, I’m fine, so let’s just get right down to it.

The KBEar Diamond has an overall balanced-tuning with a bit of bass focus in the sub-bass regions (~60Hz). It’s got a pretty sparkly treble to go along with too.

The following impressions were made with Spinfit CP-100 tips and Dunu DUW-03 cable ($200). Listening mostly done on Cayin iHA-6 ($550).

Bass: The KBEar Believe has a rather interesting bass response. It is practically dead between 20–30Hz with very faint rumble ~27Hz onwards. Between 30–70Hz it comes to life, and seriously so. The bass is strongest ~60Hz region and the mid-bass (100–300Hz) also gets a good bump. This is one meaty sounding IEM, though it’s far from bass-head category.

There are two issues with the bass though (barring the lack of rumble in the sub-bass territories): the lack of bass texture, and the bloated upper-bass that spills into lower-mids at times.

The lack of bass texture is especially surprising to me since Be drivers usually excel in that regard. It’s just monotonous here on the Believe and to complicate things further the driver can’t seem to keep up in fast-flowing bass sections. Meanwhile, the upper-bass often spills into the lower mids adding some haze into the mix (this is even with ridiculous amping, more on that later).

On the plus side the bass punch was pretty good. Snare hits were handled with authority, though their decay was a tad slower than some of the competition. In the end, the bass response is a mixed bag, and one I think will divide opinions.
3/5

Mids: The lower-mids have a haze that can be mistaken as smoothness, but it’s not how a smooth midrange rendition sounds, not to me at least. This results in male vocals sounding disengaging and often clouded by other instruments (esp bass guitars/pedals). Female vocals fare better and sound pretty good on the Believe. Acoustic instruments also have a nice snap to them which is often missing in this price-range, esp in single-DD designs. Overall midrange resolution is good for the upper-mid regions but that haze in the lower-mids mask some of the undertones and thus bring down the overall resolution.

The good thing is that this midrange tuning isn’t too shouty (can get borderline on some tracks, e.g. Colbie Caillat’s Realize) and the timbre is generally good.
4/5

Treble: The treble on the KBEar Believe is very good actually, except for one pressing issue. Let’s get to the good stuff first. The treble has good amount of presence and clarity but never gets overbearing. It’s also fairly extended as cymbal decays aren’t abruptly erased from the scene. There’s no sibilance, and overall resolution in this area is very good and can go toe to toe with some of the most resolving IEMs in this price range.

The bad, then, comes with a noticeable peak~9KHz. It gives a metallic sheen to some instruments (higher-pitched acoustic guitars, for example) and can generate some fatigue over long-listening sessions. On Tool’s Chocolate Chip Trip I often winced with the high-pitched sounds being brought too forward, for example. This issue is exacerbated if you push the volume higher, so I’d not suggest the KBEar Believe if you’re treble sensitive and love to listen at a high volume (which isn’t a good idea in itself).
3.5/5

Soundstage: Stage-width is about average, but height and depth is very good for the price. Nothing sounds congested and instruments are layered well.
4/5

Imaging: Imaging is also very good, so is instrument separation. Coupled with the good soundstage I found the KBEear Believe to be quite adept at gaming/movies and such.
4.5/5

Source and Amping: Now this is where things get very confusing. At 98dB/mW @ 17ohms impedance, the KBEar Believe should be moderately hard to drive. Reality is bit more complicated. It requires above-average amping for sure, but I could get it to play nicely with something like the Audirect Beam 2 SE (out of the PC, mobile output is anemic). Out of the apple dongle and the LG G7 the Believe sounded bloated in the bass and lost quite a bit of separation. Resolution took a hit as well.

In the end, the amping requirements are above-average for sure. It’s no Final E5000, or the Campfire Andromeda in terms of source pickiness. At the same time for a sub-$200 device it requires a source that might run you well over that price-bracket. If you already own a good enough desktop amp (e.g. the JDS Atom Amp and a corresponding DAC) then perhaps it’s not big deal to you. For new buyers or those who’re just getting into the hobby, however, I’d advise mulling over potential source purchases if they are convinced about getting the KBEar Believe.



Bang-for-buck: I’m not gonna say that the Believe is a very cost effective product. It does have good technicalities for the price-range but there are more technical IEMs in this range, e.g. MeeAudio Pinnacle P1, or the classic Etymotic ER3XR. Moreover, the amping requirements make it strictly an enthusiast purchase. However, there are far worse offenders in the price-bracket and given the novel driver type, I’m willing to cut KBEar some slack.
3.5/5

Select Comparisons

vs Etymotic ER2XR ($80): The Etymotic ER2XR is another single-DD IEM tuned to Etymotic’s own target curve (Kemar DF) and costs about half of that of the Believe. Right out of the gate, the fit can be a potential deal-breaker with the ER2XR, at least it was for me. However, if you can get a good fit, then you’ll get a very uncolored presentation with natural timbre. The bass is tighter/more extended on the ER2XR with better texture. The treble is also free from that 9KHz peak and helps in long-term listening. Moreover, you don’t need some exceptional amp to drive them. The ER2XR doesn’t quite match the KBEar Believe in terms of soundstage/imaging so if you want a more traditional staging/imaging the KBEar Believe will be a better choice.

vs Final E4000 ($130): Yet another amp-picky IEM in this price-bracket. The Final IEM has a warm-neutral tuning with boosted mid-bass and sub-bass. Compared to the Believe the bass on the E4000 is a major improvement, provided you are amping them well. The midrange is good on both though I prefer Final’s rendition of the vocals (something they specialize in IMO). The staging is wider on the Final but imaging is better on the Believe. The Final E4000 does roll-off faster in the treble region which makes them sound less detailed than the Believe but also makes them easier to listen to.

If you’re after technicalities, I think the Believe is the better choice. If you want a soothing signature with better bass control/authority, the Final E4000 won’t let you down, provided you can hook them up to a good amp.



Conclusion
KBEar set a very ambitious goal for themselves — to give the masses a taste of well-tuned Be driver at a budget price. They’re about halfway there I’d say. It’s pretty apparent that they still haven’t managed to harness the full potential of the driver as there are some driver-control issues (characterized by the peaky treble and tad bloated bass). I hope they take their time with the next Be driver IEM and iron out the kinks. Also the amping requirements need to be made explicit as otherwise many might have a subpar experience upon purchase.

The KBEar Believe doesn’t break any new grounds, rather it acts as a proof of concept. I‘d call it a beta version, and I hope KBEar can make us true Believers with the next release.

Overall rating: 3.5/5​

Not the finished product I was hoping for, but not bad either

iFi Audio is on a roll lately with new releases.

First there is the Zen stack. The Hip DAC soon followed, and then came the iDSD Signature. The release of the Neo iDSD, however, was quite sudden as it’s been a while since iFi has released a desktop all-in-one solution.

Nonetheless, iFi refreshing their lineup is definitely a welcome move as they’ve been lacking options in certain price-points. The Neo iDSD aims to fill in the sub-$1000 bracket, and with a list price of 750 euro is definitely targeted towards premium buyers. This market segment is a very competitive one as products both below and above the price range can serve as quite viable options. The Neo iDSD ain’t short of tricks up its sleeve though to stand out.

A lot of ground to cover, let’s get right into it.

This review originally appeared on my blog.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Karina Dearman of iFi Audio was kind enough to send the iFi Neo iDSD as part of the head-fi review tour. Disclaimer.

Headphones/IEMs used: Sennheiser HD650, Final Sonorous III/E5000, Hifiman Ananda, Dunu Studio SA6/Zen
Price, while reviewed: 750 euros. Can be purchased from Amazon DE.



Build: The iFi Audio Neo iDSD looks quite unique and the design is a welcome departure from the boring rectangular boxes you see literally everywhere nowadays. The silver-colored chassis is made out of sandblasted aluminium. There is a solid heft to the unit despite its diminutive size. Speaking of dimensions, the Neo iDSD is on the smaller side vs other DAC/Amps in this price bracket, esp if you orient it vertically. Yes, the Neo iDSD supports both horizontal and vertical orientation and I went with the latter which not only makes it look sleek but also saves desk space.

The front of the unit has the OLED display up-top which is a Silentline OLED, i.e. it doesn’t add any noise to the signal path and shows the current input signal type, sampling rate, volume, and selected input. The display also orients itself accordingly based on the orientation of the unit courtesy of a built-in accelerometer. At the bottom you’ll find the input selector along with the power button, followed by the 4.4mm pentaconn balanced out and the 6.35mm single-ended out. Sandwiched between the display and the buttons are the volume knob (also acts as a navigation wheel incl. push function and has nice tactile bumps when in operation) and a white, diffused LED strip to indicate that the unit is powered up.

Oh, I almost forgot the Hi-Res sticker. Very important.



The back of the unit is where things get more interesting. Everything is labeled already (as you can see in the picture) but just to reiterate: the output can be either RCA-in or two 3-pin XLRs. Also at the very top you can see the antenna screw-in point to improve reception of BT signal. Other than the front and back, the sides of the unit are bereft of any controls or ports.



All in all the build quality is excellent. I do have one nitpick: the power/input selector buttons are a bit wobbly. Minor nitpick though. Also ignore the scratch on the display on my unit, that’s how the tour unit arrived and brand new units should be spotless.
5/5

Accessories: You get quite a few things in the Neo iDSD package. Alongside the usual RCA-to-RCA interconnect and a short USB 3.0 cable you also get a handy remote control (runs on cell battery), an antenna to improve BT reception, a metal stand where you can mount the Neo iDSD in vertical position, a 3.5–to-6.35mm converter, some spare rubber feet, and finally the iPower adapter. It’s definitely a complete accessory package but I have an issue with the super-short USB cable. The RCA-cable is short as well but I usually go for aftermarket RCA cables so that’s not an issue (and most buyers in this range will likely get a third-party one too). The USB 3.0 cable, however, is too short for desktop users. I wish iFi improves this part of the package in future products, esp at mid/upper-mid level pricing.
4/5

Operation: The Neo iDSD can be operated using the supplied remote or the buttons on the front panel. The operation using the buttons is a bit different so it’s best if you check out iFi’s tutorial videos:



Also note that to switch between fixed and variable line-out mode you’d need to restart the DAC while holding down the volume wheel. Weird, I know.

Tech Inside: As usual, the specs first:



The iFi Neo iDSD uses a Burr-Brown chip as per tradition. The BT5.0 is one of the highlights of the product and has LDAC support. iFi also uses a new proprietary PureWave topology where they go for a dual-mono setup with shorter signal paths than their previous designs. They also didn’t use their custom GTO filter this time around and also ditched the xBass/3D analog circuits. I am a bit bummed at the omission of the xBass but Neo iDSD aims to be a purist design and those analog DSP effects are anything but purist.

The internal components are all high quality as expected. TDK/Murata caps, FET-based switching to mute those annoying “pops” you encounter on some DAC/Amps, and native MQA full-rendering support. I confirmed the latter by setting up Tidal on Windows in exclusive mode and playing MQA Master files, which were seamlessly handled by the Neo iDSD (indicated by displaying MQA in the OLED display). At this juncture I should mention that it’s advised to install the iFi Neo iDSD driver package if you’re on Windows (Mac version coming soon). You can get it here.

The Bluetooth also works really well. I transmitted music from my Sony Walkman NW-A55 via LDAC without much fuss. iFi has really nailed BT support on this device.



Sound
Amp Performance: The amp section on the Neo iDSD is disappointing from my experience, sadly. The single-ended out is too underpowered and the balanced out, while powerful enough to drive the Sennheiser HD650 and the likes, lack the dynamism you get when these headphones are properly driven. iFi’s own budget Zen Can has far superior amplification for such headphones and when using the Zen Can as an amp with the Neo iDSD the lack of drive on the Neo iDSD is painfully obvious.

Another issue is the noise you get with sensitive IEMs. I’m not entirely sure if this is unit specific or a firmware issue (iFi did issue a FW upgrade to solve this issue but it didn’t improve things on my unit) but a few other reviewers have also experienced it (e.g. Currawong) so I’d advise against driving sensitive IEMs out of the Neo iDSD.

When connected to high impedance/less sensitive headphones/IEMs the output is clean and exhibits a nice smoothness. Things can get too smooth at times if you’ve connected the Neo iDSD to a warm headphone but overall it’s an enjoyable listen, provided that you use something that’s not sensitive to background hiss.
3/5

DAC Performance: The iFi Neo iDSD is 50% DAC and 50% Amp on paper, but for my use case — it’s 100% a DAC and a darn good one at that. Heck, it is one of the best DACs out there in the price-bracket, period (more on this in the comparison section). The overall sonic rendition is wonderful. Dynamics are spot on, the soundstage has great depth (albeit less impressive height and width). The best part was the midrange rendition: smooth without losing details and very engaging presentation. The treble isn’t on your face either but has good amount of sparkle and air. Please note that these impressions were made by using Cayin iHA-6 as an amp and then connecting the HD650/Sonorous III. The Neo iDSD was also set up in balanced configuration via the two 3-pin XLR cables.

One area where the Neo iDSD might not suite everyone as a DAC is soundstage width. It’s one of the regions where it falls a bit short. Another area would be the bass, which has great texture but lacks the meatiness some might prefer. For a more balanced, engaging presentation the Neo iDSD does really well, however.
4.5/5



Amp Pairings
I mainly used two amps with the Neo iDSD: the iFi Zen Can and the Cayin iHA-6. The former is a relatively budget offering and provides an upgrade over the built-in amp of the Neo iDSD IMO, esp when powered with iPower X. The Cayin iHA-6, however, took things to the next level. Exceptional layering, stage depth and micro-detail retrieval coupled with great dynamics. Given the ~$1300 price tag for both of these devices combined, I’d say you’re getting comparable performance to other DAC/Amp setups in a similar price-point, though this particular pairing is mostly suited for full-size headphones rather than IEMs (iHA-6 is too powerful for most IEMs due to 7W @ 32ohms rating from the balanced out). For general all-purpose use I think something like the Topping stack (A90/D90) will be more versatile, or perhaps pairing the A90 with the Neo iDSD.



Select Comparisons
vs Questyle CMA-400i ($800): The Questyle CMA-400i is my daily driver DAC/Amp and shares some similarities with the Neo iDSD. Both got fully balanced architecture, both can be mounted vertically (though the CMA-400i stand is very difficult to find), offers no analog input (to use as an amp alone) and both are using relatively older chipsets without any selectable reconstruction filter options unlike the latest DAC/Amps out there.

The similarities end there though. The CMA-400i is much larger and weighs substantially more, has 2.5mm and 4-pin XLR balanced out unlike the 4.4mm one on the Neo iDSD, and has no display/remote option.

In terms of sound, unlike the Neo iDSD the CMA-400i has a very clean output. Unfortunately selecting the gain mode is cumbersome (you need to push 4 DIP switches at the bottom of the unit to switch gain) but even at high gain sensitive IEMs don’t exhibit as much hiss as the Neo iDSD (and in low gain it’s basically silent). The sonic differences are also quite noticeable. The CMA-400i goes for an airy presentation and displays a high amount of detail. In fact, resolved detail is higher on the CMA-400i than on the Neo iDSD. Depending on headphone though this can get a bit overboard, but I personally like it for my use-case (most of my headphones are warm-ish). Neo iDSD plays it safe on that regard. Both got exemplary stage depth though Neo iDSD edges out the CMA-400i on that regard. CMA-400i hits back with better stage width/height and more impactful bass rendition. Also if you want native MQA the Questyle can’t help you.

As a DAC, the CMA-400i is close to the Neo iDSD, with personal preferences splitting the difference. As an amp though the CMA-400i is clearly better and is more versatile for headphones and IEMs due to less background hiss and better drive (Questyle’s Current Mode Amp is truly exceptional in this regard).

vs Topping D90 ($750): The Topping D90 costs as much as the Neo iDSD but since I’m mostly using the Neo iDSD as a DAC I thought this is an apt comparison. In terms of features the D90 is clearly superior to the Neo iDSD with the highest-rated AKM flagship chipset and a very sophisticated UI that allows you to modify the sound in a number of ways. I do prefer the Neo iDSD’s minimalist approach in this regard but those who love to tinker might veer towards the Topping D90.

In terms of sound, the D90 is basically details galore. The stage is much wider and taller, though depth seemed similar. Mids are a bit pushed back on the Topping D90 at the expense of bass and treble presence. In terms of dynamics, I prefer the Neo iDSD though, as the Topping can feel a bit dull and uninspiring. In fact I enjoy listening to the Neo iDSD more than the D90 despite the latter having superior resolution and wider staging.

If you want a more neutral, almost boring presentation I think the D90 can serve you well and provide you with a feature set longer than the constitution. If you want a more engaging presentation though the Neo iDSD is the one I’d recommend.



Conclusion
The iFi Audio Neo iDSD is a far better DAC than an amp, basically that’s my takeaway after using it for over a month. The amp section leaves a lot to be desired from an all-in-one perspective but the DAC section is excellent and will give even dedicated DACs in this price bracket a run for the money. The BT support is seamless, it looks sleek, and I just love the vertical stand option. iFi broke the mould of making boring rectangular DAC/Amps and offered purist design which I definitely appreciate, though those looking for all the bells and whistles like selectable reconstruction filters or PEQ might have to look elsewhere.

If only the amp was less noisy in the output and had better drive for higher impedance/low-sensitivity cans I could see this one as an endgame DAC/Amp solution for many. Sadly, it’s a bit away from that crown. Perhaps the next one might break through the barrier.

Overall rating: 4/5
#Recommended (for use as a pure DAC, amp section might disappoint)

This review was originally published on Audioreviews.org/my blog

“Can it power the Sennheiser HD650 to its full potential?”

This is the most common question I’ve been asked whenever there’s a talk about any good budget amp. Fortunately, nowadays there are numerous good offerings around the $100 mark that will power the HD650 and other such demanding cans with supreme authority. Yes, you can always try to get the last bit of performance out of these evergreen Sennheisers but diminishing returns quickly set in.

iFi Audio is a UK-based manufacturers focusing primarily on DAC and Amps in various form-factors. A few of their products have received critical acclaim, especially the iDSD Black Label and the Pro iCan/xCan flagship amp/DAC duo.

The iFi Zen Can is part of the recently released Zen stack and is meant to be paired with the iFi Zen DAC. Both the DAC and amp have practically the same chassis and looks rather retro when stacked. You can of course choose a DAC of your own preference and at times get even better performance (more on this below). Nonetheless, the iFi Zen Can aims to be the de-facto solution to powering high impedance full-size cans. Let’s see how well it fares against the stiff competition.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Lawrence Lee of iFi was kind enough to send the iFi Zen Can as review loaner. Disclaimer.

Headphones/IEMs used: Sennheiser HD650, Final Sonorous III/E5000, Hifiman Ananda, Dunu Studio SA6
Price, while reviewed: 170 euros. Can be purchased from Amazon DE.

Build: The iFi Zen Can feels positively dense in hand with its sandblasted Aluminium finish (gray). There are four rubber feet at the bottom of the unit to ensure stability when put on the desk. The general shape is quite curious and deviates from the boring box-shaped DAC/Amps out there. It’s a bit of retro look and while I myself find it nice some have reported their displeasure at the asymmetric design. It looks better in person than in the photos so there’s that. The overall profile is rather compact and should fit even small desk setups.

The back of the unit (from the left) houses the 4.4mm balanced input, 3.5mm single-ended input, and RCA analog inputs. Then we find the balanced output (line-out) and finally the 5V DC power port.



The front of the iFi Zen Can has the headphone outputs (6.35mm unbalanced, 4.4mm balanced/pentaconn). From the left, we find the power button, the input selector (RCA, unbalanced 3.5mm, balanced 4.4mm), the gain control (0/+6/+12/+18dB), the volume wheel, and the XBass/3D mode selector (toggles between XBass on/3D on/both on/both off).



The volume wheel is very smooth and has beveled edges around it for easier grip. I wish it had a bit more tension but that’s a minor nitpick. My major gripe lies with the rattling buttons on the front panels themselves. They rattle every time you move around the unit and feels rather cheap/finicky when toggling them. The buttons themselves are aluminium (or so it appears) so this seems to be a curious design choice. If I had to change one thing about the Zen Can’s build — it would be these buttons. Other than that this rather budget amp has covered practically every input/output most users will ever need (barring XLR but I don’t expect that in such a budget device).
4.5/5

Accessories: The iFi Zen Can comes with a pair of RCA-cables to use as analog interconnect (rather short, may require upgrading), a 3.5-to-6.35mm adapter, and a power supply. In some regions you get the iPower bundled in the box whereas in others (e.g. Singapore from what I hear) you get a generic adapter. I will highly recommend getting a good quality power adapter (if you don’t get the iPower in the bundle) since the generic adapter is very prone to mains noise and EMI and will generate a lot of background hiss/whine.

The cost cutting becomes rather evident in the accessory set but I guess that’s expected at this price-point.
3.5/5

Tech Inside: Let’s get the specs out of the way first:


For more info, you can check the Zen Can product page.

The internals of the Zen Can is its most interesting aspect IMO. iFi has apparently trickled down the amplifier circuit from their flagship Pro iCan to the Zen Can, albeit in a smaller package (and with lower output power). Then again, 1.6Watts of output power (@ 32 ohms) from the single-ended out is no joke. The balanced circuit is a dual-mono configuration and when paired with the balanced out from a DAC you shall get a fully balanced configuration (unlike certain THX amps).

The amplifier operates in discrete class-A (no A/B switching here) and employs a FET input (high input impedance, low output impedance) to improve distortion/SNR figures. Frankly, the THD% at 0.007 is not class-leading by any means. However, amps are more than measurements (for me at least) and better measuring amps at times can sound lifeless and sterile. Just listen to one of them THX amps and you’ll know what I mean.

There’s enough voltage swing in the Zen Can to power amp picky headphones like the HD650 and the HD800. The former works well with >5V voltage swing and the Zen Can definitely exceeds that even in lower gain levels.

As for the rest of the features, we got two iFi signature “circuits” inside: the XBass and 3D circuits, both of which are analogue signal processing circuits. XBass adds a sizeable bass-boost throughout the entire bass-range (from upper-bass to sub-bass). Fortunately, it’s not a bass-shelf (where all bass frequencies are similarly boosted) rather a gradual rise from 300Hz downwards. The sub-bass regions get a major lift by ~7/8dB and can solve some of the bass issues in open-back headphones, esp the likes of HD650. It’s definitely not for everyone though and not every headphone will react the same. HD650 for example has high distortion in the sub-bass region and in some bass-heavy tracks you’ll hear the driver cranking under pressure. It’s always good to have the option though and in many times I found myself keeping the bass boost on.

The 3D effect is a bit more subtle yet noticeable. The stage seems to get wider and deeper while lower-treble gains more presence. I personally didn’t like this effect as it made the midrange thinner than I prefer. For gaming this might come in handy though and again — it’s better to have this option than not.

As an aside, the internal components all seem to be of high quality so long-term durability should be quite good.




Sound

The Zen Can has a warm-neutral sound overall. It’s pretty transparent to the source in fact and won’t color the music in any destructive manner. The treble is a bit less clinical than certain THX amps but that’s about it (can be a good thing if you don’t like treble glare). The gain levels up to +12dB is very usable. The +18dB gain can vastly increase grain and hiss so I tended to not use that mode and frankly +12dB gain is more than enough for my use-cases and powered all my headphones to deafening levels.

The staging isn’t as wide or deep as the THX amps or some higher-tier class-A designs but at this price range I don’t expect that either. Dynamics are mostly good with headphones but no so much with IEMs (more on this later). Overall resolution is what you’d expect — as good as the source itself (audibly transparent to the source). The biggest issue lies with the PSU for me as with the generic (non iPower) PSUs in some regions you will get audible hiss and a reduction in dynamic range/staging. Switching to iPower X ($100) will fix that but that investment takes it into another price category.

Qualms with PSU aside, for the price the Zen Can drives headphones as well as any other amps in this range. The 3D and XBass effects can be very fun to use and definitely adds to the overall package.
4.25/5

Pairings

I’ve found the Zen Can to pair the best with the HD650. In fact, I suspect the Zen Can was created specifically to match with the HD650/6XX/600 and the likes. The dynamics were spot-on, with the bass boost you could hear some decent sub-bass rumble and the stage depth was better than most amps in this range. If you plan to get the Sennheiser HD6XX or any other 6 series Sennheiser headphones, this is the amp to get for ~$200, period. Planars also fared well and for the likes of Sundara/Ananda this can be a great amp.

However, IEMs were a different story altogether. They got loud to dangerous levels but the overall presentation lacked dynamics and fell flat. In fact some IEMs like the Final E5000 (requires a good amp to shine) were muddy, bloated mess on the Zen Can despite being properly driven on paper. Same applied to some multi-BA IEMs. In general I don’t think the Zen Can is a good match for IEMs, then again the name itself has “Can” in it so there’s that.

Overall, for high impedance full-size cans the Zen Can is a great match. For IEMs — not so much. For IEMs though I’d not recommend such a behemoth for the most part and a simple DAC dongle will serve you well. For those who need best of both, however, this might fall short.
4/5

Select Comparisons

vs Topping L30 ($150): This particular amp used to be the darling amp of the budget conscious. Incredible measurement figures, vanishingly low THD, tons of drive and best of all — could power IEMs and full-size headphones just as well. Too bad that they started to explode. Well, not all of them, more like a few of them, but it’s more than enough to raise concerns and this potential hazard alone dismisses Topping as a competition. I put this here mostly to warn people and until Topping proves that they have put more than enough safety measures in their amp I won’t recommend Topping products to anyone.

vs JDS Atom amp ($100): The Atom amp is even more neutral and that could be a good or a bad thing. It doesn’t have as much raw power as the Zen Can but from my experience it drives IEMs better than the Zen Can and also has less issues with mains noise. It does lack balanced out so there’s that and the overall build is a step down from the Zen Can esp the volume pot. Still, a very good choice for most budget buyers and can be a good alternative to Zen Can albeit without the bass/3D effects and a more clinical presentation.

vs SMSL SP200 ($270): Ah, the magical THX amp circuit that makes everything sound awesome. Not really. The SP200 is one of the least dynamic and most anemic sounding amps that I’ve ever encountered in this range. This thing is practically lifeless and sounds very dis-engaging (if that’s the correct term). The XLR inputs and such are nice touches but the way it presents sound is not my cup of tea. If you like a very sterile presentation you may give this a shot but I’d recommend not being swept up by “THX *random three digit numbers*” marketing jargon and actually listen to them before making a decision. Needless to say — I prefer the Zen Can much more, even with IEMs.

vs iFi Neo iDSD ($700): David vs Goliath, or so they say. I will be blunt: I prefer the Zen Can’s output (for using with the HD650) more than the Neo iDSD’s headphone output (balanced). With IEMs I do prefer the Neo iDSD but the Zen Can pairs so well with the HD650 that even iFi’s far higher tier offering doesn’t sound as nice or engaging, IMHO. The XBass effect is also absent from the Neo iDSD which is a slight letdown. Nonetheless, Neo iDSD review is coming soon and while it generally trounces over the Zen Can with most headphones and IEMs, the HD650 is the one headphone that sounds better on the Zen Can than on the Neo iDSD.




Conclusion

The iFi Zen Can is the best amp under $200 for the Sennheiser HD6XX/650/600. That’s basically my takeaway after testing this amp for 2+ months. For similar high impedance dynamic drivers and low sensitivity planars — the Zen Can is is very capable indeed. IEMs and very sensitive headphones are where it falls somewhat short.

The design can be questionable and the power adapter situation is a bit strange (though most regions get the iPower X but still something you should discuss with the dealer beforehand). For 170 euros though, there really aren’t any deal-breaking issues here for the most part as long as you want to power full-size headphones. It ticks all the necessary boxes for driving power hungry cans, and then some.

These don’t explode and kill your headphones in the process and of course — sounds great with high impedance cans with ample headroom/drive. I recommend the Zen Can for such use cases, and highly recommend it if you own the classic Sennheisers and want an amp in a budget that can do justice to it.

Overall rating: 4.25/5
#Recommended (for powering high impedance headphones and planars)

This review was initially published on Audioreviews.org

Tube amplification is a rather divisive topic.

For some, it’s the holy grail and a step closer to the “analogue” feel. For others, it’s just gooey warmth that robs instruments of detail and also introduces coloration by adding distortion artifacts.

Cayin, in their usual out-of-the-box manner, decided to give listeners the best of both worlds. This is not the first DAP with tubes from them, that would be the flagship Cayin N8. However, it’s the first somewhat affordable one, and thus carves itself a niche in an otherwise highly competitive price segment. Does it perform up to expectations though? Let’s find out.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. The Cayin N3Pro was sent part of Cayin’s review tour (thanks Andy Kong). Disclaimer

Click to expand...

IEMs/Headphones used: Final E5000/FI-BA-SS/Sonorous III, Dunu Studio SA6, IMR R1 Zenith, Reecho Insects Awaken, Sennheiser HD650

Firmware version: 2.0 (MQA support enabled)

Price, while reviewed: $480. You can buy the Cayin N3Pro from Hifigo.

Accessories: The Cayin N3Pro comes with most of the stuff you’ll need out of the box. The screen protectors are pre-applied, for one, and you also get a silicone bumper case. Lastly there is the USB type-C cable. It’s nothing fancy but all these are fairly usable and of pretty decent quality. However, I would recommend spending a bit extra for the Leather case. At ~35 euros it’s fairly affordable given similar cases by third parties can cost quite a bit more. The color palette isn’t my favorite but it’s not that offensive a hue either.
4/5

Build: Cayin always have had great build quality and the N3Pro is no exception. The entire frame is sandblasted aluminium, sandwiched between glass (tempered?) front and back. At 195gm it’s not the lightest DAP but the weight does add a reassuring heft in-hand. There is nothing on the top of the player. On the right side there are the three playback buttons and a volume-wheel/power button combo. The buttons have a nice feedback with no mushiness. The volume/power button combo can feel a bit wobbly but the overall scrolling is quite smooth. On the left side you find the micro-SD slot (up to 1TB capacity). On the front there is a touch-sensitive button at the bottom which by default takes you to the Now Playing screen and acts as an indicator LED with RGB colors representing various sampling rates/file types (e.g. purple for MQA). Up top is the 3.2" IPS display. Between the display and the button there is a small window through which you can see the tubes with a red underglow during playback.



At the bottom of the unit you’ll find the three output ports (3.5mm headphone out, 3.5mm line out, 4.4mm balanced out) and the type-C charging cable. This is where I encounter my first gripe with the N3Pro: the location of the lineout port. As it stands it’s quite easy to mistake the headphone jack for the lineout jack in the dark (and the Dignis case hides the markings altogether). Mistakenly plugging your sensitive headphones/IEMs to the very powerful line out won’t be a pretty picture and might damage the drivers. I’d have preferred better physical separation, perhaps slotting the balanced port in the middle and flanking the phone-out/line-out on either side. Or just do it like many others do and make line-out an option from the menu by combining line-out/3.5mm out.
As it appears the fear of line-out blowing out IEMs was rather unnecessary. The N3Pro line out has only voltage gain and no current gain so you are unlikely to ruin your eardrums and/or headphones.



I have no qualms about the N3Pro’s build. It feels positively dense, the buttons have good feedback, and the ports are at the bottom for once.
5/5

Display: The Cayin N3Pro has a 3.2" IPS display with 480*360 resolution (~180ppi). It’s nothing groundbreaking and the IPS display doesn’t have the best of contrast/color accuracy. However, viewing angles are good and it’s moderately sharp. Side and top bezels are fairly slim and symmetric unlike the TOTL Cayin N6ii (reviewed here) so that’s a plus.
3.5/5

UI/Responsiveness: Cayin decided to not go the Android route this time around and that’s a welcome change IMO. The OS here is Hiby OS with some bits and pieces customized especially for Cayin (e.g. the tube mode selector). By default you are taken to a launcher of sorts with all the most used menus available at a glance. Swiping up from bottom will show additional settings for playback (gapless, repeat, EQ, filters etc.) and device (wifi, BT, firmware upgrade etc.). Swiping down from the top will slide down a notification shade where you can select various tube modes, gain level, USB/DAC modes, tube/solid state selector etc. along with the handy brightness slider. It’s a very well-thought out design and improves the usability of the N3Pro by a margin.
The UI is fairly pedestrian all in all but has good responsiveness. Scrolling through the library is fast and also has fast/alphabetical scrolling. The album art thumbnails aren’t cached though (or takes a while to load from memory) so they appear a bit late. Some high resolution album arts weren’t even displayed which was a bit of a letdown. Lyrics support was also a hit-or-miss. There was no proper PEQ support, only a basic 10-band EQ support which was a letdown. The biggest offense of the UI is that the iconography looks like something designed back in 2006. Other than that it’s a functional UI that gets the job done without getting in the way.
4/5



Connectivity: BT 5.0 with LDAC, WiFi (no 5GHz sadly), USB type-C with SPDIF functionality— it’s got all the stuff I will possibly need. Given there is no direct support for streaming I am fine without 5GHz wifi (not that 2.4GHz isn’t enough). You can also use the N3Pro as a BT amplifier to stream music from your smartphone (via the Hiby Music app). Using as a DAC was also very straightforward: select USB mode as “DAC” from the dropdown menu (swipe down from top) and you’re good to go (ideally install the Cayin USB driver as well from here). Bitperfect playback was also possible. I couldn’t make it unfold MQA from the Windows Tidal app though, but offline Tidal files were supported with full MQA unfold.

Solid connectivity overall. No glaring gaps whatsoever.
5/5

Battery Life: The N3Pro utilizes a 4100mAh battery which last ~8hrs of real-world uses (in tube mode). This figure will vary depending on the file format and how much volume/output power you require. Nonetheless, I’d call this about average for the price class. Standby battery drain is pretty good however and setting up idle shut-off saves even more battery. As an aside, it takes ~15 seconds to boot from cold so powering it off when not in use is a viable option. It takes ~3+ hours to fully charge the battery. No fast charging here.

There are DAPs with far better battery life at this price bracket, but I’m gonna cut Cayin some slack because of the tubes.
3/5

Tubes: The N3Pro houses two matched Raytheon JAN6418 miniature tubes which are suspended inside a silicone housing. As per Cayin these increases shock absorption. Despite that, there is a high-frequency ping every time you put the N3Pro on a solid surface with some force, or just walk around briskly with them in the pocket. The ringing noise isn’t distracting during busy music passages but in quite passages it can stand out quite a bit. Just an eccentricity you gotta live with if you want the tube goodness I guess.



The tubes are not in the typical OTL setup, rather they operate in conjunction with the differential amplifier and mostly alter the timbre. The operational diagram can be seen below. I couldn’t detect any hiss even with sensitive IEMs (Final FI-BA-SS in this case) while in tube mode. Another topic of discussion: tube burn-in. These tubes will need ~10–20 hours to settle in. The sound will have noticeable changes esp in the higher frequencies until then.

Sound Quality

Cayin N3Pro can have at least 4 different sound signatures. The differences are sometimes subtle, and at times drastic. To summarize: there are subtle differences between the solid-state sound from the single-ended and balanced out. Then there are drastic differences between the Triode and Ultralinear modes for the Tube mode. Before going further, some relevant specs:




The N3 Pro uses dual AK4493 DACs in true balanced configuration (so each DAC handles only one channel).

Tube Mode: There are two different operation modes for the tubes: Triode and Ultralinear. Keep in mind that the tubes will warm up for 5 seconds before playing tracks if you stop playback for a while.

Triode mode has a very intimate presentation with up-front midrange and the typical tube bass with smoothed out leading edge of bass notes. It doesn’t sound blunted though and has pretty good resolution (though the balanced out has better layering and staging). Overall the Triode mode is the one I used the mode during the course of this review and the one I’d recommend you to try first if you plan on getting the N3Pro. I liked how the N3Pro sounded in Triode mode with both warm and bright IEMs/Headphones so you can pretty much set it on and forget it.

The Ultralinear mode is polar opposite. It throws an artificially wide stage and has a very aggressive leading edge of notes. The imaging is quite odd in this mode and I just don’t enjoy the presentation. Your mileage may vary and you may find it appealing with specific pair-ups/music but for my library and the headphones I tried this mode was a no-go.

Solid-state Mode: The solid state mode is rather uninspiring. The single-ended output is decent but nothing to write home about in terms of overall resolution and staging. The balanced out is better in this regard but still about average given the competition.

The other thing to notice about the solid-state mode is the coloration. The single-ended mode has a warm tilt with more focus on mid-bass. The balanced out is more… balanced sounding but still not what I’d call “neutral”. The warm tint is there all along. Separation from balanced out is pretty good, but there are better performers in this price bracket if you are after channel separation and soundstage width.

There are six selectable reconstruction filters: Sharp, Slow, Short Delay Sharp, Short Delay Slow, Super Slow, Low-dispersion Short Delay. The differences between them weren’t that drastic or immediately noticeable (unlike some other DAPs in this range). You are welcome to fiddle with them and see if you notice any drastic difference. I mostly stuck with Slow for this review.

Overall, it’s a difficult task to assign a rating to the N3Pro’s sound quality. It changes so drastically between modes after all. That being said, the general sound is definitely a step up from your average smartphone and in tube mode it’s a very engaging DAP indeed and offers a different flavor of sound vs the run-of-the-mill DAP offerings out there.
4.5/5



Amp performance: The N3Pro could get the Sennheiser HD650 loud at high gain but couldn’t bring out the full dynamics and imaging prowess of them. The HD650 is not unusable at all and quite decent in fact with the N3Pro single-ended out but it’s just not as good as some desk setups out there in this price range. The balanced out mode faired better in terms of power but had similar issues with dynamics and presentation.

The most power hungry IEM that I’ve got: Final E5000, got loud enough from the balanced out but lacked the bass control it exhibits from better sources. At 93dB/mW and 15ohms of impedance the E5000 is very particular about amping and the N3Pro couldn’t drive it as well as, say, the Questyle QP1R does.

All in all, the Cayin N3Pro isn’t what I would call a “powerhouse” like the venerable A&K Kann Alpha. It’s mostly meant to be used with IEMs and moderately efficient headphones. Low sensitivity planars and high-impedance full-size cans aren’t the best use-case, though that’s the case for most DAPs in this price range.
4/5

Select Comparisons

vs Cowon Plenue R2 ($550): The sound signatures couldn’t be more different between these two DAPs. Whereas the Cowon Plenue R2 has a near-neutral tone out of the balanced out (and the single-ended out has just a bit more warmth) the Cayin N3Pro is noticeably warmer even in solid-state mode/balanced out combo. The Plenue R2 opts for its fantastic DSP effects named JetEffects to add various degrees of coloration. The PEQ options are also noticeably better. The N3Pro on the other hand is quite colored by default and has no PEQ options. The Cowon player lacks MQA support and WiFi/BT 5.0 however, so Cayin N3Pro is definitely more feature rich.

In terms of the rest of the aspects: display is far superior on Cowon Plenue R2, whereas UI navigation is faster and simpler on the Cayin N3Pro. I do prefer the design of Cowon’s UI more despite somewhat cumbersome navigation. Battery life is far superior to the N3Pro on the Cowon R2 and I get ~18hours of music playback regularly.

vs Fiio M11 ($500): Soundwise, Fiio opted for a lean, mean, brittle signature with the M11 and kind of forgot that something called bass exists… Well it’s not that bad but the bass texture and extension is quite poor for such a pricey device. It lacks in dynamism as a result but does bring out more top-end detail though it gets too fatiguing for me. I much prefer the N3Pro.

As for the rest: M11 is Android, N3Pro is not, so you know which one you need. Display is better and handling is also easier on the Fiio DAP. Battery life is better on the Fiio M11 by a couple hours more (~11hrs or so).

vs iBasso DX160 ($400): The iBasso DX160 is a benchmark champ with very good figures on the usual test-bed metrics (THD, IMD+N, Crosstalk etc.). Perhaps the Cowon Plenue R2 beats it but they’re quite close and the DX160 has even better output power. Against the N3Pro the differences aren’t as stark. Both opts for a warm-ish tone, though the N3Pro in tube mode has more coloration and fun factor. I prefer the balanced out of the DX160 more vs the balanced out of the N3Pro, but the tube mode is lacking on the DX160 and I crave for that unique signature.

DX160 is Android too but performance is subpar and there will be hiccups. It also has some RF interference issues while using WiFi. The display used to be excellent on the first-batch DX160 but the later 2020 revision has brought in a worse display. Still, it’s better than that on the N3Pro. Battery life is similar on both.

vs Questyle QP1R ($600, discontinued): This gem of a DAP is sadly discontinued but if you can get a second-hand QP1R — give it a strong thought unless you need Android smarts. The dynamism of the QP1R is unlike anything in its price bracket. Certain TOTL DAPs like the Cayin N6ii (with T01/E01 motherboard) will beat it on that aspect but then you’re spending nearly twice as much. QP1R also has a more neutral presentation and can render an abundance of detail. The staging isn’t the widest but imaging is precise.

The OS, sadly, is outdated on the QP1R. There are no smart options anywhere neither is the UI touch friendly. Battery life is worse as well (7 hrs vs 9 hrs on the N3Pro). The QP1R also hisses more on sensitive IEMs (though it sounds better still than on the N3Pro). Build quality/fit and finish is even better on QP1R, despite the apparent solidity of N3Pro’s build. Display is again larger on the N3Pro though QP1R has a higher quality display (in terms of contrast etc.).

If you only care about music playback or want to use the DAP as a DAC/Amp/pre-amp at times the QP1R is the better choice. I do realize it’s a very niche device so the N3Pro will be more suitable for general use and will offer more flexibilities.



Conclusion

Cayin’s N3Pro is a fun sounding DAP with two different tube flavors and the usual bells and whistles you expect from a mid-tier DAP in terms of output options. It’s a unique offering in the price range if you don’t care too much about neutrality. The display and UI elements could definitely be better but the performance is good enough for most use cases and the connectivity options are solid.

The Cayin N3Pro earns my recommendation, mostly because it dares to bring tube sound to the masses inside a DAP and the overall execution is quite graceful indeed.

Overall rating: 4.25/5
#Recommended (as long as you’re not after neutrality)

This review originally appeared on my blog.
Headphone jacks are a dying breed.

Ever since Apple decided to be “courageous” and remove the headphone jack on iPhones to sell their average-sounding Airpods (and the various Pro/Max iterations), the rest of the mobile manufacturers followed suit like spineless sheep. It’s an entire rant that I’m saving off for another day. Ah well…
Back to the topic of discussion: FIIL T1XS TWS IEM. That’s a mouthful. FIIL has been pretty popular among wireless/true-wireless IEM users lately, and while I’ve been pretty much “TWS averse” for various reasons, the overall feature-set got me intrigued. This is the first TWS that I’m gonna officially review, but more will follow (incl. both the Galaxy Buds). The wireless market is practically flooded with options and FIIL seems to have grabbed attention. I will look at it from a “sound-quality first” perspective though, so I guess this review will be a bit different from the existing ones out there. Ride along.


Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. FIIL was kind enough to send the T1XS TWS as a review unit (thanks Sophie!). Disclaimer.

Sources used: LG G7, iPhone SE
Price, while reviewed: $50. Can be purchased from Amazon.

Build: The entire housing is ABS plastic, which is also a requirement in this case since the housing needs to be RF-transparent. There is a vent hole on the inner side (a bit above the nozzle). The charging contact pins are also there. The back face-plate is touch-sensitive and has a glossy finish. I do wish it was matte however. Speaking of the charge+carry case, the case is moderately compact size. The magnet is pretty strong, and clasp is well-built as well. The type-C port is at the back and the status LED is on the front. However, the case is also gloss-finished, which isn’t the best option IMO and fingerprints show up a lot due to the piano-black finish. The entire housing is splash-proof to nicely round things up.
4.5/5



Accessories: The T1XS comes with 3 pairs of spare tips and 3 pairs of “wings” to help with the fit. I’ve found them to be a bit of a hit-or-miss in terms of ergonomics but the inclusion is welcome. Finally, there’s the type-C cable. Nothing too fancy, but nothing is missing or unusable as well.
4/5





Comfort/Isolation: True Wireless IEMs, by the very use-case, need to be comfortable and fit snugly (no strings attached after all). The FIIL T1XS does have a snug fit, however, the driver flex can be a bit of a bother. The “wings” does help with fit so try and see how things fare on your part. Isolation is very good. A fun thing is that you can press-and-hold the touch panel on any side to trigger “monitor mode”. In this mode, the surrounding noise is fed through the IEMs (alongside any music track that’s being played). Very handy if you just need to listen to the surroundings (e.g. while crossing a road).
4/5




Now, on to the sound and other features. The T1XS has an 8mm single-dynamic driver, has BT 5.0, and supports the AAC codec. No “high-res” LDAC or AptX HD support unfortunately. The general sound is V-shaped with a strong sub-bass focus.

Bass: The sub-bass is the star of the show here. It’s still not quite bass-head level but for almost every genre this amount of sub-bass is more than enough. Might even be an overkill if I’m being honest. The mid-bass is slow and slightly bloated, at times congesting the lower-mids. Bass texture is middling, but the punch/slam is quite good and does provide a nice rhythm. Not my favorite kind of bass but given the price and the codec compression — expected.
3.5/5

Mids: The lower-mids are recessed and upper-mids are boosted by ~6/7dB compared to the lower-mids. This thins out male vocal in some tracks and makes female vocals almost shouty in others. However, I didn’t feel that the shoutiness or thinness was too distracting. String instruments do have a nice “bite” to them, and the vocals itself sound alright. Timbre is also pretty decent given the V-shaped nature of things.
3.5/5

Treble: The treble is mostly inoffensive barring a peak ~6/7KHz that can cause some listening fatigue if you listen your music very loud. Bass rolls off pretty sharply after this peak. Cymbal hits are distant, there’s also some splashiness to it (not that distracting IMO).
3.5/5

Soundstage: The soundstage is mostly closed-in. Most of it is due to the aforementioned lower-mids congestion. Instrument separation is decent, nothing groundbreaking vs the wired competitors.
3/5

Imaging: Imaging is surprisingly good. It’s not the so-called “holographic imaging” but the FIIL T1XS does have better imaging than most TWS I’ve heard until now. It’s not the class-leader, but it does get very close.
4/5

Connectivity: Bluetooth connection was stable throughout. The touch-sensitive buttons can be a bit of a pain to navigate though. Once connected and paired, reconnecting them was pretty straightforward and won’t poste a problem unless you have too many BT devices around. In low-latency mode there is minimal lag and I kept it on all the time (mode configurable via the fiil+ app on App Store/Play Store). Call quality was also decent. The three mics positioned around the housing suppressed outside noise fairly well.
4.5/5

Battery Life: Battery life is very good and there’s also some form of fast-charging. I got ~5hrs out of them on a single-charge and the case itself holds charge for 24 hours more (rated). At this rate, you will need to charge them perhaps twice a week for moderate to heavy usage.
4.5/5

App: The fiil+ app is handy for customizing the gestures and applying EQ etc. I use it mostly for changing modes though as I find the stock EQs to be very aggressive in nature. The app itself is quite buggy and can crash randomly at times or misbehave (e.g. no response). I wish this app gets better but since I only use it sparingly that’s not too much of a bother.
2.5/5

Bang-for-buck: The FIIL T1XS is built well, has a lot of extras and features, got good battery life and priced accordingly at ~$50. I wish the tuning were as refined as some of its wired counterparts (e.g. Final E1000/E3000, the good ol’ BLONs) but it’s understandable that FIIL had to make some choices given the constraints of wireless tech itself. The Samsung Galaxy Buds and Lypertek Tevi are both superior IEMs in terms of sound, but they do cost ~$30 more.
4/5




Select Comparisons

vs Samsung Galaxy Buds ($80): The Samsung Galaxy Buds has come down in price recently, making it more comparable to mid/lower end offerings. The Galaxy Buds has a more balanced tuning with more mid-bass focus and sub-bass roll-off. It also doesn’t have as stable a connection as the FIIL T1XS and lacks the extras that the FIIL T1XS offers (e.g. monitor mode, low latency mode etc.). However, I prefer the midrange and treble tuning of the Galaxy Buds to that of the T1XS. Those who prefer a more balanced/mid-centric presentation will do well with the Galaxy Buds. Those who prefer V-shaped/bassy tunings should lean towards the FIIL T1XS.

vs KZ S2 ($25): KZ S2 is a 1DD + 1BA configuration and has quite a lot of features for a competitive price. Unfortunately, it doesn’t sound refined at all. There’s just too much bass and treble and mids are completely buried between the two. It’s too much of a heavy-handed V-shaped signature, in comparison to the more reigned in V-shaped tuning of the T1XS. The FIIL T1XS does justify the price increase over the KZ S2.



Conclusion
True Wireless/Bluetooth IEMs are still not as good as wired ones, and my audiophile (!) self yearns for more fidelity and finesse with nearly every single TWS out there. I am still swayed by those dangly cables after all.

FIIL T1XS isn’t perfect. The app is a letdown and the midrange/treble tuning could definitely be executed better. The sub-bass focus might also put those off who want a brighter/neutral tuning.

That being said, the FIIL T1XS offers a lot for the price of admission. It’s a v-shaped tuning that plays nicely with most modern, bass-driven music and ticks nearly all of the boxes for most people. It does what it says on the can, and I guess that’s more than most out there.

Overall rating: 3/5
Update: better options exist now in 2023.

This review originally appeared in my blog.

Cat Ear is a new brand from Shenzhen who has gone for a rather feline-themed branding. The Mia (meow?) is their first IEM (and the only one so far in their lineup) and at $99 retail faces stiff competition from both the lower and higher priced segments.

Usually newcomers in the market try to generate hype by some sort of novel driver setup or offering absurdly good value-for-money on paper at least. Cat Ear has a similar trick up their sleeve: cryogenic treatment. Apparently both the drivers and the cable/connectors have gone through -196C cryogenic treatment, a process that includes treating the materials in <-190C temperatures which improves wear resistance and removes residual stress.

All that sounds quite complicated and fancy, but does that improve anything on the sound front? Let’s find out.


Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Nappoler Hu of HifiGo was kind enough to send the Cat Ear Mia as a review unit. Disclaimer.

Sources used: Sony NW-A55, Cowon Plenue V, LG G7, Cayin N3 Pro
Price, while reviewed: $79. Can be purchased from HifiGo

Build: The Cat Ear Mia is a bullet-shaped IEM.The entire housing including the nozzles is made of anodized aluminium. The back portion has a striking red color and is beveled from the rest of the housing, creating a rather unique design. The channel markings are in large font at the bottom of the housing, with a vent-hole next to them. The IEMs have mmcx terminations and by default there is a little rubber ring between the mmcx port and the cable joint. This apparently blocks another small vent and increases bass quantity, but I personally would recommend removing this ring because otherwise the bass is uncontrolled and bleeds into mids.

Overall, a no-frills yet solid build with subtle design hints that sets it apart from its peers.
4.5/5




Accessories: You get 6 pairs of eartips of two different kinds. I went for the slightly stiffer pink-stemmed tips. You also get a Cat Ear sticker (!), some extra rubber rings for blocking the vent near the mmcx stem, a serviceable carrying pouch, and of course the cable.

Ah, the cable, the worst thing in the accessory pack. It’s got a very grippy coating that catches on to jacket zippers very easily. To make matters worse: it’s incredibly tangle-prone and microphonic. The build quality is decent to be honest but the ergonomics are all over the place. Moreover there’s the uneven braiding of the cable itself that looks very janky from up close. The cable alone makes the accessory pack a disappointment and that’s a shame.
3/5



Comfort and Isolation: The nozzle is thicker than I prefer so the IEMs can slide out at times, thus not the most comfortable/unfussy fit out there. I think the stubby nozzle can make it more difficult for people with small canals. Isolation is average.
3.5/5


Now, on to the sound.

The Cat Ear Mia is a single-dynamic IEM with an 8mm PET diaphragm driver inside. Given the recent rage of Beryllium coated drivers the old PET diaphragm might seem a bit… lacklustre. Nonetheless, the proof is in the sound.

The Cat Ear Mia is a bass-forward IEM and can be called “L-shaped” in terms of frequency response skewness. The bass takes the center stage, female vocals sit right behind whereas male vocals and treble is at a distance.

The following impressions were made with the stock clear tips and stock cable. Listening mostly done on LG G7/Sony NW-A55. The rubber ring was removed.

Lows: With the aforementioned rubber-ring installed the bass becomes too muddy to have any definition whatsoever. Removing it results in a bloomy mid-bass and an overzealous sub-bass, but at least it’s listenable now. The bass lacks texture and just can’t keep up with fast basslines, with bass notes often bleeding into one another. Some basshead might like this presentation but I think the bass on the Cat Ear Mia is too distracting to be enjoyable across a range of genres. Nonetheless, it can get fun with some pop and rock songs so there’s that. Snare hits are also extra-juicy which is a guilty pleasure of mine.
3/5

Mids: The midrange on the Cat Ear Mia isn’t as bad as you’d expect from the graph. Lower mids sound recessed but male vocals do come through for the most part. Female vocals get more focus in comparison. Vocals do sound somewhat nasal and don’t have the correct tonality, which I suspect is a result of a too early rise into the upper-mids. You do get used to it pretty quickly. Strings come through pretty well, however the leading edge of notes lack bite and energy. Overall timbre is colored and not really what I’d refer to as “natural”. Resolved detail is average, it won’t get anywhere as detailed as the resolution champs in this price bracket.
3.5/5

Treble: The treble takes a nose-dive after 5KHz, resulting in a total lack of air and rather muted cymbal strikes and hi-hats. This dark-ish tuning would work well had the bass not been so boosted which results in a sensation of lower-res playback. Probably not what you’d expect when you’re spending $80 in the current market.

What little of treble is there is pretty inoffensive, but it’s just the bare minimum and IEMs at 1/3rd the price of the Cat Ear Mia does considerably better. A shame.
3/5


Soundstage: Soundstage is surprisingly wide given the imposing bass and lack of air in the treble region. It has just about average depth but the width allows good left/right separation and can make songs sound quite engaging.
4/5

Imaging: Imaging is average, mostly left/right. Instrument separation is, again, better than you’d expect given the signature. It won’t make you feel like you’re inside a 3D blob of sound, but very few in this price segment will.
3/5

Bang-for-buck: The Cat Ear Mia is built well and has a mainstream tuning. However, the accessory pack isn’t the best, the bass is just too much and overall technical performance is below par, if not way below par. It does have the coherence of a single-dynamic but even the timbre couldn’t become a redeeming factor. The one thing that acts as a saving grace for the Mia: it can be a fun listen with certain genres (rock/pop) and has a pretty laid back tuning that can be a plus for the treble-averse.
2.5/5

Source and Amping: The Cat Ear Mia doesn’t have a lot of amp demands at 105dB/mW sensitivity. It ran pretty well from the LG G7. I did like it most out of the Cayin N3 Pro (with tube mode engaged) but most dongles will do an adequate job.




Select Comparisons

vs Final E3000 ($60): Given that both the Final E3000 and the Cat Ear Mia are bullet-shaped IEMs a comparison between them is rather apt. The E3000 also opts for a dark and bassy tuning but rolls off in the sub-bass region instead of the major boost that Cat Ear Mia offers. The midrange is also tuned differently with more laid back midrange tuning in the E3000 whereas Mia has a bit more aggression in the upper-mids especially. The treble has better extension in the Final E3000, and in turn the Final E3000 also trounces the Cat Ear Mia in terms of soundstage and imaging/instrument separation. The E3000 does lack a detachable cable — its Achilles Heel according to many.

For my money — I’d probably get the E3000 though if it’s dark and bassy that I want. If you need more sub-bass focus then the Cat Ear Mia can be a more attractive option.

vs Moondrop Starfield ($109): The Moondrop Starfield also has a warm tuning but it is more of a mid-focused tuning. The Starfield is a great option for those who need up-front vocals, in stark contrast to the Cat Ear Mia. Soundstage and imaging is better on the Cat Ear Mia, however. And the Starfield comes with an even worse cable so there’s that.

vs Final E4000 ($129): The Final E4000 “fixes” the lack of sub-bass on the E3000 and can be considered a wholesale upgrade in most technical aspects (soundstage/imaging/separation). The E4000 also has a detachable cable. So far so good.

However, the amp demands are kind of overkill for such a budget device. Most phones and portable DAC/Amp dongles won’t be able to exert the full performance of the E4000. For that, you’d need a good portable amp or DAP, in stark contrast to the Cat Ear Mia.



Conclusion

For a debut product, Cat Ear could’ve done far worse. However, I do wish they did quite a bit better. as of now the Cat Ear Mia is average, if not overpriced. Current price is actually $20 lower than the $100 launch price but still — it’s getting outpaced by all its peers.

Cat Ear has nailed the industrial design (even though ergonomics need a bit more work), now I hope they focus more on the tuning side of things, and slightly better accessories won’t hurt either.

As for the Mia: I can’t wholeheartedly recommend it, alas.

Overall rating: 2.5/5
I find it overpriced given the performance on display

Review test tracks: https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/04350ebe-1582-4785-9984-ff050d80d2b7

This review originally appeared on my blog.

Ah, Cowon, never change!

While every manufacturer are focusing on providing streaming, BT, WiFi and all the bells and whistles inside their DAPs, Cowon is one of the few who are keeping things simple and basic.

Put in an SD card, load some music, go about your way.

The Cowon Plenue V is a good showcase for Cowon’s philosophy. It has one of the best DAC chips in the market for budget devices (CS43131), the battery life is awesome at 45hrs (rated) and of course Cowon’s entire focus went into sound tuning and overall sonic performance. It does have its own sets of quirks (proprietary OS with no connectivity features) so let’s see if the trade-offs are worth the price of admission.

Installed Firmware: 1.13 (latest)

Relevant specs are here.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. I purchased the Cowon Plenue V from their official store. Disclaimer

Price (when reviewed): $130. Available on Amazon.

IEMs/Headphones used: Final E5000/E3000/E1000/E500, Moondrop Starfield/A8, Tin T4, IMR R1 Zenith, Shuoer Tape, , Sennheiser IE40 Pro, Final Sonorous III, Sennheiser HD650

Accessories: Barebones, basically. There is a Cowon branded USB-cable and that’s it. No fancy screen protector, case or any extra. For the price I can’t complain too much given how much Cowon usually prices their cases but I expected at least a couple spare screen-protectors. Ah well…
1.5/5

Build: Build quality is where Cowon Plenue V pulls ahead of its competition by a margin. The entire chassis is a combination of CNC-cut aluminium and rubber-coated plastic. This is quite a departure to the more commonplace glass-aluminium combo that’s prevalent at this price-point.

The design is striking especially in the Ferrari-Red color that I’ve got. The sheen of the red-metal as light reflects off of it is something to behold and looks unlike anything I’ve seen in the price bracket. The body has sharp angles and an unapologetically bold design.

There is the headphone jack at the top-left side, whereas the bottom side tapers into a chisel-like shape with no physical controls or ports. On the right side of the device you can see the playback and volume control cluster. The buttons are clicky and has a nice feedback. They also don’t trigger accidentally when in the pocket. I also didn’t confuse among them when trying to change tracks or volume without looking since the tapered bottom pretty much ensures you know which orientation the device is in.

On the left side, there is the micro-USB port (ugh!) and a microSD slot (populated by a dummy card to keep out dust and debris). The Cowon Plenue V supports upto 128GB or cards but unfortunately that’s a hard limit apparently. If you have more than 200GB or music in your library the Cowon Plenue V will be a no-go for you.

At the back of the Cowon Plenue V we find a conspicuously hidden power button/status LED combo within the Plenue logo. The led is set to blink intermittently by default and it’s blindingly bright. I simply turned it off within first few minutes of use (Settings -> System -> LED -> Off). Most of the backplate is grippy rubber which feels great while handling but can attract oil and dust.

The top display is covered by what appears to be non-oleophobic coating tempered glass. It’s not one of those Corning variants and it will get smudged pretty quickly.

Overall, I can’t really complain about the build quality. All metal-build might have felt more dense but I like the grippy back here as well.
4.5/5




Display: The display is quite meh and even players half the Cowon Plenue V’s cost has better ones. It’s a 2.8" 320*240 pixel capacitive-touch display which translates to a paltry pixel density making texts look jagged/blurry. On the plus side, the display is bright enough to be used in sunny days outdoors and has a great viewing angle with decent colors/contrast.

The bottom bezel is pretty large but due to the red-color accent it doesn’t look as distracting. In short: not a great display in terms of resolution, size and panel quality but it gets the job done and also consumes little battery. Given the price, I’d be less critical.
2.5/5



Handling: In terms of weight and size of the player, the Cowon Plenue V fits entirely in your palm and weighs a mere 100gm which makes them very pocketable/portable.

Unfortunately, the design has its drawbacks with sharp corners that dig into the hand as you grip the player. It’s not “gonna cut yourself with it” level of sharp but it’s not a comfortable experience at all. A case is highly recommended.

Another issue is the location of the headphone jack but given the design decisions here (the bottom part completely tapers off) it’s understandable. Also the player doesn’t like sitting stable on the table as the oddly shaped back makes it spins and tilts randomly.
3/5

UI/Responsiveness: Not much to say about Cowon’s custom OS for their players. It’s based on Linux, it’s got all the audio functionalities you are likely to ask for including Parametric Equalization, DSP Effects, playlist management, true gapless playback and so on. True gapless btw is a very neat feature which pretty much stitches together all songs in your playlists in a contiguous single track and you can seek/forward through them with just the side buttons. Very neat and handy and kinda difficult to go back to regular players once you get the hang of this.

The OS has two basic (and kinda major) issues: Confusing iconography, and poor animations/slow frame-rate UI navigation. The CPU inside the Cowon Plenue V is nothing to write home about and it just barely gets the job done.

There is kinetic scrolling in the lists an of Artists/Tracks etc., it just doesn’t work reliably enough and abruptly stops at times. Fortunately just grabbing the side-bar on the UI and fast-scrolling to the desired location is pretty straightforward and works great. Going to Now Playing and tapping on the top-right icon shows a handy little shortcut screen and you can nearly change every useful setting right from there. The UI in general is mostly intuitive, unlike some of the stuff I’ve tried from Fiio and co (non-Android ones). There is also a handy clock up top so that you may keep track of your time while listening.

General navigation is simple enough and you get the hang of it quickly. It’s also a pretty stable platform and major slowdowns only occur when loading a track with very large album art. Even then it’s mostly tolerable. As a side-note, performance is definitely better than the old Cowon Pleune D which is a plus.

The Cowon Plenue V updates its song database at every restart. Fortunately that doesn’t take too long and boot times are pretty fast at ~13s for me. So yes, the UI isn’t good in terms of polish and overall smoothness but it gets the job done without much fuss and also has a positive impact on battery life (more on this shortly).
3/5



Connectivity: None. Yup, offline is the name of the game and I like this player for this very reason. If you need BT/WiFi this ain’t it. The only thing we find is that microSD slot and even that should be a type-C in 2020.
0.5/5

Battery Life: The Cowon Plenue V doesn’t have the absolutely jaw-dropping battery life of the Cowon Plenue D I reviewed before. However, at 40Hrs of playback time the Cowon Plenue V lasted ~2 weeks on a single charge for me with a few hours of use everyday. It’s beyond refreshing to have to only charge a device few times every month and not have yet another thing to charge daily.

Given the newer DAC chip, better performance and more output power, the Cowon Plenue V actually does an admirable job over the older Cowon Plenue D in terms of battery life, and that’s a huge positive of these Cowon players.
4.5/5


Great performance on paper, let’s see how the sound quality holds up.

Sound Quality: Talking about how a DAP sounds is bound to raise eyebrows in certain circles, but hey — you gotta talk about what you hear otherwise what’s even the point?
The Cowon Plenue V sounds unlike most of the DAPs you find around the $150 mark. Most of them go for the tried-and-tested Sabre ES9218P chipset which is a well performing chipset and has an otherwise analytical, sterile signature (unless you do something on the amp end or mess with reconstruction filters).
The Cowon Plenue V chooses a Cirrus Logic CS43131 chipset and the accompanying op-amp based amplification. They also didn’t go for the analytical route, rather chose for a smoother signature. The bass notes have more heft than neutral so you can even call it somewhat warmly tuned. Everything sounds as it should, so no coloration is going on in the mids and treble. The bass comes out a bit more prominent than most DAPs around the price, so pairing with bass-light IEMs can balance things out nicely. There is no background hiss even on the most sensitive IEM I have (JVC FX700) so that’s great news.

We also gotta talk about them JetEffects. They are some of the best DSP presets you can find in a DAP and goes toe-to-toe with Hiby’s MSEB. There is also a 5–band PEQ that offers 3 different frequency bands and q-factor adjustment on three levels: wide, narrow, normal. These are stuff that you have to try for yourself to see if they are suited to your tastes. I personally kept everything off and only tried the PEQ for Shuoer Tape (and it worked well). Finally, you can select reconstruction filters and there are five of them. I went for the Fast/Low-latency filter. These filters determine the nature of pre and post-ringing artifacts and thus can have some slightly perceptible sonic changes. Again, try them out and see what works for you.

On the downside, the Cowon Plenue V isn’t the most dynamic sounding player however, but this is only noticeable when A/B-ing against higher-tier DAPs. Also I wish it had the option to be used as a desktop DAC/Amp or there was a line-out option, but alas. Other than that, I think the Cowon Plenue V has a more mature and less aggressive sound compared to the more common DAPs in the price bracket.
4.5/5



Amp performance: The amp is pretty powerful and can drive most IEMs with ease. Only in cases when you need high current in low-ohm load do we run into troubles. Thus, using planar magnetic headphones like Hifiman Sundara is not the best idea. Sennheiser HD650 also got loud but lacked the dynamics you get from a beefier amp. Then there are inefficient dynamic drivers like Final E5000 which didn’t fare well. Final Sonorous III on the other hand was absolutely fine with its easier to drive nature.

The output is as powerful as other DAPs in the price bracket but will fall short of dedicated dongles/Amps or anomalies like E1DA PowerDAC V2.
4.5/5



Select Comparisons

vs Fiio M6 ($150): The Fiio M6 has the Android smarts and looking at the spec-sheet you’ll feel really enthused about them.

And then you try them out.

They are one of the most unusable DAP in existence. Everything stutters, grinds to a halt. The thing is slow and clunky and unlike the Cowon you don’t get consistent performance at all. Fiio Music is torture-tool that tests your patience to its limits. And the sound is literally nothing to write home about. Treble extension and layering is poor and there is the usual Sabre glare you find on poorly implemented Sabre DACs. Just avoid buying this thing altogether unless you really hate yourself or are just too enamored by playing Tidal on them (which doesn’t work btw, huh!)

vs LG G7 (~$250): Is it an upgrade over the LG phones? Yes it is, in terms of sound quality. Usability and feature set is on another plane on the LG phone and really no DAP in existence can match the performance of a SD845 totting ex-flagship so if you mostly want to stream songs via your BT headphones/TWS IEMs just don’t bother with another DAP as your phone will be the best bet indeed.

vs Sony NW-A55 (~$200): I love this Sony player for its usability, long-battery life, no-nonsense and smooth UI, and pretty great sound (when using a modded firmware, courtesy of MrWalkman). Too bad that these are a bit overpriced (in typical Sony fashion) for what they offer. I’d pick the A55 over the Plenue V as it has a more dynamic presentation and also has far more features/usability perks. Too bad that they cost $70 more so it’s something you should keep in mind.

vs Hiby R3 Pro (~$200): More power than the Cowon Plenue V? Yes. Better specced and has more quality-of-life improvements? Yes. Has similar epic battery life? No. Is the sound a big upgrade over the Plenue V? No, in fact, I prefer the Plenue V signature to the R3 Pro. The R3 Pro from its single-ended out is a bit too sterile for my tastes while the gentle warmth of the Cowon Plenue V can be very inviting. The R3 Pro however is very competitively priced and should be a great option if you want an all-in-one solution for your DAP needs.



Conclusion

The Cowon Plenue V caters to a niche, and if you fall in that particular niche they’ll serve you exceedingly well. I like weird things, especially if they sound good, so I also have a soft-spot for the Cowon Plenue V as I don’t really need to bother with the battery life for the most part.

If you need streaming services and a faster UI with more customization and options — stay away. In fact, stay away from everything Cowon, they won’t serve you and it’ll be an exercise in frustration.

If, however, you value great battery life, UI stability and sound above all else — be my guest.

Cowon after all doesn’t set the trend, they break it, for better or for worse.

Overall rating: 3.5/5
Recommended, if you don’t need the smart features and can live without balanced out

This review originally appeared on my blog.

I will cut to the chase with this one.

KZ ASF is an IEM I cannot recommend under any circumstances. KZ usually gets things somewhat right but this is a turd that you can’t polish, and anyone who tells me otherwise will only get a stare of disbelief.

KZ ASF is one of the new/refreshed models from KZ and apparently it replaces the AS10… or something like that among the dizzying array of IEMs they’ve released over the past three years. It almost feels like eternity, but I digress. The ASF is supposed to have a soothing sound without the trademark peaky KZ treble. In a sense, it has succeeded in that, but the solution was more like lopping the head off than cure the headache.

Extremities, man.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. The KZ ASF was sent as a review unit. Disclaimer.

Sources used: Sony NW-A55

Price (while reviewed): $60.

Accessories: The tips are decent (it’s a new variant, not the Starlines), the cable is decent, and as always KZ doesn’t find you worthy enough to throw in a carrying case or, *shudders*, pouch! But hey, we’re not getting this for silly ornaments, so we can look past that I guess.
3/5

Build: Yet-Another-Resin-Shell (YARS) makes an appearance again. The backplate of the KZ ASF is of aluminum (it seems) with some nice adornments on top. The nozzle is metal but be aware that it’s thinner (past the lip) than previous KZ offerings so some third-party tips may not fit snugly (Spinfit CP-100 for one).

The 2-pin ports are raised which sucks. Other than that, the KZ ASF shell quality and finish is adequate for the price-range. One thing that sticks out is the lack of any channel marking, even though KZ found the space for printing random text on the face-plate instead of something that’s more practical but hey… logic is at premium sometimes.
4/5




Comfort and Isolation: Despite the bulbous shape and larger-than-average housing the KZ ASF is fairly comfortable to wear. There is no driver flex as it’s an all-BA design and isolation is above-average. However, I can imagine someone with small ear-canals to have some potential fit issues but this likely won’t be widespread.
4/5


Now, onto the sound.

The KZ ASF is a 5-balanced armature design with the newly released “S” models of the previous Bellsing/Knowles clone BA drivers they were using. These drivers are apparently a new design and has improved things by a margin as per the claims. The bass driver (22955s) is apparently a vented design, though I didn’t see any bass-vent in the shell itself so I am doubtful about the proper implementation of the driver here. There is one mid-range driver (29689s), two upper-mid/lower-treble driver (31736s), and lastly one upper-treble driver (30095s). The drivers are arranged within a 3D-printed driver housing though there is no physical cross-over via tubing. KZ claims they put a lot of R&D effort behind this but the end results are hardly inspiring as we shall see.

The general sound signature of the KZ ASF is dark, with extremely rolled-off treble. The mids are overly scooped and upper-mids are too de-emphasized so there’s a severe lack of pinna gain. A dark v-shaped tuning is very hard to pull-off and KZ ASF fails spectacularly to pull off the trick.

The following impressions were made with the stock tips and cable.

Lows: Muddy, bloated, messy, flabby — pick your word. The low-end lacks sub-bass rumble and the extension is only a hum that has no definition or texture to it. The mid-bass boost also masks the subtle bass note shifts and there’s an utter lack of bass kick/slam. The bass is beyond disappointing, really, and I suspect that failure to vent a vented BA has resulted in this mess.

It’s just horrible. One listen and you’d know things are gonna go downhill.
1.5/5

Mids: The KZ ASF has a very strange midrange tuning. The lower-mids are scooped below 1KHz, but then there is a very sharp rise which peaks at 2KHz. This peak, however, isn’t enough here as there is a distinct lack of clarity. Female vocals are muffled, male vocals are nasal and honky. Nothing sounds right, midrange instruments are congested, their outlines blurred.

Resolved details in the mid frequencies are worse than some $10 IEMs nowadays. It’s incredible really how wrong things have gone here. If you thought the bass was poor, this whack mid-range tuning makes that look competent in comparison.
1/5

Treble: There is no treble extension at all. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip.

Cymbal strikes and hi-hats are barely registered. They are not just after-thoughts, they’re almost like aberrations that wasn’t even meant to be there but somehow spilled through the cracks. Even the most hardcore of metal tracks sound mushy, gushy, soggy as the sock after you accidentally step into a puddle.

There is a strange lower-treble peak around 5KHz that adds some presence but on some tracks this strange peak can induce fatigue and of course it’s just a straight downslope from there on. The treble doesn’t do much wrong because it doesn’t even exist, a bit like the second eye of cyclops.
1/5

Soundstage: Soundstage feels wide due to the de-emphasized upper-mids but there’s zero stage depth and height.
2/5

Imaging: Things are mostly placed left and right but there’s no sense of finer imaging. At this point, I have lost my hope anyway.
2/5

Bang-for-Buck: The KZ ASF will find itself short of the competition at $15.

It costs $60. Unless you want to use it as a modern art-piece (it’s not), a paper-weight (heavier things available for no cost), or something you gift to your enemies to piss them off — I can’t see the value in here.
0/5

Source and Amping: It gets very loud out of even regular phones and cheap dongles. Is that a good thing? Well, let’s assume for once it is.




SELECT COMPARISONS

vs BLON BL-03 ($25): The BLON BL-03 is much better than the KZ ASF in every single aspect apart from accessories and comfort.

vs BLON BL-05S ($35): The BLON BL-05S is much better than the KZ ASF in every single aspect apart from accessories and comfort.

vs Final E3000 ($50): The Final E3000 is much better than the KZ ASF in every single aspect.

vs Final E1000 ($30): The Final E1000 is much better than the KZ ASF in every single aspect.




Conclusion

The KZ ASF brings back nostalgia. It’s almost as if I’m listening to a no-name multi-BA IEM from 2014 bought off of Taobao, but only it costs $60 this time around instead of $6 and I’m left regretting my life choices.

Dear KZ, you have the resources, you have the capital, please oh please make use of them on something that is actually great. Not another derivative, or as is the case with the KZ ASF — not another disasterpiece.

Your fans deserve better, and you sure as heck should do a lot better.

Overall rating: 1/5
I have zero idea why this thing exists.

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

This review originally appeared on my blog.

Letting other people tune your earphones is quite a bold move.

This particular tendency, however, is in vogue lately and I won’t necessarily call it a bad thing. Other than having yet another shouty sham or treble trash-can, why not let the (experienced) users find the “right” sound for a change?

Solid idea, and the buyers shall be the judge of the execution.

KBEar took the decision to allow user-input/feedback into the tuning decisions of the KBEar diamond, their highest-end single-dynamic offering. While I did briefly audition their two previous earphones: the F1 and Hi7, those failed to spark any awe whatsoever. Will the Diamond, with that blingy name, break that trend? Let’s find out.


Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Le Yoo was kind enough to send out the review unit of the Diamond. Disclaimer

Sources used: Yulong Canary, Questyle QP1R, Cayin N6 II, LG G7
Price, while reviewed: $70. Can be bought from AK Audio Store (unaffiliated)

Build: I’ve already covered the builds, accessories, and packaging comprehensively in the initial unboxing/first impressions video. Check it out for further details:



To reiterate, the build quality is superb. The dense greenish metal shells coupled with the glass-back/carbon-fiber inlay and the shiny copper nozzle give these a very steampunk vibe. I adore this look but at the same time it might be polarizing for some. The 2-pin connectors are recessed and the nozzle length is adequate with a lip that keeps the tips in place. Due to the dual vents driver-flex isn’t an issue.
5/5

Accessories: The accessory set is rather fleshed-out. You get total of 7 pairs of eartips (5 pairs of silicone +2 pairs of foam ) and a rather nice carrying case. The 2-pin SPC cable, while being tangle-prone, is rather soft, easy to manipulate and the memory wire is quite malleable.

The PU leather carrying case has plenty of room and is quite a looker but unfortunately this particular design isn’t practical if you prefer carrying earphones inside your jeans pockets. The unsightly bulge (no pun intended) will surely look… awkward.



One thing to note is that it’s best to use wide-bore tips with these IEMs as narrow-bore tips tended to make them too dark in the treble. Stock tips have a wide-bore so you’re all set.
4.5/5

Comfort: Despite the dense housings, these are quite comfortable once you get the right tips on (I am using JVC Spiraldots). They don’t outright disappear into your ears, but they aren’t as intrusive as their bulk might make you believe. Isolation is also above-average despite the two vents so commuting is on the cards.
4.5/5



Now, onto the sound.

This is a single dynamic-driver setup (8.5mm), with the PET driver diaphragm being coated with a Diamond-like Carbon (DLC) layer. This particular diaphragm technology usually offers very fast transient response, and KBEar Diamond definitely displays that. The overall speed of the driver is very unique in this range (for a single-DD driver that is) as typical CNT (carbon nanotube) drivers don’t have the same speed.

The general sound signature is V-shaped, with the sub-bass focused bass boost contrary to the usual mid-bass bump, a recessed lower-mids and a rather dark treble response that lacks extension in the upper-treble region. This results in a bit of unique presentation in this price bracket: a V-shaped IEM that’s not spiky in the lower treble.

Lows: Definitely the standout aspect of the KBEar Diamond is its bass response. The sub-bass focus over mid-bass basically gives this 2.1 subwoofer-esque feel to the overall signature where the sub-bass feels separated from the rest of the sound. It’s not necessarily a coherency issue, more like a psychoacoustical phenomenon that arises due to the ~40Hz peak in the bass region. Do note that this is with wide-bore tips. If you use a narrow bore tip e.g. Final E-type, the mid-bass also gets a bump but that’s more destructive than constructive as it bleeds into the midrange and generally gives the sensation of uncontrolled bass.

This bass response can definitely be divisive, but on genres that focus on deep bass rumble the Diamond delivers in spades. Tracks like Siamese Youth’s Nariyah Thanei sound sensational with sudden bass drops being perfectly portrayed. Bass speed is commendable as well, and definitely blows past most single-dynamic earphones in this range. John Mayer’s Clarity showcases this, esp the first 1:20 seconds of the track. Bass is articulate with great texturization of instruments.

The issue lies with the under-emphasized mid-bass vs the sub-bass. Snare hits, when accompanied by an underline sub-bass line, lacks the weight you’d expect from a V-shape tuning. In isolation though, they sound really good, case in point: the opening 40 seconds of Godsmack’s Straight out of Line. This is the only reason why I won’t categorize these as bass-head dream, but they get quite close indeed.
4/5

Mids: Owing to a lack of mid-bass bleed into the lower mids, and a rather steeply recessed lower-midrange, the male vocals sound distant. They don’t really sound thin per se, but they lack the fullness you’d expect if you’re coming from a more neutral/reference earphones/headphones. Take Johnny Cash’s Hurt for example. The lowest octaves of the virtuoso’s voice isn’t perceptible, and that does take away somewhat from the presentation. This mostly occurs in baritone vocals or deep death growls (for metalheads), and typical Pop/Rock vocals are mostly fine.

The upper-mid, fortunately, isn’t subdued at all and has a pretty significant boost to bring back some clarity in the midrange. This doesn’t lead to any shoutiness rather mostly helps in reproducing the upper-harmonics for string instruments (check out the guitar strumming on Daniel Cavanagh’s The Exorcist to have a feel for this). Female vocals are also less distant as a result, though again the lower-octave vocals lack the fullness you’d expect.

Overall midrange tonality is relaxed and smooth, without any harsh peaks and the timbre is quite accurate. The lack of depth in some instruments and vocals is what robs it off of perfection.
4/5

Treble: Laid back — in two words. There is absolutely no treble peak whatsoever and it’s rather refreshing to find in this range. Unfortunately, I think the downward slope is a bit too steep from 3KHz onwards, and should have taken a slower downturn. The sudden drop is very noticeable from 6KHz onwards, and this results in cymbals abruptly fading away into nothingness. On Breaking Benjamin’s The Diary of Jane the cymbals are rather muted, failing to reproduce the raw and aggressive nature of the track. The upper treble extension is also negligible and definitely the weakest point of this IEM.

Despite all that, I don’t mind this non-offensive treble response given it’s better to have slightly muted treble response than a grating/harsh one. However, if you need treble sparkle, the KBEar Diamond won’t be for you.
3/5



Note: the following two sections may have varying perceptions for each individual due to a number of factors e.g. pyschoacoustics, insertion depth, ambient noise etc.

Soundstage: While the soundstage height and depth on the KBEar Diamond can be categorized as average to above-average, the soundstage width is definitely below average. Voices and instruments float just around the periphery of the earphones, so you don’t get an out-of-head soundstage. Nothing to write home about, really.
3.5/5

Imaging: Lateral imaging is good, with a really good left/right separation. Where the imaging falls apart is the ordinal imaging, that is top-left/top-right and such directions aren’t portrayed well at all. The central image is also hazy, thus centered-vocals seem to come from the same distance and position despite their position relative to the instruments in the original mastering. Again, just average even when compared to cheaper IEMs.
3/5




Bang-for-buck: When it comes to overall price-to-performance ratio, the Diamond is in a good position I’d say. The dark treble response shouldn’t distract from the stunning build, good accessories and a generally safe tuning that will cater to those who likes a dose of bass boost without sacrificing midrange tonality or timbre. You’re also getting the speed of DLC driver at $70, and it’s also a great option for treble-averse listeners and one of few such options in the price bracket.
4/5

Source and Amping: The KBEar Diamond, with 102 dB/mW @ 16 ohms sensitivity, is rather easy to drive. The impedance curve is also fairly linear, so pairing with higher output-impedance sources won’t result in a disaster. In short: very much a plug-and-play with little need for dedicated sources.

Select Comparisons

vs Tin T4 ($80–$100): The sound signature is polar opposite. Tin T4 aims for a bright, analytical signature whereas the KBEar Diamond goes for a dark, bassy, smooth rendition.

The build quality and general Quality Control is miles better on the KBEar Diamond. The T4 has several Quality Control issues that shouldn’t be swept under the radar. I ended up returning mine due to the wobbly mmcx connector. Comfort is also markedly better on the Diamond without the odd fit of the T4.

In terms of bass response, the T4 bass is more coherent with a mild mid-bass boost and mostly linear sub-bass response. The Diamond’s bass reaches deep however with visceral sub-bass impact. As for the mid-range, the T4 has a cold mid-range that can get shouty rather easily. While the male vocals on T4 is more up-front than the KBEar Diamond, its tendency to get grating and harsh can be problematic. String instruments do have more bite and energy on the T4 so I’d say they are more suited to acoustic genres.

The treble response is where my contention lies with both of them. The T4 is a bit too bright, and the Diamond is a bit too dark. Soundstage feels closed in on both of them, and while central imaging is better on the T4, overall it’s nothing too special either.

Yin and Yang. Choose you side.

vs Final E3000 (~$60): Speaking of relaxing, dark-ish earphones, the Final E3000 is one of those IEMs that caught be off-guard. I got them mostly for review, and planned to give them away as a gift once the review was done. In the end I liked them way too much and now they are my EDC (everyday carry).

In terms of overall build: I’d hand it to the KBEar Diamond. E3000 lacks a detachable cable and the stock cable is flimsy. However, comfort is even better on the E3000 as they just disappear into your ears thanks to the barrel-type shape and excellent Final E-type tips.

When it comes to the sound, both of them have a relaxing signature. The E3000 doesn’t sound as dark as the Diamond however thanks to its greater lower-treble emphasis and more extension in the upper-treble region. The sub-bass is definitely more rolled off on the E3000 vs the Diamond, but the midrange has much more body to it resulting in great male/female vocal reproduction. I’d even call the E3000 the midrange specialists in the <$100 price-bracket since their mid-range rendition and overall instrument separation is excellent.

Soundstage and imaging is also significantly better on the Final IEM, and all these results in a more engaging listen on the E3000 compared to the KBEar Diamond. However, if you prefer more bass emphasis and is wary of the build quality of the E3000, the Diamond will be more up to the task.

vs Moondrop Starfield ($109): The Starfield costs slightly more than the Diamond and is often touted as the default recommendation in the $100 price bracket. I tend to agree with that statement, but the Diamond have a few cards up its own sleeves.

The build and accessories, again, goes to the Diamond. The Starfield’s paint chips off if you don’t handle them with care, and the stock cable is awful. Diamond fares much better in this regard. I’d say comfort is mostly similar on both of these IEMs though I find the Starfield a tad more comfortable.

Sub-bass, again, is more pronounced on the Diamond. Starfield has more focus on the mid-bass and lacks the rumble that the Diamond can produce. The midrange is rendered better on the Starfield I’d say, along with the treble. Soundstage and imaging is also better on the Moondrop offering, though the difference is not as stark as it was against the Final E3000.

If you have the budget for either of them, I’d recommend the Starfield between these as they align more to my own tastes and generally sound more balanced. However, do take into account the ~$30 extra price, and add to that the cost of a third-party cable. You’re basically paying 50% of the price of the Diamond to make the Starfield up to the task, so there’s that.



Conclusion

KBEar has come a long way with the release of the Diamond. The build quality belies the price-tag, the accessories are great and won’t likely require additional purchases. The tuning is inoffensive, and caters to an audience that many ignore nowadays: the treble-averse listener who won’t mind a beefy sub-bass. Most importantly, it ditches the ever-so-popular lower-treble peaks that most manufacturers go for these days and I’d definitely chalk that up as a positive.

Unfortunately, I am just not convinced that this particular tuning will garner many fans. It lacks the immediate clarity that many look for while auditioning IEMs, and that’s something a more pronounced lower-treble would’ve fixed. However, it will reward the long-term listener and will likely grow on you with time. The smooth midrange is especially soothing, though I wish it had a fuller lower-mid since most of my playlist is with male vocals. Also, the soundstage and imaging isn’t as good as I hoped them to be.

Thus, we end up with a mostly well-rounded rough gem that just needs the last bit of polish to attain budget-perfection, or a version of it at least.

Overall rating: 3/5

https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/04350ebe-1582-4785-9984-ff050d80d2b7

This review originally appeared on my blog.

Many assumed BLON as being a one-hit wonder, and rightly so.

The BL-03 was so unlike their previous releases and the successor BL-05 being completely outta whack in comparison made it seem like BLON accidentally struck the pot of gold and now were digging through their entire backyard in supreme desperation with hopes of another miracle.

The BL-05S was released without much fanfare. Frankly, I initially assumed they were just releasing the BL-05 with a new (and gaudy) paintjob, but the promotional materials suggested a completely new and retuned driver. BLON apparently has figured out the issues with the BL-05 and fixed them all, while royally messing up the color palette.

Yup, I’m being a bit too hung over that color scheme. Let’s just get on with the review, shall we?

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. BLON was kind enough to send the BL-05S as a review unit. Disclaimer.
Sources used: Questyle QP1R, YuLong Canary, Cowon Plenue V, Sony Walkman A55
Price, while reviewed: $45.

Build: The BLON BL-05S is made of the same Kirsite alloy as the BL-05 and BL-03 before it. The actual design mirrors that of the BL-05 with a gold-insert on the back and a vent on the inner side. The connector is again 2-pin. The dimensions have changed though and the BLON BL-05S is slightly more bulbous, likely to accommodate the new driver.

However, it’s really hard to get past that color. It’s probably called Mint Green or something and everyone I’ve shown this to have had negative to mixed reactions. It takes a brave soul to wear these outside while commuting — that’s all I’m gonna say about this. BLON really needs to offer a different color option (as they’ve done with the BL-03 which now comes in purple) since a number of potential buyers will immediately discard it due to the color. It’s so bad that you almost forget the tacky gold-insert at the back. Ah well…
4/5



Accessories: Horrible tips, useless cable, a janky pouch… completely worthless. If you’ve owned a BLON IEM in the past you likely got some third-party tips and/or cables. Make good use of them. Otherwise get ready to spend $15 extra on a pair of tips and an aftermarket cable.
1/5

Comfort and Isolation: BLON BL-05S has better ergonomics than the BL-03 but falls slightly short of the BL-05 due to the slightly thicker shell that presses against the ears and doesn’t provide as flush a fit. The nozzle is still short so you’d need tips with longer stem (e.g. Spinfit, Final E-type etc.) for a flush fit and tight seal. Driver vent has been improved over the older models, albeit there can be some pressure build-up from time to time (nothing too problematic). Isolation is average but you can get better results with foam tips.
4/5



Now, on to the sound.

BLON BL-05S has an all new 3rd gen Carbon Nanotube (CNT) driver apparently. BLON also advertised the BL-05 similarly but that was a massive letdown.

Fortunately this time the claims check out. The driver has faster transients and sound more controlled as a result. Detail retrieval has had a generational leap as well. There is apparently a new (thicker) CCAW voice coil as well.

The general sound signature is similar to that of the BL-03 but with one important change: the mid-bass has been dialed down slightly and sub-bass extension has been reduced to some degree. This subtle modification makes noticeable change to the signature compared to the BL-03 and the BL-05S is more of a technical listen with some of the BL-03’s warmth but lacks the analogue lushness of the predecessor. In return, you get a boost in technicalities, as we shall explore in the following.

The following impressions were made with the Acoustune AET-07 tips and an aftermarket cable ($10 SPC one from AliExpress).

Lows: The lows are no longer as prominent as they were in the BL-03 and BL-05. BLON BL-05S goes the other direction with a leaner bass-response. The mid-bass is pretty well tuned and doesn’t bleed into lower-mids or congest the upper-bass. There is some emphasis at the start of the sub-bass region (~60Hz) but sub-bass starts dropping off around 40Hz and by 30Hz you just faintly hear it.

Sub-bass rumble is absent, as is evident on Siamese Youth’s Nariyeh Thanei. Bass is fairly textured though not the most textured in the price bracket (Final E3000 does that best). Bass decay is faster than typical DD though that’s partly due to the rolled-off sub-bass and toned down mid-bass. Transition of bass notes in fast flowing bass sections is adequate, not as precise as some BA drivers or dynamic driver setups with stiffer diaphragms (e.g. DLC/Beryllium). Snare hits were good, but not as authoritative or satisfying as I like them.

Overall, good bass response, but not great.
3.5/5

Mids: The BLON BL-03 made the mid-range its bread and butter. Subsequently the BL-05 made the mid-range its biggest point of contention. BLON BL-05S tries to address the issues of the BL-05 rather than refining on the warm nature of the BL-03. The midrange here has some warmth, but it’s quite minimal compared to the BL-03.

Lower mids are neither thin not overly full, rather it borders on neutral in terms of note-weight. Tip and fit might change this perception slightly. Upper-mids do get that typical peak around 2.5/2KHz but surprisingly doesn’t sound as shouty as the previous BL-05 despite having a similar level of boost. BL-03 avoided this largely due to the bass that would mask the upper-mids to some extent. BL-05S tames the bass down by a few notches and has similar upper-mid boost, but somehow avoids shoutiness in most cases. Damien Rice’s Elephant should get shouty but it surprisingly didn’t. It bordered on shoutiness on Natalia Imbruglia’s Torn but that’s about it. To my ears, it didn’t cross the threshold with the usual tracks. There was no sibilance. String instruments had a nice bite to them without being strident. Macrodynamics were superior to most IEMs in the range with subtle gradation in instrument/vocal volumes being evident.

Resolved details in the mid frequencies is above average, especially for a single-DD setup. Midrange timbre was not the most natural truth be told, there is some coloration which I like to call “upper-mid shine”. Everything has a tinge of brightness added due to the upper-mid boost, but it’s something you get used to quickly and not detrimental or destructive to my ears.
4.5/5

Treble: The BLON BL-05S doesn’t try to mess with the treble too much. It’s a safe-ish tuning with no extra peak between 4 — 10KHz. The upper frequencies are dipped post 4Khz but not rolled-off which helps the treble maintain its presence throughout without being a pain-point. It peaks around 12/13KHz to add some air into the mix and then drops off.

Cymbal strikes and hi-hats had a satisfying crispness to them. In Lamb of God’s Ruin from the 2:30 marks onwards there is a great solo section with hard-hitting drums accompanying the riffs. Cymbal hits/hi-hats weren’t splashy, and crush cymbals didn’t sound smeared at all. Even in faster drum sections I didn’t feel congestion.

I really can’t complain much about the treble here, even more so when I look at the price tag. Separation of notes isn’t the strongest in the treble area but this is a common theme across all single-DD IEMs in the price bracket so it’s mostly an expected weakness.
4/5




Soundstage: Soundstage is wider than average, and definitely the widest among all BLON models until now. BLON BL-05S also has a surprisingly tall stage for such a small shell so color me surprised. Soundstage depth isn’t class leading however.
4/5

Imaging: Now, I wasn’t expecting the BLON BL-05S to have such excellent imaging. It really caught me off-guard. Instrument separation and layering is top notch, better than certain $100 models *cough* Tin T4 *cough* Moondrop Starfield *cough*.

The only time where the imaging suffers is when something is happening at the back of your head (common weakness with most IEMs). Cardinal/Ordinal imaging was mostly spot on (as defined by the mix). Left-right separation was impressive as well, and if you can pair the BL-05S with a balanced cable to connect with portable sources you are in for a treat.
4.5/5

Bang-for-Buck: This is a bit difficult to ascertain in case of the BLON BL-05S.

Firstly the price goes ~$60 with extra cables and tips (unless you already got some around). It’s playing with some established IEMs in the range i.e. Final E2000/E3000, Tin T2 Plus, iBasso IT00, and their own BL-03 and the other numerous hybrids that gets released at an alarming frequency.

The BL-05S does cut a little niche for it. It’s got the technical chops without going overboard with the details ala Tin T4. A single-dynamic is also more coherent overall than multi-BA or hybrids. The paintjob is a divisive point though this is something I’d judge based solely on sound quality.
4/5




Source and Amping: The BLON BL-05S is fairly easy to drive and will get loud out of most portable gear. However, it does scale surprisingly well for such a budget IEM. I got the best performance when connected to Yulong Canary and frankly I didn’t expect such improvement over, say, the LG G7. That being said, I don’t encourage buying a dedicated source just to run these IEMs. Source should never be the most expensive item in a chain, or at least for the most part (Electrostats are another story).

However, if you own a nice desktop amp or two try plugging in the BL-05S into them, especially if they offer a fully balanced architecture. You’ll be pleasantly surprised. Also pairing with slightly warm sources is recommended.



Select Comparisons

vs BLON BL-03 ($25): The BLON BL-05S has better fit/comfort vs the BL-03 and both share horrible accessories. Sigh.

In terms of sound, BL-03 is considerably warmer and bassier with a more lush midrange tonality whereas the BLON BL-05S lowers the warmth and focuses a bit more on clarity. Treble is also slightly more emphasized on the BL-05S and has more upper-treble reach. On the other hand the bass on the BL-03 hits harder even though it’s not the cleanest of bass responses. Soundstage, imaging is considerably better on the BL-05S, so is instrument separation and dynamics.

The BLON BL-05S is more of a complementary IEM to the BL-03 than an outright replacement, though I haven’t used the BL-03 once since getting the BL-05S so there’s that.

vs BLON BL-05 ($35): The BLON BL-05S is better in every single aspect. No contest.


vs Final E3000 ($50): The Final E3000 has far better accessories and are also more comfortable.

In terms of sound, the E3000 has a more laid back sound with more recessed upper-treble. It has a very soothing tonality that may sound too dark upon first listen but it does have a decent treble response. The bass is slightly better on the E3000 due to more thump and better texturing, though they also suffer from similar roll-off issues. The midrange is a toss-up though I prefer the E3000 more for vocals. String instruments and distortion guitars fare better on the BLON BL-05S.

Treble is similar in terms of detail retrieval on both, though the BL-05S has more pronounced lower treble. If you’re very treble-averse or just want something completely fatigue-free no matter what you throw at it: try the Final E3000. Otherwise BLON BL-05S will be more genre agnostic.

Instrument separation/layering/dynamics were slightly better on the Final E3000, however, and same applies to soundstage/imaging. Overall resolution though was in BLON BL-05S’ favor. In short: I like both of these IEMs and would gladly own both of them for a combined $100 instead of spending that on something mediocre like, say, the Moondrop Starfield (reviewed here) which both the BL-05S and Final E3000 beats with aplomb.



Conclusion

The BLON BL-05S is not without its issues. The accessories are a disgrace at this point. The bass lacks sub-bass rumble and lacks extension. The midrange may get a bit shouty for very sensitive people. The treble meanwhile isn’t the most resolving out there and would likely lose to some multi-BA offerings in terms of sheer resolution. As an aside — the model name causes confusion with the old one. To top it all: the color scheme is fashion-suicide and I had to shed part of my dignity as I went outside wearing them in the metro just to check isolation. sigh

As an overall package though, sonically, the BL-05S is hard to beat. It handled every genre well, had good staging and great imaging/instrument separation, and can still be retrofitted under $60 with a nice pair of tips and a decent cable.

The BL-05S is the second BLON earphone that I can recommend without reservation. It’s earned that medal.

Overall rating: 4/5
Recommended

https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/04350ebe-1582-4785-9984-ff050d80d2b7

This review originally appeared on my blog.

Nobody releases earphones as frequently as KZ does.

Even the past week they probably released one or two of them, and that’s not even counting their sister-brand CCA who also has their own releases. Saturate the market so much that no matter what people look for it’s your product they end up with. It’s a business strategy that’s not possible unless you follow a specific “no R&D, just buy off-the-shelf stuff and paste your sticker on them” mantra that KZ almost pioneered in a sense.

The ZST X is the upgrade to their (very popular) ZST model. The driver config is the same (1DD + 1BA) but the dynamic driver seems to have been upgraded. Also the accessories have seen a nice face-lift without adding much to the price-tag. Let’s see if we can find a budget gem in here.


Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. The ZST X was a review unit. Disclaimer

Sources used: LG G7, iPhone SE
Price, while reviewed: $15.

Build: Call it resin, call it plastic — it’s the same old 3D-printed shell that common across approximately 23518 different IEMs. It doesn’t look gaudy unlike certain recent releases and I quite like the bottle-green color-scheme so there’s that.

You can see both the single DD and the BA driver in the nozzle since the nozzle is also plastic, unlike the metal nozzles in most such models (though the dust-filter is metal). The model name “ZST X” is printed in large cursive fonts on the back of the IEM. There are no channel markings anywhere surprisingly so be a bit careful while attaching the wire. There is a single vent-hole on the inner-side and it’s enough to alleviate driver-flex. The connectors are slightly recessed 2-pin and has a snug-fit with the supplied cable.
4/5


Accessories: The basics are covered, and they are covered well. You get the very nice Starline tips along with a “SPC” cable (though I’m fairly certain it’s not Silver there, Tin plated would be more accurate). Nonetheless, the SPC cable is a massive improvement over old KZ cables (which was an ergonomic nightmare and of poor quality in general). You don’t need to replace it at all and you’re good to go right out of the box. There ain’t any carrying case but for that price I’ll let it slide.
4.5/5



Comfort/Isolation: The fit and general comfort of the ZST X is very good. It’s lightweight, has no sharp edges and can be worn for long hours. Isolation is below-average with the Starline tips however.
4/5

Now, onto the sound.

The KZ ZST X is a single dynamic + single balanced-armature driver hybrid IEM. The 10mm PET diaphragm driver is taking care of the bass (and perhaps the lower-mids) whereas the 30095 BA driver is taking care of the upper frequencies. It’s a setup we’ve seen a thousand times by now and I’ve always been less than impressed with the sound more often than not.



The general sound signature is V-shaped with a very sizable bass-boost and recessed lower-midrange. There is the usual 2KHz and 4KHz peaks (a default “signature” of many chi-fi offerings) but the latter lower-treble peak is less aggressive in comparison and thus doesn’t sound as piercing. In short: a very on-your-face tuning that falls just short of aggressive.

Bass: The ZST X gets a very prominent sub-bass boost that starts right below 100Hz and goes climbing until 20Hz. The sub-bass is boosted by at least 5/6dB over the mid-bass, so a lot of the bass-texture is lost in the process. It is a punchy listen though, and won’t bother you if you’re mostly after extension and punch instead of texture and subtlety. Bass isn’t too invasive and doesn’t bleed much into the lower-mids. In fact, the mids sound detached from the lows, giving rise to tonal incoherency. Then again, I should probably not complain much about these in a cheap hybrid.

To summarize: punchy, plentiful bass. Should satisfy most unless you need even more bass or severely reduced/more linear bass.
4/5

Mids: The midrange is thin, borders on shoutiness and has a colored tonality that focuses on upper-harmonics. Male vocals lack heft and fullness, so does lower-octave notes. Female vocals are put on the forefront and can get intense (e.g. certain Avril Lavigne songs). However, higher-pitched string instruments sound crisp with well-defined attack, so not all is lost. Timbre is wrong, but not overly so. Detail retrieval is above-average for the price-class (<$20).

This is not a neutral or natural midrange, but if you’re after an exciting presentation without much regard for accuracy this will serve you well.
3.5/5

Treble: Treble is mostly muted past the initial 4KHz spike. Cymbal hits aren’t emphasized and can even sound muted/lifeless based on track/mastering. Treble decay is unnaturally quick, with cymbal hits often disappearing into the void without exhibiting resonance. I’m not complaining much though as it’s miles better than piercing treble spikes, sibilance or straight-out treble harshness. There isn’t any upper-treble extension to speak of. The ZST X doesn’t offend in particular, and that’s a better compliment than I can give to most cheap hybrids.
3.5/5



Soundstage: Soundstage is closed-in, with average width and height. Stage depth is quite good for the price though. It’s in fact one of the highlights of this IEM.
4/5

Imaging: Imaging is pretty good thanks to the above-average stage-depth. It doesn’t quite get the ordinal imaging correct (top-left, bottom-right etc.) but it’s a weakness of even many (hyped) $100 IEMs so it’s acceptable. Instrument separation and layering is also good, a cut above most hybrids in this price-bracket. It can get hazy in faster/busier tracks but given the pricing (again) I don’t see the point of nitpicking.
4/5

Bang-for-buck: The KZ ZST X faces still competition in this price bracket but most of the cheap hybrids are really poorly tuned and doesn’t come with any half-decent accessories. In fact, all the IEMs I can think of that are noticeably better cost $25 at least.

The ZST X has a colored but not too offensive tuning and isn’t as fatiguing as most other budget hybrids. The provided accessories are also good enough and won’t need replacing (unlike, say, BLON BL-03/05). I’d say it’s definitely worth the price if you’re after a V-shaped signature.
4/5

Source and Amplification: It runs off of everything and gets loud quite easily. Mobile devices or cheap DAPs/BT dongles/DAC dongles — nothing matters. As long as the source has a clean enough output, you’re good to go.



Select Comparisons

vs KBEar KB04 ($25): The KB04 has better bass, similar mids and more fatiguing treble. It’s built better, costs almost twice as much. It does resolve significantly more detail and also has better upper-treble reach with superior imaging/similar staging. KB04 is still the best budget hybrid I’ve tried till date, but the ZST X does most of the things at a cheaper price.

vs Moondrop Spaceship ($20): The Moondrop Spaceship hits close to the diffused-field target response and thus has more anemic bass and slightly shoutier upper-mids. It’s also more resolving, has more air in the upper-treble and generally more reference tuning. Unfortunately, it needs a lot of power to drive properly and the source you need to have to run these are far more expensive than the IEMs themselves. Also, the cable is non-detachable and if that bothers you, ZST X is the better choice.

vs Final E500 ($25): The E500 has a smoother sound and can sound phenomenal on binaural tracks/live tracks/games/movies. In regular joint-stereo tracks does it loses some of its shine. It’s a specialist IEM that has a great tuning and tonality along with spectacular imaging. It’s biggest issue: availability. It’s a lot harder to come across and might involve ordering from abroad. Sigh.




Conclusion

KZ has been (rightly) criticized for their rapid-fire releases that mostly sound similar/same and at times: worse than the model it’s supposed to replace *cough* ZS6 *cough*.

The ZST X, fortunately, is a wholesale upgrade over the model it replaces (KZ ZST). It’s also a very good choice in the <$20 bracket if you’re comfortable with the V-shaped signature (and upper-mid emphasis). It’s cheap, it ain’t shabby, and for the price (that dreaded word) — I don’t find any deal-breaking flaw.

Overall Rating: 2.5/5

Review test tracks: https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/04350ebe-1582-4785-9984-ff050d80d2b7

This review originally appeared on my blog.

Note: The rating above is only for the Cipher V2/Analog cable version at retail prices. Cipher V1 rating is much higher and for good reasons.

If you know what a planar magnetic driver is, you definitely know Audeze.

They’ve becomes ubiquitous to this particular driver type and definitely know the ins and outs of how to make the best out of such drivers. Their house sound, while divisive, can get addictive, and thus have garnered them a loyal following.

The iSine 10 has been been out for years now. Heck, it’s older brother, the iSine 20 has already been discontinued and succeeded by the LCD i3. The iSine 10 has somehow made the cut and is still in production even though the retail price is quite inflated for what you get. It’s still the only open-back planar IEM in the price bracket and nothing really offers quite the same feature-list.

Let’s see if the iSine 10 is still relevant or has it already been left in the dust.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. I bought the Audeze iSine 10 with my own funds, still, Disclaimer.

Sources used: Questyle QP1R, YuLong Canary, iPhone SE (Cipher cable)
Price, while reviewed: $300-$400 (B-stocks, when available: $150)



Build: The iSine 10 is all black-plastic exterior with the signature metal mesh placed under the housing. This is a fully open-back design so you don’t have to worry about driver-flex. One thing to note is that the first revisions that came with Cipher v1 cable has the silver grille. This was later replaced with black grille on newer models (ones with Cipher v2 cable).

The nozzle is pretty long and stubby and most third-party tips will have a hard time fitting. There is a reason for that bulk though: it’s got an entire mechanism inside to control the phase of the soundwaves generated by the front of the driver. They’re calling it Fazor again, though it’s different from the Fazor they have in the LCD series full-size headphones in terms of implementation. There was a huge Innerfidelity article regarding this that I wanted to link here (since Tyll manages to explain the whole thing better than anyone else can or probably could) but unfortunately that site is no more (RIP) so I’d rather link to the excellent video review where you get all that info.



The 2-pin socket is recessed and has a snug fit once you use the stock cable. The inner-side of the IEM also has some ridges where you can set-in the earguides/hooks for a better fit.

Decent build quality in short though due to the all-plastic build it doesn’t quite match the price-tag.
4/5



Accessories: The accessory package is well-fleshed out. You get the two cables (depending on the Cipher V1 vs V2, cable will be either flat for the former, or usual rounded style for the latter), 6 pairs of tips, 2 pair of ear-guides of various sizes, a carrying pouch which is nice, a thumb-drive with… the user guide (why?), a plastic credit-card sized certificate of authenticity, and a cleaning brush. It’s basically got you covered. I can definitely complain about the looks/design of the analogue cable but I think it will be useless anyway (more on this later). The Cipher cable (lightning version) has a bulkier remote in the V1 with more tactile buttons. V2 is slimmer and the button arrangement is different. Both add considerable bulk to the cable, V1 more so.

Overall, I can’t find anything to complain about in terms of quality/quantity of the accessories.
5/5

Comfort and Isolation: For me, the iSine 10 (and this will likely apply to all the iSine/LCD i stuff) is just not comfortable esp when wearing with the Cipher cable where the added bulk makes things very awkward. The earhooks are stiff and doesn’t have a good weight distribution (due to lack of snug fit). Speaking of weight: each earpiece is 10g or so. Not suitable for people with small ear-canals. Your mileage may vary but definitely try them out before buying. Also, there’s zero isolation so there’s that.
2.5/5



Now, onto the sound.

Spoiler alert: without the Cipher cable, I don’t at all recommend the iSine. So if you were not planning to get the Cipher cable, you can just skip the rest of the review as I won’t be recommending the iSine 10 to you or anyone (unless we have some long-standing enmity). If you are planning to get it with the Cipher cable, read on.


The driver is a 30mm planar with Fluxor magnets on one side of the diaphragm (or so it appears on the images). This makes sense, as the already heavy-ish weight of 10gm (which is actually very light by typical planar standards) would be unmanageable with a double-sided array.

The voice coil is ultra-thin and custom built to have a very-low Total Harmonic Distortion (THD). In general terms, this means that the drivers can take some serious equalization (which is true to some extent).

Nominal impedance is 16ohm and with a 110dB/mW sensitivity the IEMs should be surprisingly easily drivable, though people seem to find miraculous improvements with amping…

As for the general sound signature, I’ll cut to the chase: iSine 10 is a crippled earphone without the Cipher cable. More specifically — the Cipher V1 cable, as Audeze has managed to ruin things in the Cipher V2 by making things more V-shaped and just generally more unrefined. The sound through the analog cable (aka the non-DSP corrected sound, or default signature)is all sorts of wrong and I would find offensive even on a $35 earphone let alone a $350 one.

I find talking about the analog cable just a waste of time. If you are planning to run the iSine 10 like that I would highly recommend against it, unless that’s the signature you prefer which is absolutely fine. The sound impressions below will be out of the Cipher V1 cable, and I will also compare with the Cipher V2 along the way. In terms of tips, the Groove tips with their ribbed surface fared well for me. Also note that with the Cipher cable the Audeze app is highly recommended (look for it on the App Store).

Bass: Lacks quantity in Cipher V1 cable, whereas Cipher V2 is too sub-bass heavy. I prefer the Cipher V1 rendition though you can EQ down the Cipher V2 bass via the app (and it’s stored on the Cipher cable which is neat).

Meanwhile, without the Cipher cable the bass is a bit uncontrolled. The app doesn’t allow proper PEQ but very effective nonetheless. Generally, bass speed is fast, with no noticeable bleeding into the mids. The sub-bass on Audeze iSine 10 lacks rumble and physicality even after EQ, I guess that’s one of the issues with the open-back design. Extension is great however. Fast flowing bass sections were easily handled.
4.5/5 (Cipher V1)
4/5 (Cipher V2)
3.5/5 (Analogue)

Mids: This is the most contentious part of the Audeze iSine 10 for me. The midrange is honky without the Cipher cable and just sounds very, very wrong. I’ve tried the Reveal plugin on my desktop and no matter what dry/wet ratio I tried the honkiness never went away. It sounds honky even on Cipher V2 cable, no amount of EQ fixes it. Cipher V1, surprisingly, has the best midrange of all these configurations (analog cable/Cipher V1/Cipher V2). The lower-midrange is leaner than I consider “neutral” but it’s not thin at all. The upper-mids are also well-controlled though can get slightly shouty at times. Taking down the 2/4KHz notches mostly takes care of that though. Micro-detail retrieval is above-average. Macrodynamics is very good.
4.5/5 (Cipher V1)
3/5 (Cipher V2)
2/5 (Analogue)

Treble: Treble is effortless and smooth on the Cipher V1 cable. It’s not the airiest treble but doesn’t sound blunted or splashy. Cipher V2 has a more peay treble and can exhibit slight grain in the upper registers. Treble resolution is not as good as certain multi-BA stuff in this range but unless you’re a treble-head you probably won’t mind much. The Analogue cable has similar treble to the Cipher V2 cable. Slight EQ is necessary for Cipher V2 to take down the 8KHz region slightly, whereas I personally add some upper-treble air via the 16KHz notch.
4/5 (Cipher V1)
3.5/5 (Cipher V2)
3.5/5 (Analogue)



Soundstage: The Audeze iSine 10 is extremely open sounding, thanks to open-acoustic design. Soundstage is remarkable for an in-ear-ish device and frankly you won’t get anything better than this in the price-range, at least not among the stuff I have heard. Effortless soundstage width, remarkable depth and the height is akin to full-size headphones. Class-leading, that’s that.
5/5

Imaging: The iSine 10 has very precise imaging even for events happening at the back of your head. Instrument separation/layering is excellent as well. Peerless performance, frankly, given the price bracket. A godsend for those who prefer IEMs while gaming in these aspects (though the comfort issues might hamper practicality).
5/5

Source and Amping: Given the Cipher cables are for iPhones or old iPods with lightning port your choices for source gets shrunk rather quickly (or expanded, if you’ve got loads of Apple devices around). I used my iPhone SE but any iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch with lightning connector is all one will ever need to get the best out of the Audeze iSine 10. I’d not discuss much about analogue sources since it sounded horrible on everything I’ve got (Yulong Canary, Cayin N6ii, Questyle QP1R…).

Bang-for-buck: At the $150 B-stock prices, this is a no-brainer if you want to experience a planar in-ear. At the retail prices with the added cost of Cipher cable: this has horrible value.
5/5 (B-stock $150 prices)
1.5/5 (retail price of $350 + Cipher cable)

Select Comparisons

vs Tin HiFi P1 ($150): The Tin HiFi P1 is another planar magnetic IEM in the price bracket. It’s got a significantly different design though where it uses a miniaturized 10mm planar magnetic driver which requires quite a bit of amping to get going. When amped, P1 is fairly detailed with a bright-neutral midrange, decent layering of instruments and good amount of upper-treble air. The bass is anemic though and just doesn’t cut it. Audeze iSine 10 eats it for breakfast in terms of bass response, soundstage, imaging, and overall detail retrieval (with the Cipher V1 cable of course). For the price though (almost 1/3rd of the iSine 10 + Cipher V1) the P1 is an interesting option. It just doesn’t belong in the same class.

vs RHA CL2 Planar ($700): RHA CL2 Planar is another miniature full-range planar implementation but has a higher level of performance compared to the Tin P1. When amped, the bass is linear and has good extension/rumble. Soundstage and imaging isn’t as enveloping and precise as the iSine 10 but fairly impressive for a closed-back design. Midrange is bright-neutral on the CL2 but has better micro-detail retrieval than the iSine 10. The treble though is a bit too sharp and gets fatiguing on the RHA CL2. It helps it pull out more details at the expense of shrillness. Equalization is a must to get the best out of CL2 since the driver can take that hit, and with equalization it does outresolve the iSine 10 without fatiguing the listener.

vs iSine 20 (discontinued): The iSine 20 is discontinued now. I’ll do a very brief comparison since the differences are minimal. iSine 20 has a slightly wider stage. Depth/height feels similar. Bass has a bit more slam and punch on the iSine 20. The overall detail retrieval is where the iSine 20 pulls ahead with better exhibition of microdetail and improved macrodynamics. I do believe that the improvements are not worth the price premium, but that’s something you gotta figure out for yourself.



Conclusion

Just like the duality displayed on Robert Louis Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde, Audeze iSine 10 goes from horrible without the Cipher V1 cable to awesome once the cable is connected.

But the list of caveats is too large. Only in special circumstances can I recommend the Audeze iSine 10, and you gotta be in that particular niche of users who actually prefer an open-back pseudo-IEM with zero isolation over an open-back headphone/typical IEM. Frankly at the retail price of these I’d just get a Hifiman Sundara and call it a day if an open-back planar is what I really want to experience. The B-stock prices are too tempting though and I highly recommend them if you can manage one with the Cipher V1 cable under $150.

I don’t recommend the Audeze iSine 10 with the Cipher V2 cable as strongly however, and without the Cipher cable I don’t recommend these at all.

The strange case of Audeze iSine 10, indeed.

Overall Rating: 4.25/5 (with Cipher V1)
Recommended

Overall Rating: 2.5/5 (with Cipher V2)
I cannot recommend this.

Overall Rating: 2/5 (analogue cable)
Hello darkness my old friend…