Reviews by NeonHD
Who am I, you may ask? Just some Chinese Canadian guy who recently graduated with a psychology degree. I may be younger compared to most folks here, but I am also not a stranger to this hobby, having bought into the Chi-Fi craze as early as 2016. And even before that, I had this hobby of buying cheap earphones from Winners. Yes, that is a clothing store. And yes, they sold earphones. Some OG chi-fiers may recall AudioBudget; that site was what fueled my chi-fi addiction. I was very active on here around 2018-2020, posting various budget IEM reviews, though more in forum threads than the actual review section. Today I am less active, mostly because I’ve already settled down with the “hundo-buck” IEMs. But I am looking into becoming more entrepreneurial with this hobby and make more IEM reviews, hopefully with these Chinese companies backing my financially poor a$$ up.
Erm, well, not really a disclaimer, but I would just like you to know that I bought this with my own money. Yep, that's right. Unlike most reviews here, I shelled out my "hard-earned" cash for this IEM. Though, being your broke bloke who has tons of tuition loan to pay back, I do wish BQEYZ sponsored me or at least gave me a hefty discount considering the creativity I put into this review, but all's well that ends well, right?
Metal housings are becoming more and more rarer in the ever growing sea of resin IEMs, but BQEYZ says NO to this trend and gives us a beautifully crafted IEM made of metal. Out of all the earphones I’ve owned, this one’s truly a hell of a looker. Truly breathtaking design choices. From the uniquely shaped air vents to the sharp font lettering to the gorgeous blue colorway, it just looks so damn clean in every way. The cable also looks and feels very well-built. It’s a 2 core cable but I see there are two giant strands in each of the core, so could it actually be 4 cores?
The Wind fits very nicely into the ears and is pretty comfortable. It is moderately sized, which is great as bigger shells, like those of the resin kind, tend to be less comfortable. I could definitely see myself wearing these for long sessions.
These are kind of semi-open backs. So you will partially hear your surroundings when not playing music.
.
Too lazy to read all this text? No problem! Just watch my YouTube review instead and also enjoy the cinematography that went into it!
The unboxing experience was fairly nice. It has become standard practice for BQEYZ to package their IEMs in a box that opens up like a book. Definitely a premium enjoyable experience.
The Wind fits very nicely into the ears and is pretty comfortable. It is moderately sized, which is great as bigger shells, like those of the resin kind, tend to be less comfortable. I could definitely see myself wearing these for long sessions.
These are kind of semi-open backs. So you will partially hear your surroundings when not playing music.
I have to say, the Wind was quite a slow burn to truly appreciate its sound. Because if you do some A/Bing with other sets around or above this price range, you might think that this set underperforms. And realistically, it might actually not be the best set for any technical feats. But even so, you might just find yourself liking the Wind regardless. It’s mainly its non-fatiguing, laidback tuning and “tabula rasa” mids that does the trick. Sound signature wise, you could describe the Wind as either of these three: neutral-warm, neutral-bright, or very mildly V-shaped. Personally, I think it's somewhere in between neutral-warm and neutral-bright. Also, it's important to note that changing tips can greatly affect the sound signature. Throwing on its included foam tips can noticeably improve midrange and control treble peaks. I would advise against using its included reference and atmos tips.
Let’s first start with the bass. My first impressions is that, despite the bone conduction driver, this set is definitely not for bassheads. I find that the bass is pretty selective, showing its full power during some passages while being restrained in other passages. I can’t quite pinpoint if there’s a certain region of the bass being emphasized, but perhaps I’d say it’s more sub focused than mid-bass. In terms of characteristics, it’s pretty quick and nimble, and it has a sufficient amount of texture and resolution. So, if you like your bass more in the background and only appears when needed, then you’ll definitely like this set.
Now onto the technicalities. To be honest, I was a bit underwhelmed in this area at first. The soundstage is by no means small, but it doesn’t seem particularly spacious. Perhaps my complaint is rather in its unimpressive imaging capability (edit: read post-postscript). There’s little of that convincing, vivid, immersive, 3D, pinpoint positioning to be found here. In my opinion, the weakest area of the Wind is in its layering (it has quite respectable instrument separation though). It simply does not fare well in complex passages. This is especially true in busy EDM tracks like Easy by Mat Zo & Porter Robinson. In this track, the synths and leads, though beautifully articulated, just doesn’t seem to mingle well with each other. For example, the lead synth sounds beautiful, but the supersaws aren’t combining well with it. It sounds a bit compressed, incoherent and tactless. However this really only applies to exceptionally busy tracks, for less busy and intense tracks the Wind actually sounds quite coherent.
Postscript: I would retract my statement regarding it not faring well in complex passages. That track I picked was a bit too demanding, and likely required either A) a bigger soundstage/better imaging or B) considerably more high-end tuning to get the most out of it. I threw on some dubstep after and everything was quite intelligible, so hey, it passes the test.
Post-postscript: Lol never mind. After some more listening, I would still say these are a bit subpar for complex passages. Here is why I think what got me confused: the Wind's mids are quite resolving, which helps instruments become distinct from each other (i.e. instrument separation), but this does not necessarily guarantee an articulate and well-conveyed sound, as instruments also need to occupy Euclidian space (i.e. layering). I would say that the Wind could have had so much potential to excel at layering, it's just that the soundstage is too cramped to perform any of those feats. And yes, my final conclusion is that the soundstage is the real culprit here, imaging actually seems to be alright. However if soundstage was bigger, then imaging would be far better, layering would be much more coherent, and therefore its overall resolution would improve.
The Spring2 was the last recent IEM I had owned from BQEYZ, so naturally this comparison makes sense. I would consider the Wind as a direct upgrade from the Spring2. It’s better in all regards, most notably in its treble. While the Spring2 was a hot mess up there with barely any resolution, the Wind’s treble serves as a compelling counterargument with much better extension, tuning, resolution and sibilance control. The Spring2 also had a pretty cramped soundstage, and the Wind is much better in this regard as well. The only area where the Spring2 could hold its own ground is in its mids, which is tonally more rich sounding, but that’s about it.
While technically a planar, these sound just like any dynamic driver IEM. I would also consider the Wind as a direct upgrade over the Wu's, not too surprising given its price difference. The only thing the Wu’s does better are the lows, which is louder, meatier, and more visceral sounding. Otherwise, everything else the Wind does better. Edit: Actually, it doesn't seem the ZeTian Wu is available anymore, only its Heyday edition, which is priced near the Wind. In this case, the Wind is definitely the better one for value.
This one’s a good comparison, because they both can be bought for around the same price. Honestly speaking, as much as the Wind has to stand for, I would have to say both the Tea and Tea2 are overall better in its sound and its technical chops. As admirable as the Wind’s musical yet neutral midrange is, the Tea & Tea2’s midrange have more body and a more fuller engaging tone to it, with the Tea2’s partially owning to its much mightier bass. The Wind is more articulate and detailed in its treble, though, making cymbals and percussion sound better. But then, in a final blow, both the Teas absolutely destroy the Wind with its much better imaging and layering prowess. You could say it’s gone with the wind now. (Well, actually, if you prefer a less V-shaped set, the Wind will fare better, otherwise the Tea & Tea2 wins)
Blessing 2 is obviously the better performer overall, but there are some areas where the Wind does better, like its much more placated pinna gain region, and more coverage in its treble region. And the Wind has more presence in the low-end. So you could say that the Wind is tuned better, but the Blessing is on another level in its resolving abilities.
I was going to guess that the Wind would be better, but actually no, it turns out that the Starfield generally sounds more agreeable than the Wind. The tuning is better on the Starfield, with a more natural timbre, richer bass, fuller sounding mids, and less jarring highs while still retaining brightn——WAIT, actually, I just realized I’ve been listening to the reference tips. After switching to the included foam tips, the Wind sounds more fuller and less jarring in the highs. I would then say they are both somewhat equal, with the Starfield slightly edging out the Wind in better midrange timbre, and the Wind slightly edging out the Starfield in terms of detail and resolution.
So, how do they compare? Well, I am shocked to say that Olina actually performs nearly just as well as the Wind, in fact it is better in some areas. For one, Olina sounds more dynamic, and performs better technical feats than the Wind, namely more vivid spatial imaging and more micro-details in the treble. However, after exhausting your music library you will eventually come to realize that the Wind is still the more superior sounding one. It is the more composed-sounding set, and its midrange has a very huge canvas for instruments to be painted on, while Olina’s midrange canvas is smaller in size. That is to say, Olina’s midrange is more recessed than the Wind. I actually think OIina sounds better with pure acoustic music as it renders the treble transients in instruments such as guitar strums in a more resolving and realistic way. But for everything else, the Wind is the more competent performer. Note that you can currently buy an aftermarket version of the Olina for around $50, so the fact that the Olina sounds nearly just as good as the Wind speaks volumes about its value proposition.
“Huh?” you may ask in confusion. There’s no confusion here. Yes, this is a $10 IEM, but it arguably performs like a hundo-buck IEM in some areas, such as its treble and soundstage chops. Note that I am comparing to a heavily modified ED9 with a cable mod and a custom-tuned bronze filter. There are actually many areas where the Wind sounds a lot like the ED9, like its relatively laidback and neutral midrange, as well as its treble tuning. But while the ED9 is unabashedly neutral-bright, the Wind gravitates more towards neutral, making the Wind sound neutral-warm in this comparison. The ED9 has the upper hand when it comes to micro-details, timbre and extension in the treble. Like the Olina, the ED9 renders treble transients in instruments such as guitar strums in a more resolving and realistic way.
Comparing the OH10 to the Wind is like comparing a mild-tempered person to a histrionic person. The OH10 is all about fun fun fun, it doesn’t really care about technicalities or a reference sound. Meanwhile the Wind is more nuanced in character, which also brings out more nuanced details in your music.
The mids were the most elusive part of this set. When I said this set was a slow burn, this was mainly what I was referring to. At first listen, I thought they were a bit muffled and lacking as I was expecting something more engaging. But as I shifted my expectations and found songs that were better for such a tuning, I realized just how clean and polished the entire midrange is. These are some very well-tuned and euphonic sounding mids. Instruments of all kind have a very pleasant timbre. As a whole, the midrange is quite lean and transparent, and its presence is slightly more laidback than upfront, but it is NEVER thin sounding. It feels like the Wind’s midrange was tuned with a neutral reference monitor sound in mind, while clearly also focusing on musicality. The best of both worlds. I would definitely describe the mids as being uncolored (aka neutral), almost like a blank slate (tabula rasa) where songs can add their own splash of color to the canvas. I find that the mids fare best with certain tracks that sound inherently warm and veiled to begin with, such as Beneath the Mask from the Persona 5 OST. On the other hand, it may not be great for genres that require a certain coloration in the mid-frequencies such as pop music. Don’t take my word for it though.
Potentially one the biggest downsides to its mids is the lack of sharpness and detail. For those familiar with computer graphics, signal processing, or photography, it feels as if there is a slight anti-aliasing filter applied over the mids. That’s really the best way to put it. To summarize, the mids have a beautiful and remarkably clean and polished tuning, but it just lacks that rich or engaging quality you might be looking for.
Revised comment regarding the mids: Holy moly— I have to say these truly take time to appreciate, because I am only now hearing details I haven't heard before in my music! It just takes the right tracks for the Wind to display its best abilities. Thus, I would say their mids are quite resolving indeed. It's just a shame that the soundstage isn't big enough for the mids to truly shine.
Many Chi-fi brands often like to exaggerate the pinna gain area to a detrimental degree, and I am glad to say that the BQEYZ Wind is not one of them… at least most of the time. It does have a peak around 2.5Khz which misbehaves sometimes, and on even rarer occasions can deliver a nasty bite, but I find it to be controlled in most cases. And besides, if you coincidentally listen to tracks that really clashes with that area, you can buy one of those cheap tuning mesh filters on Aliexpress to taper the peak. Simply put, if you hate the dreaded Harman peak on Moondrop IEMs, you will definitely find these to be much more controlled.
The highs on the Wind are commendable. Honestly, I have to give props to BQEYZ for churning out a set that focuses on transparency in the treble region. This is my preferred kind of tuning, where the treble is bright yet non-fatiguing. The FR utilizes several narrow and fine treble peaks at a nosedive trajectory to resolve transients, but rarely does this ever introduce sibilance. This makes cymbals on the Wind sound airy and realistic, and it gives stringed and flute instruments its proper attack and raspiness, respectively. However… if I had to nitpick, I do have to say the upper treble peak is is a bit more piercing than I would like, though, wearing the foam tips greatly helps. And if I had to nitpick even more, I would say it’s not the most detailed treble I’ve heard.
Now onto the technicalities. To be honest, I was a bit underwhelmed in this area at first. The soundstage is by no means small, but it doesn’t seem particularly spacious. Perhaps my complaint is rather in its unimpressive imaging capability (edit: read post-postscript). There’s little of that convincing, vivid, immersive, 3D, pinpoint positioning to be found here. In my opinion, the weakest area of the Wind is in its layering (it has quite respectable instrument separation though). It simply does not fare well in complex passages. This is especially true in busy EDM tracks like Easy by Mat Zo & Porter Robinson. In this track, the synths and leads, though beautifully articulated, just doesn’t seem to mingle well with each other. For example, the lead synth sounds beautiful, but the supersaws aren’t combining well with it. It sounds a bit compressed, incoherent and tactless. However this really only applies to exceptionally busy tracks, for less busy and intense tracks the Wind actually sounds quite coherent.
Postscript: I would retract my statement regarding it not faring well in complex passages. That track I picked was a bit too demanding, and likely required either A) a bigger soundstage/better imaging or B) considerably more high-end tuning to get the most out of it. I threw on some dubstep after and everything was quite intelligible, so hey, it passes the test.
Post-postscript: Lol never mind. After some more listening, I would still say these are a bit subpar for complex passages. Here is why I think what got me confused: the Wind's mids are quite resolving, which helps instruments become distinct from each other (i.e. instrument separation), but this does not necessarily guarantee an articulate and well-conveyed sound, as instruments also need to occupy Euclidian space (i.e. layering). I would say that the Wind could have had so much potential to excel at layering, it's just that the soundstage is too cramped to perform any of those feats. And yes, my final conclusion is that the soundstage is the real culprit here, imaging actually seems to be alright. However if soundstage was bigger, then imaging would be far better, layering would be much more coherent, and therefore its overall resolution would improve.
This one’s an extremely fitting comparison that I am very excited to write. The reason being: these two IEMs have an uncannily similar sound and it also graphs identically.
Having heard their sets here and there over the years, I think BQEYZ still has a long way towards making a set that is truly competitive. I believe that their main weaknesses lie within its technical feats, specifically its imaging and separation, and overall sense of resolution and detail. If they could release a more technically capable set, while pricing it competitively, then they would have a real masterpiece in their hands. Otherwise, I think BQEYZ has pretty much hit the bullseye with its tuning/tonality with this one. Also, this is super trivial and perhaps anecdotal, but maybe if they could tune the upper treble to peak around 14.5-15Khz it would make it sound less piercing.
Overall, The BQEYZ Wind is a great set in its own right. Personally, I think I will use these much more often than I would like to imagine, as its sound is quite versatile for a wide range of purposes other than music, such as vocal stuff (e.g. podcasts, livestreams); not all of my sets conform as well to other media. It’s definitely not the best performer for the price, and it’s definitely not for everyone, but if you want a relatively flat, yet musical set, that prioritizes transparency over denseness, or if you want a set that is great for both audio monitoring and music listening, OR if you value a good tuning over technical performance, then I can definitely see this being suitable for you. Just be sure to grab one near USD $200 or lower, because in this price segment and beyond, diminishing returns will start to kick in. And this set doesn’t really punch above its price by much.
Tracklist: (soon to be added)
Tools used:
Tracklist: (soon to be added)
Tools used:
- Fujifilm X-T30 for the photoshoots
- Photoshop for the review graphics
- Squig.link for the FR graphs
- Hiby R3 Pro Sabre → Douk U3 AMP → IEMs
- LG G7 and LG V35 → IEMs
Last edited:
ABOUT ME
I'm a lazy person and tend to write this section off, but I'll include it this time. Hey hey, I'm a 23 year old student who just finished uni with a Bachelor's in psychology. I have been invested in the chi-fi hobby since 2016 (when I was 17). Even before then, I had been obsessed with budget earphones since my early teens. Huge shoutout to Igor from AudioBudget who helped jumpstart my interest in chi-fi. I'd brag about the number of IEMs I've owned, but honestly I've had far too many to even count (at least more than 50). Eventually I started investing in the pricier side of chi-fi; first $50+, then $100+, and now $300+. Long story short, I'm not someone new to chi-fi, I've been in the scene for quite some time now and therefore might have a different view compared to someone who only got into chi-fi during late-2019 (aka the BLON era).
PREFACE
Color me impressed, because these were totally not the sound I was expecting! Based on the reviews, I had in mind a sound that was very dry and unalive, but thankfully this was not the case. In fact, I was ready to diss the Quarks so much that I preemptively wrote an entire negative review for it beforehand. Guess I won't be needing that anymore!UNBOXING
PHYSICALITIES
The quark overall sports a modest build. First thing I notice is the smokey grey color and rubbery feel of the cable. Oddly enough, such a combination is really reminiscent of the skipping rope I used to have as a child, which was also grey and rubbery. To an extent, the physicalities of an IEM determines how you use it. The tiny lightweight build of these "quarks" seems like as if they are made specifically for sleeping, especially for side sleepers. They are so tiny that you will not feel a thing when pressing your ears against the pillow. Thankfully, the sound complements its intended usage with its fluffy, snug, "hot cup of cocoa"-esque mids.
THE TALE OF THE QUARK: MIDS
The Moondrop Quarks tells a tale not about the bass, not about the treble, but about its mids. People tend to describe it as neutral, but I prefer to call it natural, because that is how it sounds. It sounds very natural and organic, and portrays instruments with a true-to-life tone. It mirrors the very essence of the Moondrop flagships (e.g. Blessing 2) but in the form of a naive child. The child may not have the brains of its adult counterparts, but fear not as its heart is full of spirit, and that is what matters most in the end, right? As stated in Andy's review, the Quarks really have a wholesome sound to it.SOUND ANALYSIS
SUITABLE FOR:
- Podcasts- Anything with male vocals
- Everything else
NOT SUITABLE FOR:
- Classical- Acoustic
- Sub-bass heavy music
SOUND SIGNATURE
The tale is quite literally about the mids, as both ends of the spectrum are tapered (i.e. n-shaped). As a result, this is an IEM that is comfortable to listen to at high volumes. You can crank it up and get very satisfactory results, through I would recommend dialing back the high-mids just a bit. High volume also lets the highs shine through. Speaking of the highs, they aren't blatantly recessed, just rather quiet. I'd describe the highs as really comfy, providing an unperceivable but complementary addition to the sound. They are tuned to be as inoffensive as possible without consciously making you aware that it is recessed. The airiness and sense of sparkle in tracks are all conveyed here, they are just on the quiet side. Tonality of the highs are also on the natural side, which further makes it unperceivable as it's so good at blending in with the rest of the sound. Bass is not completely lacking. While sub-bass suffers from poor extension, the mid-bass still delivers plenty of oomph that gives power to kick drums (sometimes can be a bit bloaty). Just expect the bass response to be on the 'round and bouncy' side of things.In the end, the real strong point is how coherent the entire sound is. Every part of the spectrum does not feel out of place, and contributes to this homogeneous sound that you can listen to for hours and hours on end.
TECHNICALITIES AND STAGING
I wasn't expecting much here of course, but I was subtly surprised. While the soundstage isn't spacious, I actually found it quite roomy, like a small cozy room. It is most definitely NOT an in-your-ears/head sort of experience; the sound envelops you around your head. The stage is circular in shape. The imaging is rather convincing, you can feel the presence of each instrument as the sound manifests all around you. Overall the staging feels comfy, just like the sound signature. Detailing is not subpar for the price, I'd say it's good for what you're paying, especially when it comes to the detailing of the mids. If you want detailed highs (as well as huge soundstage) on a budget, the KZ ED9 is your best friend.TEST TRACKS
These tracks were used for the comparisons done below.
COMPARISONS
VERSUS SONY MH755
Even though these two IEMs are separated by time (i.e. the MH755 is extinct), this is honestly the most relevant comparison. Why? Because both IEMs are tuned towards some neutral target, and both IEMs are in the budget segment. Tonally, the Quarks and the MH755 are more similar than different. Both have that natural euphonic tonality. For someone who isn't all pedantic about sound signatures, it might sound almost the same even. Of course there are obvious differences. The MH755 has a blatantly more potent low end where the bass rumbles with authority, while the Quarks sound bass-light. The MH755 is also generally more V-shaped, whereas the Quarks sound more balanced and lightweight. The MH755's treble is more upfront than the Quarks, as well as being more detailed. In terms of soundstage, the MH755 has a wider stereo field, while the Quarks place sounds in the center stage. Imaging is more vivid on the Quarks. Overall, the MH755 is more fun, while the Quarks are more balanced, but both have a very natural midrange tonality. However, in terms of value for price, the MH755 is still the winner.VERSUS FINAL AUDIO E3000
Of course, it would make sense to pit the Quarks against another micro-driver IEM. Both the Quarks and the E3000 bear an awfully similar sound signature and tuning style. Both are quite mid-centric, with the lows and highs tapered off. However, there are very noticeable differences, and not just in the price. Believe it or not, to my ears the Quarks' midrange sound more natural, organic, lush and more detailed. The E3000's highs are a bit brighter than the Quarks and therefore sounds less rolled off; however, the E3000's highs are less tonally accurate than the Quarks, which gives the Quarks the advantage in terms of treble tonality. The lows are essentially similar, with rolled off sub-bass and emphasized mid-bass. In terms of soundstage, the Quarks places sounds in the center stage, while the E3000 prefers to place them on the sides, thereby creating a wider stereo effect on the E3000. In terms of imaging, both are equally competent. Honestly,VERSUS KZ ED9 (wide filter)
This one's an interesting comparison, at least to me. Despite costing less, the ED9 is more technically competent. It has a drastically bigger soundstage and therefore better imaging and instrument separation. Both the Quarks and the ED9 have rolled off sub-bass, however, you can easily turn them into bass cannons by simply blocking the vent on the wide filters. Both IEMs exhibit a naturally-tuned organic midrange, however the ED9's mids might seem veiled due to the more V-shaped signature. Treble is night and day. While the Quarks favor a transparent fatigue-free treble tuning, the ED9 favors a bright, energetic treble tuning that is also extremely resolving in micro-details, all the while being as inoffensive as possible.VERSUS TRN M10
M10 suffers from a weird midrange tonality, even more tapered bass, and spiky treble peaks. It is safe to say that the Quarks are a much better buy.VERSUS KZ EDX
No comparison needed. The EDX is basically a potato wrapped in gold foil, the Quarks trounces the EDX in every way.VERSUS KBEAR KS1
Both the KS1 and Quarks have lush musical mids, however, the KS1 is more V-shaped. The mid-bass on the KS1 is much more pronounced. The treble on the KS1 is less rolled off, but the Quarks have slightly better treble tonality. KS1 places sounds more on the sides, while the Quarks places them in the center. While both are great, the Quarks overall has better tonality and a more coherent sound.
VERDICT
As someone who has a personal vendetta against overhyped or even overrated products, I have to say this one is an exception. The praise for the Quarks is well-deserved. Unless you are looking for bass heavy IEMs or a treble-centric signature, you really cannot go wrong with the Quarks. These are great for anyone who wants to enjoy the meat of their music, so to speak.
Attachments
NeonHD
Yup, Micro DD and no driver flex makes these so suitable to nestle in bed with. Very comfy IEMs, both sleep-wise and sound-wise 
Ausemere
Really thinking of buying this because of the comfy small form factor. But I mostly listen to hard rock and heavy metal (it's like 95% of my library), should I still try it? I can also tip roll to Spinfit CP100 or Sony EX-EP11.
When you hear the name "DQSM" it probably sounds like some random chi-fi brand that you probably couldn't care less about. That was my initial reaction when hearing about the DQSM Hermit, but I decided to take the bullet anyway and try it out for myself. The good news is that the hermit certainly transcends its obscure branding, both in sound quality and build quality.
UNBOXING
BUILD QUALITY AND DESIGN
I personally love the all-metal build, it's very heavy and feels very premium. And unlike the typical over-ear "pseudo-custom-fit" IEMs that we've seen ad nauseam, the Hermit sports a more traditional bullet-shaped design. It shares similar resemblance to the Moondrop Spaceship.
V-shaped. The tuning is reminiscent of some older generations of budget chi-fi, which I find to be refreshing.
[HIGHS]
Very impressive upper trebles. It's very resolving and picks up lots of transients and micro-details. Guitar strums are delicate and worthy of a chef's kiss. The technicalities of the treble are honestly not that far off from—say—the Moondrop Blessing 2, which costs $350+. This is quite possibly the Hermit's best strong point, which is already saying a lot.
[BASS]
Most of the Hermit's bass is centered around the mid-bass. Overall it's tuned not to be aggressive or domineering but to compliment the rest of the sound signature. It can definitely deliver some oomph when the track demands it, just don't expect deep rumbling bass, it's only there to give instruments their warmth. Overall the quality of the bass is pretty decent, nothing to complain about but also nothing to write home about.
[MIDS]
This is where the Hermit truly had missed its mark. Mids are overall recessed in relation to the lows and the highs. It is noticeably on the thin side and you'll feel as if that instruments lack a soul. But to be fair it's far from being the worst you could get around this price. Overall the mids just compliment the rest of the sound signature. If you purely listen to well-mastered acoustic audio, then perhaps the mids won't bother you too much. But on EDM where the treble and bass are overtly emphasized, then you will feel that the mids are lacking.
I compared these IEMs with two reference tracks: Gramatik - Tranquilo / Gramatik - Cool Thieves. Highs on the BLON lack the upper treble extension of the Hermit, but is overall much more balanced and natural sounding and still has a great sense of clarity and sparkle in the lower trebles (3Khz-8Khz). When it comes to mids, BLON is the winner hands down. Not only are the mids on the BLON more upfront, but they linger around far more longer than the Hermit, giving instruments more depth and realism. You will feel much more engaged with the "meat" of your music with the BLON than with the Hermit. For bass, both are a tie in terms of quality. If you want your bass to hit harder and deeper, then BLON wins.
Overall for CAD $29 (23 USD) the Hermit sits at a very competitive price market that is brimming with new IEMs as we currently speak. The detailed upper trebles is something that is very impressive at this price-point, but the mediocre performance of the mids leaves a lot to be desired even at this price-point. So would I recommend it? Probably not. At least not for $29. I'd honestly just spend a little extra and get the BLON BL-03 instead.
UNBOXING
BUILD QUALITY AND DESIGN
I personally love the all-metal build, it's very heavy and feels very premium. And unlike the typical over-ear "pseudo-custom-fit" IEMs that we've seen ad nauseam, the Hermit sports a more traditional bullet-shaped design. It shares similar resemblance to the Moondrop Spaceship.
SOUND QUALITY
[SOUND SIGNATURE]V-shaped. The tuning is reminiscent of some older generations of budget chi-fi, which I find to be refreshing.
[HIGHS]
Very impressive upper trebles. It's very resolving and picks up lots of transients and micro-details. Guitar strums are delicate and worthy of a chef's kiss. The technicalities of the treble are honestly not that far off from—say—the Moondrop Blessing 2, which costs $350+. This is quite possibly the Hermit's best strong point, which is already saying a lot.
[BASS]
Most of the Hermit's bass is centered around the mid-bass. Overall it's tuned not to be aggressive or domineering but to compliment the rest of the sound signature. It can definitely deliver some oomph when the track demands it, just don't expect deep rumbling bass, it's only there to give instruments their warmth. Overall the quality of the bass is pretty decent, nothing to complain about but also nothing to write home about.
[MIDS]
This is where the Hermit truly had missed its mark. Mids are overall recessed in relation to the lows and the highs. It is noticeably on the thin side and you'll feel as if that instruments lack a soul. But to be fair it's far from being the worst you could get around this price. Overall the mids just compliment the rest of the sound signature. If you purely listen to well-mastered acoustic audio, then perhaps the mids won't bother you too much. But on EDM where the treble and bass are overtly emphasized, then you will feel that the mids are lacking.
OTHER NOTES
- Soundstage and imaging is pretty decent. It's not cramped and instruments are well-separated, but it's not remarkably spacious or three-dimensional. Decent and does the job, but nothing amazing.
- The highs can be a bit too spicy on some tracks, especially EDM. So I'd say the Hermit only fares well with non-sibilant genres like classical, rock and acoustic music.
COMPARISONS
DQSM Hermit ($29) vs BLON BL03 ($31)I compared these IEMs with two reference tracks: Gramatik - Tranquilo / Gramatik - Cool Thieves. Highs on the BLON lack the upper treble extension of the Hermit, but is overall much more balanced and natural sounding and still has a great sense of clarity and sparkle in the lower trebles (3Khz-8Khz). When it comes to mids, BLON is the winner hands down. Not only are the mids on the BLON more upfront, but they linger around far more longer than the Hermit, giving instruments more depth and realism. You will feel much more engaged with the "meat" of your music with the BLON than with the Hermit. For bass, both are a tie in terms of quality. If you want your bass to hit harder and deeper, then BLON wins.
VERDICT
Overall for CAD $29 (23 USD) the Hermit sits at a very competitive price market that is brimming with new IEMs as we currently speak. The detailed upper trebles is something that is very impressive at this price-point, but the mediocre performance of the mids leaves a lot to be desired even at this price-point. So would I recommend it? Probably not. At least not for $29. I'd honestly just spend a little extra and get the BLON BL-03 instead.
TRN M10 Review
Good, but not really.
INTRODUCTION
TRN is no foreigner in the budget IEM game, but is its new $13 M10 a gem or just another average budget IEM? Well, the title basically says it all, but let me explain everything.
UNBOXING
▲ Comes in the typical TRN box, nothing fancy but I like it. ▲
▲ I like how its presented. ▲
▲ Inside the box you get a typical TRN braided cable, a set a standard tips, and the usual leaflets. Note that the cable uses a custom 2-pin design so it will only be compatible with the M10. ▲
BUILD AND DESIGN
The design was honestly the main incentive for me to buy it. I LOVE bullet-shaped designs, and this is no exception. Like the FA E300, it sports a beautifully polished aluminum housing, so I was curious to see whether the sound was good enough to justify its nice design.
FIT AND ISOLATION
Of course, as a result of its bullet-shaped design, the fit is perfect and comfortable, and isolation is a bit above average.
SOUND QUALITY
TONALITY
Okay lets talk about the elephant in the room. This IEM obviously has a very weird tuning OOTB. I mean, its not a bad tuning, it's just a weird one. I don't really know how to explain it. It almost feels like as if there's a specific dip in frequency range, I just don't know where. Anywho, the weird tonality overall just makes the M10 sound a bit immature and unrefined.
BASS
The bass comes off as fairly lean and balanced, with a moderate mid-bass punch that compliments but doesn't overtake the entire sound. If I could describe the bass with one word, it would be bouncy. Also, the bass seems very dependent on source or the music you listen to. With a warm source (e.g. LG V30), the bass is never lacking, but on some colder sources the bass is sometimes nonexistent.
MIDS
The mids clearly lack body and therefore sound thin. This is most prominent in vocal music, where female vocals sound more rich and full on IEMs like the KZ ED9 than on the M10. It also generally just makes your music sound hollow. Perhaps the lack in mids is what is causing the odd tonality. Either that or a huge dip in lower treble (6Khz).
TREBLE
On the other hand, the treble is pretty nice. It is sharp and crisp around the (supposedly) 11-12Khz area, offering lots of body and definition to the treble, while also revealing some nuanced details within that area. And depending on what you listen to, it could be a bit too bright and piercing. Tonality-wise, the treble has more of a artificial quality to it than a natural one.
TECHNICALITIES
Soudstage is where the M10 takes a toll on. It has that intimate "in your head" sort of feel, with sounds barely extending outwards in terms of left-to-right width, but in terms of depth it's actually surprisingly deep.
Imaging is actually not bad either. It doesn't provide holographically precise imaging, but its able to portray the location of sounds in a believable way.
What did impress me though is the M10's instrument separation. It's actually pretty decent at separating instruments from each other and handling multiple layers of sounds in a spacious manner.
COMPARISONS
VS Final Audio E3000
VERDICT
Overall the M10 isn't a bad IEM, but it's nothing remarkable. The main Achilles heel of the M10 is its hollowed out mids plagued by its odd unnatural tonality. So if you like your mids, the M10 will only disappoint. I'd recommend spending a few dollars more to get something like the KZ ZSN Pro, or spend even less and get the much better KZ ED9.
Good, but not really.
INTRODUCTION
TRN is no foreigner in the budget IEM game, but is its new $13 M10 a gem or just another average budget IEM? Well, the title basically says it all, but let me explain everything.
UNBOXING
▲ Comes in the typical TRN box, nothing fancy but I like it. ▲
▲ I like how its presented. ▲
▲ Inside the box you get a typical TRN braided cable, a set a standard tips, and the usual leaflets. Note that the cable uses a custom 2-pin design so it will only be compatible with the M10. ▲
BUILD AND DESIGN
The design was honestly the main incentive for me to buy it. I LOVE bullet-shaped designs, and this is no exception. Like the FA E300, it sports a beautifully polished aluminum housing, so I was curious to see whether the sound was good enough to justify its nice design.
FIT AND ISOLATION
Of course, as a result of its bullet-shaped design, the fit is perfect and comfortable, and isolation is a bit above average.
SOUND QUALITY
TONALITY
Okay lets talk about the elephant in the room. This IEM obviously has a very weird tuning OOTB. I mean, its not a bad tuning, it's just a weird one. I don't really know how to explain it. It almost feels like as if there's a specific dip in frequency range, I just don't know where. Anywho, the weird tonality overall just makes the M10 sound a bit immature and unrefined.
BASS
The bass comes off as fairly lean and balanced, with a moderate mid-bass punch that compliments but doesn't overtake the entire sound. If I could describe the bass with one word, it would be bouncy. Also, the bass seems very dependent on source or the music you listen to. With a warm source (e.g. LG V30), the bass is never lacking, but on some colder sources the bass is sometimes nonexistent.
MIDS
The mids clearly lack body and therefore sound thin. This is most prominent in vocal music, where female vocals sound more rich and full on IEMs like the KZ ED9 than on the M10. It also generally just makes your music sound hollow. Perhaps the lack in mids is what is causing the odd tonality. Either that or a huge dip in lower treble (6Khz).
TREBLE
On the other hand, the treble is pretty nice. It is sharp and crisp around the (supposedly) 11-12Khz area, offering lots of body and definition to the treble, while also revealing some nuanced details within that area. And depending on what you listen to, it could be a bit too bright and piercing. Tonality-wise, the treble has more of a artificial quality to it than a natural one.
TECHNICALITIES
Soudstage is where the M10 takes a toll on. It has that intimate "in your head" sort of feel, with sounds barely extending outwards in terms of left-to-right width, but in terms of depth it's actually surprisingly deep.
Imaging is actually not bad either. It doesn't provide holographically precise imaging, but its able to portray the location of sounds in a believable way.
What did impress me though is the M10's instrument separation. It's actually pretty decent at separating instruments from each other and handling multiple layers of sounds in a spacious manner.
COMPARISONS
VS Final Audio E3000
- While both share a similar metal bullet design, both have completely opposite tuning philosophies. The M10 is more treble-centric, whereas the E3000 is more bass and mid-centric. The E3000 has a much more natural tonality than the M10 with richer mids that makes everything sound much bigger.
- Also sharing a bullet design, the KZ ED9—despite being priced below the M10—absolutely demolishes it. The ED9 has a far more natural tonality and timbre, has more upfront mids, and has outstanding technical abilities such as better resolution and detail, as well as a holographic soundstage. It is simply in another league.
- The V20 is the only other TRN IEM I own, and honestly despite having an awful treble peak, I think I still prefer it over the M10. The V20 has a big punchy bass that the M10 lacks, and has a very natural and transparent midrange. The soundstage is also huge compared to the M10. It overall feels more capable.
VERDICT
Overall the M10 isn't a bad IEM, but it's nothing remarkable. The main Achilles heel of the M10 is its hollowed out mids plagued by its odd unnatural tonality. So if you like your mids, the M10 will only disappoint. I'd recommend spending a few dollars more to get something like the KZ ZSN Pro, or spend even less and get the much better KZ ED9.
DallaPo
Try plugging the cable the other way around on one side. Does it get weirder from the sound, or does it clear up the sound Image? I don't know the M10 myself, but there could be a reversed polarity here.
NeonHD
Yes I believe the weird imaging was partially due to the reversed polarity. I did that already and it sort of cleared the image, but it still remained pretty weird sounding.
