Reviews by nxnje

Introduction​

AFUL Acoustics (from here on “AFUL”) has been in the industry for quite some time already, and it has become very popular thanks to their Performer series.
After the MagicOne, their first single BA set with Nautilus tubing, they’re now back with a new hybrid set that was rumored to be their “Performer 3” and that was finally released under the name of “Explorer”.

Disclaimer: the AFUL Explorer were sent to me by Simgot so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set, it isn't promotional or paid content and I don’t get any revenue from the sales of this product.
At the time of the review, the AFUL Explorer were on sale for about 119$ at HiFiGO.

Click to expand...

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → 1 x DD + 2 x BA + multi-layered electronic crossover + LRC network + high-damping air pressure system + RESINators3D (Microresonator Acoustic Tube)
• Impedance → 26Ω
• Sensitivity → 120 dB/mW
• Frequency Response → 10Hz-30kHz
• Cable → 200-core Silver-Plated copper cable with 0.78mm 2-PIN connectors
• Plug Type → straight gold plated 4.4mm jack (the 3.5mm version is also available)

Packaging​

The packaging of the AFUL Explorer contains:

• The AFUL Explorer
• The detachable cable
• 2 sets of silicone tips in S, M, L sizes (there is a single “additional” tip in the package, I guess that was not intentional )
• A carry case
• User manual

Design, Build Quality, Comfort and Isolation​

The Explorer look exquisite in their small and blue resin shells. The shells have no imperfections whatsoever and they are identical to the ones used for the AFUL MagicOne, except for a pressure vent on the side (which was not present on the MagicOne due to it being a single BA IEM, as BAs don’t strictly need proper venting like most DDs).



The comfort and the isolation are excellent, and I think this is one of the most comfortable IEMs of my inventory. For sure, your mileage may vary, but the small size and the well-designed shell shape ensures that almost everyone can get a good fit with them.

Cable​

The cable is very good and has good plug shielding and a chin-slider. Being completely honest (and kind-of nitpicking), I think the ear hooks should have been softer, but that’s all.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30, Fiio A3
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Moondrop May’s DSP cable with PEQ=0
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Fosi DS2, Hidizs XO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Bluetooth Adapters: KBEAR S1, KZ AZ10
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR

Do they need an amplifier?
They don’t strictly need an amplifier as they are relatively easy to drive, but I’ve noticed that they pair pretty well with neutral sources rather than warmer ones, especially because of their sub-bass emphasis and their warm and relaxed signature.

Sound signature
I think the best way to label them is: warm-neutral with sub-bass boost. Only saying that they’re warm-neutral wouldn’t be completely fair.
Overall, it’s a very relaxed and smooth tuning that is basically unique in their price range.

Lows
The sub-bass has a very good extension, digging deep into the lowest registers without struggling. This is probably thanks to the “RESINators3D” microresonator, which leads to an augmented low-end presence despite the 8mm driver (at first, I thought it was a slightly bigger driver honestly). The rumble is very controlled and in fact we are not speaking about a super boom-boom-pow basshead IEM, so what you get consists of a nice extension and good quality sub-bass bass that is pleasantly textured.
The midbass is not the star of the show, due to the focus on the sub-bass, but it’s punchy, it has good speed and it’s reproduced in a very natural way.

Mids
The midrange is fairly neutral, with a slight touch of warmth even though the bass is not intrusive and never overshadows the lower mids. Male vocals come out pretty nice, and the same applies for lower instrument notes. Many people will probably fall in love with Explorer because of the controlled upper midrange pinna-gain, steering away from the usual Harman tuning we’re used to see almost everywhere nowadays. Female vocals aren’t reproduced in the most vivid and exciting way and sound rather "boxy" sometimes, but I was expecting worse performance and in fact they come alive in a very controlled manner by sounding intimate and delicate, with no hint of sibilance.
Those who like super exciting vocals should probably go for something else, whereas everyone else will find this as an escape route from the average Harman boosted upper mids (with some timbrical caveats, though).

Highs
The highs are generally smooth and non-fatiguing, and even though sometimes they lack a bit of bite and sharpness (not the “negative” meaning of sharpness, though) during the reproduction of some cymbals, the overall detail retrieval is solid for this kind of tuning, and I have never thought that the Explorer weren’t worth their price in terms of overall sound quality or resolution.
If anything, there’s a bit of BA timbre here and there that occasionally pops up and becomes noticeable, which combined with the very warm signature doesn’t really make up for a “natural sounding” IEM.

The soundstage is relatively compressed and the overall presentation is quite intimate. Despite not being very open-sounding, the imaging is solid and so is the instrument separation, except for some very busy tracks that push the Explorer to their limits.

Some comparisons:​

AFUL Explorer vs Simgot EM6L
Both are hybrid, but the EM6L have two more BAs while the Explorer has the micro resonator, different crossover implementation and different damping system.
They are totally different in terms of sound, since the Explorer are warm-neutral with sub-bass boost while the EM6L are U-shaped with brighter and more extended treble.
The Explorer sound thicker, more relaxed and smoother, with less energetic vocals and less focus on resolution and technicalities. The EM6L, on the other hand, have a tad more bass, a much more emphasized upper-midrange and a brighter treble response that, even though more detailed and precise, could make the EM6L sound less “full-bodied” and kind-of thinner than the Explorer.
The soundstage is a lot more spacious on the EM6L, that also leave a bit more space and air between the various instruments and vocals, whereas the imaging is less vague on the Explorer with more precise pinpointing (well done AFUL, especially considering the small-sized soundstage).
Build quality and design are good on both sets, with EM6L’s biggest cons being the QDC connectors and the fingerprint-magnet glossy faceplate. Comfort is good on both sets but the thicker nozzles (that don’t even have any lip to secure the tips) of the EM6L could be a dealbreaker for some folks. The isolation is much better with the Explorer in the ears.



AFUL Explorer vs QoA Vesper 2
Both sets go for a non-fatiguing sound with a slight focus on the low-end and a relaxed tuning.
The Vesper 2 have more mid-bass, thicker lower mids, a slightly more emphasized pinna gain and a more rolled-off treble with inferior detail retrieval and resolution. The Explorer, instead, have a better sub-bass extension (with better textures and that can reach deeper registers), a tighter and faster bass, a clearer lower midrange and also a cleaner upper midrange that, combined with a better treble extension, provide for more natural and natural female vocals.
The soundstage is small on both sets while the imaging and the instrument separation are better on the Explorer.
When it comes to the design and build quality, there is no big difference, whereas in terms of comfort and isolation the Explorer have a small advantage.
The stock cable of the Explorer is the best one out of the two, even though the ear hooks are on the stiffer side.
The price is different, but I thing the extra money for the Explorer is totally worth it.



AFUL Explorer vs AFUL MagicOne
IMPORTANT NOTE: this is not a “technically fair” comparison since the MagicOne feature a single BA whereas the Explorer have 1DD and 2BAs, but I know that some are curious to hear how they compare with each other.
The Explorer are better from a technical standpoint and there is no doubt about it, there isn’t any pressure buildup over long-listening sessions, they’re not as tip sensitive as the MagicOne, and they clearly have better low-end extension.
In terms of signature, the MagicOne has more exciting female vocals and a slightly more vivid treble, although that doesn’t really give them an edge in terms of perceived resolution or better detail retrieval. I gotta, say, though, that the MagicOne sound a bit more “open”, which is understandable due to the signature being less relaxed and less thick than on the Explorer.
Design, build quality and comfort are identical (except for the fact that the MagicOne require more tip rolling as the insertion is slightly different, due to it being single BA IEMs). Isolation is above average on both sets with a tiny advantage for the MagicOne as they have no venting.

Final Thoughts​

The AFUL Explorer are very good and I was really pleased to use them (little spoiler: I will keep using them): not only are they tuned in a very unique way considering their price, but they also have solid technicalities given the warm, relaxed and smooth signature and the compressed soundstage that characterize them.
I don’t think these will be ideal for those seeking for ultra resolution, top notch detail retrieval, huge soundstage or extremely natural reproduction, but I am sure that many other listeners out there with find the Explorer a very unique sounding IEM to have in their inventory.

Introduction​

Truthear is well known for products like the Hexa, NOVA, ZERO and ZERO:RED, but also for the HOLA, which were discontinued and replaced with the GATE, the set that we’re gonna discuss in this review.

Disclaimer: the Truthear GATE were sent to me by ShenzenAudio so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set, it isn't promotional or paid content and I don’t get any revenue from the sales of this product.
At the time of the review, the Truthear Gate were on sale for 16,99$ at ShenzenAudio.

Click to expand...

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → 1 x 10mm DD (LCP + PU)
• Impedance → 28Ω@1kHz
• Sensitivity → 122 dB/Vrms@1kHz
• Frequency Response Range → 20Hz-20kHz
• Total Harmonics Distortion → <1%@1kHz, 104dB
• Cable → OFC cable with 0.78mm 2-PIN connectors
• Plug Type → 3.5mm TRS jack

Packaging​

The packaging looks pretty good and contains:

• The Truthear GATE
• The OFC detachable cable with 0.78mm 2-PIN connectors
• 2 sets of silicone tips (one set of narrow bore tips, one set of wide bore tips)
• A small pleather pouch
• User manual

Design, Build Quality, Comfort and Isolation​

The Truthear GATE are entirely made of 3D printed resin and sport a look-through plastic faceplate. The shell shape is the same as the previous budget model from Truthear, the Hola, with the only difference being a slightly longer nozzle on the GATE (very small difference though) and different materials used since the Gate feel pretty cheap.
The isolation is just average whereas there’s really nothing to complain about comfort since there are no sharp edges and the nozzle is not particularly wide.

Cable​

The cable does its job, it sports a chin slider and it’s rather flexible, but it’s nothing to write home about.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30, Fiio A3
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Moondrop May’s DSP cable with PEQ=0
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Fosi DS2, Hidizs XO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Bluetooth Adapters: KBEAR S1, KZ AZ10
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR

Do they need an amplifier?
No, they don’t strictly need an amplifier but they scale with some more power and the overall sound seem to improve a bit with better note weight.

Sound signature
The Truthear GATE follow a soft U-shaped signature with some sub-bass emphasis and upper midrange boost, along with some spice in the upper treble.

Lows
The sub-bass has pretty good extension and digs pretty deep, yet without providing a true “headshake”. The bass is slightly behind the sub-bass, it has good speed and control and average textures. It’s not a basshead IEM for sure, so you’ll be better off with other IEMs if you’re looking for a basshead set in this price range.

Mids
The lower midrange could use a bit more warmth for more depth but it doesn’t sound off. Acoustic instruments come across nice even though they lack a bit of body in the lower note due to the relatively controlled bass. The upper mids is forward and female vocals usually become the stars of the show with a pleasant energy around them. Trying to push the limits of the upper midrange, the most prone-to-sibilance tracks struggle to find fertile soil, and I could hear a few prolonged “S” just a couple times in dozens of hours of listening sessions with these. If there’s one caveat, then it’s related to the female vocals not having a bit of warmth in their lowest registers.

Highs
The highs don’t feel “closed-in” but the upper-treble spike is not enough to perceive the GATE as truly “open-sounding”. In addition, that specific upper-treble spike (which is located above 10kHz) sometimes adds a “plasticky” effect to some hats, a thing that bothers me a bit yet not enough to be a dealbreaker.
When it comes to the detail retrieval, the GATE do a nice job and provide enough information in most tracks, even though they’re not the set with which you’ll be able to pick-up the smaller nuances.
I wouldn’t say that the GATE will certainly suit those with sensitive ears since there’s some spice in the upper-treble, but I can confidently say that they are not harsh-sounding nor super bright so those who can stand a bit of treble sparkle should probably give these a try.

The soundstage is average for the price range and the same applies for the imaging.

Some comparisons:​

Truthear GATE vs Truthear Hola
The GATE have better sub-bass extension, less mid-bass focus with better bass speed, slightly less warm lower mids, a more emphasized and vivid upper-midrange and a slightly brighter treble response that is generally a tad more detailed. The Hola, instead, are warmer overall, with a punchier and more full-bodied midbass, generally warmer male vocals a smoother treble roll-off (and there are no cases in which some cymbals become “plastic-ky”).
In terms of soundstage, the two sets are comparable but the GATE sound a slightly wider stage. The imaging is very similar with the GATE showing a bit more precision in a couple occasions.
Comfort and isolation are identical, and the same applies for the stock cable.
Should one upgrade from the Hola? No, if you have the Hola the GATE isn’t a big upgrade, so I’d stick with that. If you don’t have any of the two, instead, and would like to try a Truthear budget set, then the GATE is a nice alternative to the discontinued Hola, even though the overall timbre is slightly different.

Truthear GATE vs Celest Wyvern Abyss
They are not tuned in a very different way if not for Gate’s upper end peak. The Wyvern Abyss strike a better balance across the whole spectrum and play a notch above with better imaging and soundstage, even though the Gate are a tad more detailed at times (even though that introduces a few weird inconsistencies in the timbre).
The Wyvern Abyss have better build quality and look like a much more expensive product even though the price difference is not crazy.
Comfort is subjective, as usual, but the Gate are easier to keep in smaller ears for long listening sessions. The isolation, instead, is hands down better on the Wyvern Abyss. Abyss’ stock cable is better also.
The Wyvern Abyss are more expensive but they are worth the ~10$ difference in my opinion, especially when it comes to the imaging and instrument separation.
I'd pick the Wyvern Abyss.

Truthear GATE vs Hidizs MS1-Galaxy
The MS1-Galaxy are more V-shaped, they have better low-end extension and punch and they are warmer with less treble sparkle than the GATE. The GATE win when it comes to bass speed, resolution, detail retrieval, separation and vocals performance. The soundstage is slightly bigger on the MS1-Galaxy, whereas the imaging is better on the GATE.
The build quality is not very different, even though MS1-Galaxy’s shell look a bit more refined. In terms of design, I prefer the look-through faceplates of the GATE but this is very subjective.
Comfort is very similar, isolation is slightly better on the MS1-Galaxy.
If I had to get one, I’d get the GATE for the more versatile signature and the better overall resolution. The MS1-Galaxy basically win when it comes to the low-end energy and body, but that’s it.

Final Thoughts​

The Truthear GATE are not as disruptive as the old Moondrop Chu used to be, but it’s also true that the market already has a lot of offerings from different brands, and whether you decide to go for one or another, it’s very hard to find very different performance in the same price brackets (except for a few cases).
After the success of the Hola, Truthear is back with the GATE, a set that brings a few improvements to the table, even though with some quirks.

The timbre is not “perfect” and the technicalities are only average for the price, but the overall tuning is pretty good for the price and this was basically the “formula” that made the HOLA successful. In fact, I think that "GATE" is kind-of the right name to use for this set, as it's basically among the smartest sets that one could buy to begin the audio journey.

Introduction​

Celest is back with another release, and this time we are talking about a new color variant for the already successful Celest Wyvern, which now comes in its Abyss version.
Celest said that the two versions are the same except for the different color scheme of the shells and the different cable, so let’s get deep into the review and let’s discover if the newer version still has something to say in today’s market.

For those who may ask, I have already reviewed the OG version. I wanted to review the new version because it can be useful to compare it with some recent sets in order to understand if the sound is still up to today's standards.

Disclaimer: the Celest Wyvern Abyss were sent by HiFiGO free of charge in order to be able to write a honest review. I do not represent Celest in any way and this is not promotional content.
At the time of the review, the Celest Wyvern Abyss were on sale for 29$ at HiFiGO.

Click to expand...

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → 1 x 10mm LCP Diaphragm Dynamic Driver
• Sensitivity → 105 dB
• Impedance → 32 Ω
• Frequency Response → 20 Hz – 20000 Hz
• Cable → 1,2m OFC 4-core twisted cable with 0.78mm 2-PIN connectors
• Plug Type →straight gold-plated 3,5mm TRS

Packaging​

The packaging is simple yet aesthetically refined and contains:

• The Celest Wyvern Abyss
• One set of wide bore eartips
• User manual

Design, Build Quality, Comfort and Isolation​

The previous model of the Wyvern already looked great but this one is truly awesome for the price. They are also built pretty well and the manufacturing shows a lot of attention to details.
The nozzle is not uncomfortably wide and features a lip to avoid tips from falling off.



The comfort is very subjective as they are not very small, and the protruding wings won’t probably suit everyone even though it grants a good grip on the ears. The stock tips are not enough to do some proper tip rolling (aren’t even among the best around in my opinion), and I really wish Celest included more tips, but once found the right tip size they stay in the ears and grant a very good isolation as well.

Cable​

The cable is of good quality but it doesn’t surprise. We are already used to see cables of this quality in this price range so I’d say it’s in-line with the price range.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30, Fiio A3
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Moondrop May’s DSP cable with PEQ=0
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Fosi DS2, Hidizs XO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Bluetooth Adapters: KBEAR S1, KZ AZ10
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR

Do they need an amplifier?
The Celest Wyvern Abyss don’t need an amplifier.

Sound signature
The Wyvern are harman-tuned with sub-bass focus and added energy in the upper midrange.

Lows: the sub-bass has good extension and can shake everything when called upon even though it’s still a very controlled rumble. Bass is full and punchy, it has good body and it also has pretty good speed. It is not easy to find a well done low-end in this price tag: usually you get a very powerful low-end and slow bass or a very fast bass and a thin bass, but it’s not the case with the Wyvern Abyss that somehow strike a very good balance.

Mids: the midrange is gently recessed with instruments sitting behind vocals while still sounding in a very natural manner. Acoustic instruments sometimes lack a bit of depth and body and the same thing applies for male vocals, probably because of the thinner lower midrange. Female vocals instead come up with great energy and intimacy, although this also means they could sometimes become borderline hot.

Highs: the treble is not fatiguing but it still has a touch of brightness on top that many won’t like (especially when this is combined with the slightly forward upper midrange). There are enough details to satisfy most listeners even though the Wyvern Abyss won’t be able to pick up the smallest nuances. The sound is not closed-in but some more air and sparkle would help a bit more with the overall spaciousness. The treble extension, also, is not the best out there in general (treble-heads beware!), but this is also the tuner’s intention and something that can be found in most harman-tuned products.

Soundstage is nothing to write home about since it has an average size while imaging is above average for the price.

Some comparisons:​

Celest Wyvern Abyss vs Celest Wyvern
The Abyss version seems to have a touch of added low-end that at first I really didn’t notice, and I had to use the same exact pair of foam tips on both to actually spot the difference. The difference is very small but the timbre slightly benefits from that as the upper midrange is counterbalanced a bit more. Except for this, everything else has remained unchanged.
Build quality, comfort and isolation are the same, while the stock cable is slightly different: the stock cable from the Abyss is less prone to tangling but the cable of the OG Wyvern is softer in the hands.
If you already have the previous version, don’t get the new one (except for those who want the new color) as they are basically identical and the differences are pretty hard to notice. But if you don’t own a pair of these, then I highly recommend grabbing a pair of the new Abyss version.

Small sidenote: Celest has never confirmed any tuning change so the differences that I’ve found between the two samples may also exist due to unit variance.

Click to expand...

Celest Wyvern Abyss CCA Rhapsody (UUUU)
The CCA Rhapsody are a lot more V-Shaped with a strongly recessed midrange and a thinner lower midrange. The sub-bass extension on the Wyvern Abyss is better but the low-end feels punchier and more incisive on the Rhapsody due to the recessed mids.
In terms of upper midrange, both have a lot of energy but the Wyvern Abyss comes across as the better performer as the glare is introduced in a smoother way than on the Rhapsody. Both have some upper treble energy but the Rhapsody has some BA timbre here and there that automatically makes the Wyvern Abyss more natural.
Soundstage and imaging are better on the Wyvern Abyss.
The build quality is good on both sets but the Wyvern Abyss play in another league thanks to their super refined 3D printed resin shells.
Comfort is better on the Wyvern Abyss and the same applies for isolation. Wyvern Abyss’ stock cable is better.
I’d pick the Wyvern hands down, but I also see the reasons why some folks would prefer the bassier and more fun-sounding Rhapsody.

Celest Wyvern Abyss vs Truthear Gate
They are not tuned in a very different way if not for Gate’s upper end peak. The Wyvern Abyss strike a better balance across the whole spectrum and play a notch above with better imaging and soundstage, even though the Gate are a tad more detailed at times (even though that introduces a few weird inconsistencies in the timbre).
The Wyvern Abyss have better build quality and look like a much more expensive product even though the price difference is not crazy.
Comfort is subjective, as usual, but the Gate are easier to keep in smaller ears for long listening sessions. The isolation, instead, is hands down better on the Wyvern Abyss. Abyss’ stock cable is better also.
The Wyvern Abyss are more expensive but they are worth the ~10$ difference in my opinion, especially when it comes to the imaging and instrument separation.
I'd pick the Wyvern Abyss.

Celest Wyvern Abyss vs CCA Trio (UUUU)
The Wyvern Abyss sound slightly thicker overall, with more low-end body and a warmer and more present lower midrange. The upper midrange is smoother on the Wyvern Abyss, while it’s a bit more energetic on the Trio, even though none of them become fatiguing nor sibilant.
The Trio are slightly more energetic in the treble yet they never become fatiguing, and the detail retrieval is similar between the two. Maybe, the Wyern Abyss are slightly smoother on top, whereas the Trio sound more vivid.
Soundstage and imaging are better on the Wyvern Abyss.
Build quality is good on both but the Wyvern Abyss look more premium in their 3D printed resin shells. Comfort is subjective, but in general both are comfortable if the end-user doesn’t have very small ears (the Trio don’t have any protruding wing so those who usually don’t like wings may find them a tad easier to keep in the ears for long listening sessions). In terms of isolation, the Wyvern Abyss are hands down better.
Wyvern Abyss’ stock cable is better.
I would find hard time picking just one between them.

Celest Wyvern Abyss vs EPZ Q5
Comparing them is already a big compliment for the Wyvern Abyss as the EPZ Q5 have a higher listing price.
The EPZ Q5 are more V-Shaped with a thinner midrange and less “body” overall, but they are technically better with more detail, superior resolution, bigger soundstage and more precise imaging (even though the Wyvern Abyss really go head-to-head at pinpointing in most cases). On the other hand, the Wyvern Abyss have a more full-bodied and forward midrange, even though the instrument separation is not as good as on the EPZ Q5.
The build quality is great on both sets so it all comes down to personal preferences since the design is different. Comfort-wise, the Q5 are better thanks to their smaller and thinner shells, although the Wyvern Abyss are better in terms of isolation.
The stock cable is decent on both sets, no big differences, but the Wyvern Abyss use 2-PIN connectors which, on the long run, may be more durable than Q5’s MMCX connectors.
There are both technical and tonal differences, so everything just comes down to personal preferences.
I'd probably pick the EPZ Q5 for the easier fit and the better resolution.

Final Thoughts​

The Celest Wyvern Abyss are solid, with good technical chops and a well-rounded tuning that make up for a very versatile IEM. Not only that: the well built resin shells look so good for this price and they are also very comfortable and grant a secure fit and very good isolation from external noises.

However, it’s still unclear whether the added bass on my sample is a case of unit variance or not, but if it’s not unit variance then it’s a welcomed small refinement that slightly improves the overall balance and tone.

When compared to the older Wyvern Pro, which came with a boom microphone and a few more tips, the actual listing price doesn’t seem a real deal as the Wyvern Pro can be grabbed for around 20$ right now, and I really encourage you to get the OG version if you’re searching for an in-ear gaming setup on a budget. But supposing that you don’t own the previous version, and if you’re searching for a good-looking, comfortable and nice sounding pair of IEMs that follow the Harman 2019 target (and if you don’t need the boom microphone) then look no further as these are a super safe bet, and I am pretty sure that with some discounts you may be able to grab a pair and save some dollars.

I really hope that this variant will catch the attention of more listeners as the first version of the Wyvern was overlooked by many people: it’s a set that deserves more endorsement from the community and definitely a keeper for almost everyone.

Introduction​

Tanchjim is a well known brand in the chi-fi industry and almost everyone knows at least one of their most popular products (such as Oxygen and Tanya, just to mention a few).
During the latest year, the market has seen so many sets featuring tuning switches, tuning filters and similar features, which provide for more versatility and more chances for a product to suit everyone’s taste, and the 4U from Tanchjim kind-of follows this trend.
In fact, the 4U sport a bass tuning screw with which the end-user can adjust the amount of low-end (and it’s called 4U because there are 4 different positions of the screw, hence 4 different bass tunings).
With no further ado, let’s get into the review.

Disclaimer: the Tanchjim 4U were sent to me by HiFiGO so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set, it isn't promotional or paid content and I don’t get any revenue from the sales of this product.
At the time of the review, the Tanchjim 4U were on sale for 69$ at HiFiGO.

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → Dual Chamber DMT-4 LCP Diaphragm Dynamic Driver with 4-level adjustable circuit filter system (bass filter)
• Impedance → 32Ω
• Sensitivity → 122 dB/Vrms
• Frequency Response Range → 8Hz-48kHz (that’s the theoretical response, the effective response should be the usual 20Hz-20kHz)
• Total Harmonics Distortion → <0,05%@1kHz, 94dB
• Cable → Silver-Plated Copper (SPC) cable with 0.78mm 2-PIN connectors
• Plug Type → straight gold plated 3.5mm TRS

Packaging​

The packaging is good looking and contains:

• The Tanchjim 4U
• The detachable cable
• 1 x set of wide bore silicone tips + 1 x set of narrow bore silicon tips
• A soft carry pouch
• A small tool for the bass screw
• User manual

Design, Build Quality, Comfort and Isolation​

The Tanchjim 4U are well built and use solid and kinda small metal shells. Their design is so close to the Moondrop Lan that at first I really thought they were using the same shell, then taking a closer look shows that they are not identical.
The ear-facing part of the shell shows a screw (which is a bass-filter) and a pressure vent near the nozzle, whereas the faceplate is elegant and minimalistic and only shows the 4U/Tanchjim logos.
The nozzle has a lip to secure the fits and looks pretty wide from a first look.



Comfort-wise, the 4U are generally easy to keep in the ears for long listening sessions, even though some parts of the shells can push on the tragus and antitragus zones, leading to some discomfort if you have very small ears.
Isolation is average instead, nothing to write home about yet not bad as well.

Cable​

The cable looks and feels nice and it’s in-line with the price range. It sports a chin slider, it has a gold plated straight 3.5mm jack plug and it doesn’t tangle easily.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30, Fiio A3
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Moondrop May’s DSP cable with PEQ=0
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Fosi DS2, Hidizs XO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Bluetooth Adapters: KBEAR S1, KZ AZ10
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR

Do they need an amplifier?
They don’t strictly need an amplifier as they are relatively easy to drive, but I’ve noticed that a bit more juice slightly improves the overall dynamics.It’s a very small difference yet worth mentioning.

Sound signature
The Tanchjim 4U are warm-neutral in their stock screw position, but there are 4 different bass profiles (in descending level of bass order):

• Atmosphere: it’s the stock setting, the screw arrow points towards the nozzle. This is the setting with the best low-end extension and body;
• Pop: less low-end than Atmosphere, from here the sub-bass starts rolling-off too early and the overall timbre becomes slightly thinner yet not in a bad way;
• Natural: less bass than Pop, and even less sub-bass extension, the lower midrange starts losing warmth;
• Monitoring: this is the setting with the least amount of low-end and best overall clarity, with thinner timbre and basically no perceived low-end extension;

Since I feel like the Atmosphere tuning is the most balanced between them (and since it’s the stock position of the screw as the 4U come that way out of the box), I have decided to use it for the review.

Lows
The amount of low-end is not for bassheads, especially when it comes to the sub-bass which is very controlled and doesn’t really “rumble” as bassheads usually like.
The bass is punchy, and even though not the most textured around it sounds clean and controlled as well without bleeding into the mids. When it comes to the overall speed and transients, it’s not the fastest sounding driver in the sub-100$ category, but it’s still fine for most situations and it’s generally capable of managing fast basslines.

Mids
The midrange is relatively neutral with a bit of added warmth in the lower midrange and some nice energy in the upper mids. Instruments don’t sound “off” but there are some other sets in which they can sound even more natural than on the 4U. The good news is that they never become shouty or fatiguing, and there wasn’t a single case of sibilance from my testing, which is good news. However, some female vocals would like a bit more upper-midrange gain and a tad more upper-treble extension to sound slightly airier and more energetic, but this is a minor complaint. Those who don’t like the average ear-gain from Harman IEMs will surely like this one instead.

Highs
The highs pack a good amount of details even though the 4U aren’t class-leading when it comes to micro-detailing: in fact, the smallest nuances aren’t always obvious and there are some IEMs that can outperform them in this regard (even for cheaper).
There is some energy here and there and the treble comes across as present and vivid, yet it never sounds very open nor super airy due to the limited upper-end extension. It’s not a “dull” sounding nor a claustrophobic set, but with some added upper-treble everything would have become a bit more natural and open sounding.

The soundstage is of average size, imaging in-line with the price range.

Some comparisons:​

Tanchjim 4U (Atmosphere) vs Moondrop May (3.5mm stock tuning)
May has better sub-bass extension, better female vocals, a more natural timbre and similar technicalities with even less upper treble.
The 4U, on the other hand, is slightly better when it comes to detail retrieval (very small difference) and sound slightly more vivid in the treble.
The May is more versatile if the Type-C cable is used, since the DSP settings rely on that, whereas the 4U have a physical screw that provides for more versatility in the low-end (even though, being honest, the Atmosphere setting is the one that’s more likely to be used by most people).
The build quality of the 4U is superior, the comfort is slightly better on the May and the isolation is very similar. The stock cables are not comparable (Type-C vs 3.5mm TRS), but I can say both are of good quality.
The May are more natural and they also come with a Type-C cable that one can use with other IEMs as well. The 4U are slightly more exciting and provide for a leaner presentation, and the bass filter doesn’t need any cable to “adjust” the sound signature.
I think the two products are comparable overall so it all comes down to personal preference: my favorite one is the May.

Tanchjim 4U (Atmosphere) vs Simgot EW200
The 4U are less bright and much more appealing to those who can’t stand bright treble IEMs, and they’re overall warmer and more relaxed. The Simgot EW200, instead, are better when it comes to detail retrieval, vocal energy, treble extension and imaging, even though the soundstage is not among their strengths.
The build quality is great on both sets, both are comfortable even though the 4U are smaller and may suit some folks in a better way and isolation is better on the 4U.
What should one pick? Well, the EW200 are technically superior, no doubts, but they are also pretty bright and some may find them fatiguing over time. The 4U are leaner and less technically appealing, but they have a more controlled and safe tuning that will probably work for most people.
My favourite pick? EW200, but I like brighter IEMs so this was kind-of expected.

Tanchjim 4U (Atmosphere) vs Moondrop Lan
They are VERY similar in terms of signature, with the 4U having just a tad more weight in the low-end, a slightly more emphasized upper-treble and a few more details here and there. The Lan, on the other hand, sound more more natural with a smoother transition from the low-end to the midrange and with more forward female vocals, followed by slightly more presence/lower treble than the 4U and a smoother entrance in the mid-treble region.
The soundstage is comparable whereas the imaging is better on the 4U.
Comfort and isolation are basically the same also, as the shell size, shape and materials are very similar between the two.
I would pick the LAN for the overall timbre, even though the 4U is slightly better in terms of technicalities and boasts a more full-bodied low-end.

Final Thoughts​

The Tanchjim 4U are a solid set for sure, and the bass-tuning screw is a very cool idea that I hope to see again in Tanchjim’s future products.
The driver also performs well, but the technicalities are just average and there isn’t anything that “stands out”. Its biggest weakness is probably this overly “safe” approach, with which Tanchjim managed to strike a good balance: the 4U do many things well and very little wrong but they struggle to excel in something particular.

Maybe it would have been even better if they provided a “basshead” setting, a neutral setting, and a treble-head setting, as in its current state this set cannot provide bassheads what they search for and most of the tunings won’t be for everyone. The Atmosphere tuning, however, is very solid and safe for almost everybody, and I think that with some discounts this will be an easy-to-like set for many folks out there, especially those who usually love some warmth yet without sacrificing a neutral signature.

Introduction​

Kotori Audio is a singaporean boutique brand that is mainly known for the Dauntless, a single DD IEM that targeted the trebleheads.
The newest product from Kotori Audio is the Vampire, a single BA set that instead targets a very different audience since it’s a very warm and smooth set with a severe treble roll-off.
Now, without further ado, let’s get deeper in the review.

Disclaimer: the Kotori Audio Vampire were sent to me by Ray Tan from Kotori Audio so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set, it isn't promotional or paid content and I don’t get any revenue from the sales of this product.
At the time of the review, the Kotori Audio Vampire were on sale for around 121,90 SGD at kotoriaudio.com (their official website), that corresponds to around $90.

Click to expand...

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → 1 Knowles Full-Range BA
• Impedance → 50Ω@1kHz
• Sensitivity → 112 dB/mW@1kHz
• Frequency Response Range → 20Hz-18kHz
• Total Harmonics Distortion → <0,7%@1kHz, 100dB
• Cable → Silver-Plated Copper (SPC) cable with 0.78mm 2-PIN connectors
• Plug Type → straight gold plated 3.5mm TRS

Packaging​

Since I have received a sample when the packaging was not yet ready, I have only received the IEMs inside their metal carry case. Do note that by ordering a sample today you're receiving the standard packaging which looks very good and contains:

• The Kotori Audio Vampire
• The SPC detachable cable
• 1 x set of silicone tips (S, M, L)
• A metal carry case

Design, Build Quality, Comfort and Isolation​

The Kotori Audio Vampire are 3D printed and the full resin shells are small with no sharp edges, leading to a very comfortable fit even for those with ears that are smaller than average. In addition, the isolation is superb because the shells are fully closed (no vents, as this is easier to do with a single BA than it is with a single DD).



The nozzle is pretty long and has a lip to provide for a secure fit of the tips, but it’s not uncomfortable and instead guarantees enough insertion depth for the earphones to behave correctly in terms of sound reproduction (single BA IEMs usually require deeper insertion and this is the case with the Vampire as well).

Cable​

The cable is pretty flexible, it doesn’t tangle and it sports a chin slider. It’s not the best stock cable I’ve seen under $100, but there’s really nothing to complain about as it’s a very solid one.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30, Fiio A3
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Moondrop May’s DSP cable with PEQ=0
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Fosi DS2, Hidizs XO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Bluetooth Adapters: KBEAR S1, KZ AZ10
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR

Do they need an amplifier?
Since they are not very sensitive and the impedance isn’t the lowest around, a bit more power than the average weak smartphone jack is recommended.

Sound signature
The sound of the Vampire is warm-neutral with a soft mid-bass hump and a rolled-off upper treble. It’s a very relaxed and smooth signature that will definitely appeal to all the warm-heads and treble sensitive folks out there.

Lows
The sub-bass is for sure nothing to die for, but it’s somehow perceived as “existant”, even though without a true rumble (as expected since it’s a single BA IEM), so the comparison with single DD IEMs will still be a no-go.
The mid-bass is the true star in the low-end with the typical “BA bass” textures and nice body. It’s punchy and it’s definitely more impactful than any other sub-100$ single BA IEM I’ve tried (KBEAR Neon, NiceHCK X49, KBEAR F1 and so on). The textures are ok even though it’s more of a timbre-and-quantity-focused low end, and the fact that there’s some emphasis on the bass also means that these won’t be the fastest BA bass you’ll hear, even though it’s pretty snappy for most situations.
Overall, it’s a very interesting approach for a single BA set and it works pretty well, especially for old school rap, bass guitars, lo-fi, future garage and similar genres.

Mids
The lower mids follow the bass emphasis with some forwardness that helps male vocals, even though the bass sometimes bleed into the midrange (it’s not aggressive though and helps with added warmth). Male singers come out pretty warm and deeper than expected from a single BA set, and the same applies for lower notes of acoustic guitars and some piano notes. Female vocals, instead, are intimate and delicate, but the upper treble roll-off and the lower treble dip kind-of limit their energy and the perceived “space” in which they propagate: overall, it’s a very safe IEM that will not bother those who are usually annoyed by edgy upper midrange tunings, even though those who really like very open, airy and energetic vocals should probably look elsewhere.
Last, but not least, the various instruments are well separated as long as the track is not overly complicated; feeding the Vampire with extremely busy passages or orchestral tracks with tons of instruments will inevitably show the technical limits of this set, not only due to the single BA but also because of the combination between the bass emphasis and the rolled-off treble.

Highs
With their relaxed treble response, the Vampire target those who want the smoothest single BA set under 100$, and it’s truly impossible that someone will find them fatiguing even during prolonged listening sessions. The macro-detailing capabilities are nothing to write home about but there’s a good amount of information in most cases; the smallest nuances, instead, are not an easy task for the Vampire, but this is a trade-off that many will be more than willing to accept in favor of an enjoyable and comfortable listening experience.
The upper treble roll-off (which is quite “noticeable”) plays a huge role in this very smooth experience, leading to a more intimate and less airy sound that may or may not appeal to some customers based on their preferences.

The soundstage is pretty small providing for an intimate and relaxed listening experience, and the imaging is fairly good considering the driver setup and the overall signature.

Some comparisons:​

Kotori Audio Vampire vs AFUL MagicOne
The comparison that everyone’s likely to search for if interested in a single BA set around $100.
Let’s spoil the main differences: the Vampire are bassier and darker while the MagicOne have better end-to-end extension and technicalities.
The Vampire has more mid-bass and slightly more bass texture quantity but the AFUL MagicOne have faster transients in general and dig deeper in the sub-bass region thanks to the Nautilus lengthened acoustic tube.
Due to the fact that the Vampire have a very noticeable treble roll-off, the midrange is more “linear”, while there’s a bit more brightness and sparkle on the MagicOne and the overall signature seems less mid-centric than on the Vampire.
The treble slightly brighter on the MagicOne and more small nuances are portrayed than on the Vampire with no added annoyance nor fatigue. The Vampire, on the other hand, has a darker and more intimate presentation and less micro-detailing capabilities, so there are both technical and timbrical differences.
Build quality is great in both cases and the same applies for comfort and isolation, especially considering that pressure is managed admirably (even though some pressure build-up still happens on both sets as it’s physiological for fully closed BA sets).
The provided stock cables are good too, even though some may prefer MagicOne’s thicker cable. The MagicOne come with more tips whereas the Vampire only include one set of tips (wish Kotori Audio included more tips even though the stock ones are pretty good).
I think one should go for the MagicOne for the best single BA technicalities around $100 and for the overall better clarity, whereas one should get the Vampire if on the market for a mellow, dark-ish and smooth bassy signature enclosed in very small and comfortable shells (and they’re priced below the MagicOne, so budget also plays a big part).

Kotori Audio Vampire vs KBEAR Neon
The Neon have been one of the most unique sets from KBEAR and I am proud to be the one who suggested the “Neon” name. Featuring long nozzles, they were designed to have a deep fit and wanted to be an ety-like experience for less than $50.
In general, the Kotori Audio Vampire are more comfortable since they don’t need to be pushed “that” deep in the ear canals, they have deeper and thicker bass and they have a more relaxed treble region. The Neon, instead, have a thinner lower midrange, more energetic and forward upper mids and better treble extension, providing for a more neutral-bright signature. The Neon can portray smaller nuances than the Vampire, also thanks to the better upper treble extension, but the low-end is thicker, punchier and more textured on the Vampire.
Soundstage and imaging are slightly better on the Neon due to them being brighter and more spacious, but the Vampire is surprisingly good at pinpointing considering the intimate soundstage.
In terms of overall build quality and design, the Vampire is much better, and the same applies when it comes to comfort. Isolation, instead, is comparable.
The Vampire come with a better stock cable, whereas the Neon come with a few more spare tips.
The Neon sometimes get discounted and can be grabbed for around $30, which is a very interesting price for such a unique product. But if there’s one thing in which they don’t do very well, it is the overall coherency and timbre, which instead is one of the Vampire’s strengths. In fact, the Vampire are darker and less “transparent” than the Neon (which is a big endorsement for the Neon), but they are somehow more mature and coherent along the spectrum, packing a better note weight and a smoother upper range presentation, both of which parts of a carefully fine-tuned signature that is targeted to a specific audience.

Kotori Audio Vampire vs Hisenior T2U
Not really fair since the T2U have two balanced armatures instead of one, but this could be interesting for someone.
The two are not very different from the low-end to the mid-range, and in fact the signature is kinda similar, but the Vampire have a dip in the lower-treble that the T2U don’t have instead. This makes the T2U a bit more detailed and makes female vocals more engaging, and when listening to both the Vampire feel darker and more intimate in general, even though with deeper and thicker male vocals and acoustic instruments.
The fact that Hisenior decided to use 2 BAs on the T2U makes them slightly more technical (of course, a crossover has been used to properly cover the whole spectrum with the double driver setup), and the upper-end extension benefits from that, even though Hisenior’s 2BA set doesn't have a very emphasized upper range.
Soundstage is a tiny bit better on the T2U, imaging is a tad better on the T2U.
When it comes to comfort, the Vampire win thanks to their smaller shells, whereas isolation is similar.
Both are built very well but the Vampire comes with slightly more flexible and softer cable, even though the T2U come with a much more generous sets of tips and accessories.
What should one buy? The T2U are a bit better in terms of technical performance and they’re a tad more balanced with no focus on lows or highs; the Vampire, instead, go all-in on thick note weight and on a darker signature that will suit warm-heads or dark-heads better, provided they could accept the slightly inferior technicalities.

Final Thoughts​

It's the first time I get the chance to try a product from Kotori Audio and I really hope this won’t be the last.
The Kotori Audio Vampire may not seem “disruptive” because they don’t kill more expensive IEM nor IEMs in the same price bracket, but I think there’s another point to consider in this case: while other brands try to raise the bar and compete on the value for money ratio, Kotori is focusing on a specific target market, which is something we don’t see often nowadays.
The Vampire, in fact, are not going to compete with the likes of Simgot’s single DD kings, nor are they gonna try challenging the latest budget planar or hybrid set in their price range: expecting that would be just plain wrong. They are instead trying to satisfy the needs of those who want a pair of small IEMs that have a warm signature and a thick bass response with very smooth and kinda dark-ish highs, a combination of factors that make up for a nice pair to just sit and enjoy some pure relax.

For sure, those who want the best technical performance from a single BA IEM will be better off saving some more money and increase the budget to get a pair of AFUL MagicOne, but we are talking about a more expensive IEM that also have a slightly different signature (both are warm-neutral but the Vampire sound darker and has more midbass than sub-bass), and one also gotta remember that while AFUL can somehow set more aggressive prices, a boutique like Kotori Audio works on lower quantities so the products will be generally more expensive despite their similar technical level.

What else to add? I guess nothing.
The Vampire provided for a very interesting listening experience from the first usage, and I really hope that Kotori Audio will come out with even more interesting and capable products in the future, especially because I really like their “direction” and the fact that they truly care about specific end users without going for a trial-and-error strategy by using jack-of-all-trades IEMs.

Introduction​

Celest (Kinera sub-brand) is expanding its product portfolio with another release named Relentless, which was somehow confused with the Pandamon 2.0 at first before things somehow became clearer thanks to the announcement of the very different driver configuration and the published photos about the two products.
In this review, I’ll dive deep into this set and provide my own impressions on every aspect of the product.

Disclaimer: the Celest Relentless were sent to me by HiFiGO so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set, it isn’t a promotional or paid content and I don’t get any revenue from the sales of this product.
At the time of the review, the Celest Relentless were on sale for 169.99$ at HiFiGO.

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → 1DD + 6BA
• Impedance → 27 Ω
• Sensitivity → 105 dB
• Frequency Response Range → 20Hz-20kHz
• Cable → 5N copper silver-plated with 0.72mm 2-PIN connectors
• Plug Type → Modular plug: straight gold plated 3.5mm or 4.4 mm jack connector

Packaging​

The packaging is good looking and rather elegant, and contains:

• The Celest Relentless
• The detachable cable with modular plug (so you can use either the 3.5mm jack or the 4.4mm jack)
• 3 + 3 + 2 pairs of foam tips (S,M)
• A storage bag
• A small cleaning/brushing tool
• User manual

Design, Build Quality, Comfort and Isolation​

The Celest Relentless are pretty big and thick and look amazing thanks to the coloured and refined design of the faceplate. The build quality is great, they are pretty lightweight for the size and the nozzle is neither too long nor too short, sporting a useful nozzle lip (which is good news).

Cable​

The cable is very good and it also looks durable, even though this is nothing to be surprised by considering the price range.
If there’s a thing that makes this cable great, then it is the modular plug: by unscrewing the 3.5mm jack, one can swap it with the 4.4mm jack included in the box, providing for more versatility if a balanced output is needed/preferred.
Other than this, nothing new: we find the usual chin slider and no microphone control on the cable.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30, Fiio A3
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Moondrop May’s DSP cable with PEQ=0
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Fosi DS2, Hidizs XO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR, KZ AZ10

Do they need an amplifier?
An amplifier is not strictly needed but it’s recommended. The Relentless scale pretty well and pair well with warm sources due to their bright nature.

Sound signature
The Celest Relentless follow a bright V-shaped signature with some treble emphasis and a low-end shelf. If you are looking for a Harman tuned set, you should probably skip this one.

Lows
The sub-bass is controlled but it doesn’t rumble a lot: it’s a very clean sub-bass that won’t probably suit the average basshead’s tastes, but every other listener will not find it lacking. The focus is on the midbass, even though this is not super emphasized either: it has good textures, good punch and nice speed, but the combination between the controlled sub-bass and the emphasized treble makes it a bit less forward than it looks on graphs.
Overall it’s a well done low-end for most genres, but those looking for the most punchy and full bodied bass out there will probably need to keep searching.

Mids
The mids are recessed, so those who are on the market for a mid-centric IEM should probably look elsewhere.
The leaner-than-average midbass sometimes struggles to give more warmth and depth to male vocals, although most of the time they still sound nice (yet not really “natural”). The upper midrange is instead forward (at the right point) and somewhat intense, with energetic female vocals and rich violins/electric guitar notes, even though some episodes of sibilance may occur if the tracks are prone to that (this is because of the combination between the upper midrange glare, a slight dip and then a treble boost).
The instruments are generally well separated, the layering is good and it really seems like the Relentless are not afraid of busy and crowded tracks, except for some cases.

Highs
The highs are bright and pack a lot of details, and the treble emphasis provides for a very open sound even though this also means that the Relentless should be avoided by those who are sensitive to treble.
For sure, this is one of the IEMs that shine in the treble extension under 200$ (hands down) even though for some genres this may also be a hit or miss because of some particular sounds (i.e. if you listen to a lot of metal, some cymbals may be somewhat aggressive for prolonged use) and for a touch of BA timbre.

The soundstage is pretty wide and has good depth although height is just average. The imaging is very good, with instruments being well pinpointed and separated, this also thanks to the very good treble extension.

How the stock tips impact the sound signature:

• Celest 221 Vocal Eartips (black): more emphasized treble, airier vocals and instruments, more sibilance
• Celest 608 Balanced (Red): more balanced, a bit less airy and slightly bassier but less fatiguing than the 221
• Foam tips: best balance between treble, bass impact and vocals and there is also less sibilance than on 608 and 221. Probably the best choice of the set.

Some comparisons:​

Celest Relentless vs Simgot EM6L
Price is quite different yet both are hybrids placed between 100$ and 200$.
The Relentless have a more robust and more textured the low-end (especially in the midbass region), whereas the EM6L have a richer midrange and more natural male vocals; female vocals, instead, sound more detailed and energetic on the Relentless yet a bit more natural and intimate on the EM6L. Both are kinda bright on top but the treble extension is better on the Relentless, even though the EM6L provide for a slightly smoother transition between the upper midrange and the lower midrange (with less occasions of sibilance).
The timbre is nice on both but the EM6L sound a bit more natural, while the Relentless are less accurate from a timbrical perspective yet more fun and technical to listen to, with slightly better instrument separation and a more expansive soundstage. The imaging is not that different and the EM6L compete pretty well in this regard, even though the Relentless have more space to place everything properly and feels more “holographic”.
When it comes to the build quality, accessories, cable and isolation, it’s an easy win for the Relentless, even though the smaller size of the EM6L may be better for some people out there.

Celest Relentless vs Celest Phoenixcall
Different driver configuration yet same company and similar price bracket: ok, let’s do it.
The Relentless are brighter but they somehow feel less “thin” in the treble and sound more appealing and “correct” from a timbrical standpoint. In fact, the sub-bass extension is better on the Relentless and provides for a fuller and more engaging sound. The midbass is very good on both sets but the Relentless have better bass textures and better body, whereas the Phoenixcall compete with slightly faster transients when it comes to rapid basslines. The midrange is recessed on both sets but the Relentless do better in terms of vocals: the fuller low-end makes sure that male vocals don’t disappear and the smoother upper midrange emphasis gives more body and energy to female vocals (they sounded thinner and less natural on the Phoenixcall due to the earlier emphasis followed by a dip). The detail retrieval is very good on both sets too, but the Relentless are more proficient and pack a better treble extension (they also cost more, so it was expected).
Soundstage is wider and deeper on the Relentless, whereas the height is similar. Imaging is better on the Relentless.
The Relentless come with a slightly more versatile cable, but when it comes to build quality, isolation and comfort, they are comparable (even though the smaller and more unique shells of the Phoenixcall will appeal to more people).

Celest Relentless vs Simgot EA1000
Not really fair to compare a hybrid setup with a single DD set, but let’s try anyway.
In terms of timbre/tonality, bass body/depth and vocals, there’s no competition: the EA1000 just sound like a more mature set.
From a technical perspective, though, the Relentless compete quite well: the sub-bass has better extension, the bass is very speedy and it’s well textured (yet not as full bodied as on the EA1000), there’s lots of detail, the treble extension is very good (eveN though slightly less natural than on the EA1000) and both imaging and soundstage are slightly more clinical than on the EA1000.
It’s unfair to compare these since the EA1000 avoid any incoherence that could come from the usage of different drivers, but it’s also true that the Relentless is not getting completely destroyed (which is good news). I would still pick the EA1000 hands down (it’s a more natural set with much better bass quality, richer mids and they also have that effortless way to reproduce every track correctly) but the Relentless really show Celest’s ability to keep up with proficient driver implementations. Anyways, the target is slightly different: those who want a single DD IEM will still pick a single DD IEM and those who search for a hybrid will only want that.
When it comes to cable, accessories and isolation, the Relentless win hands down, whereas the EA1000 look like a slightly more premium set and come in a smaller-sized shell.

Final Thoughts​

After the so-so Pandamon 2.0, Celest managed to score a very nice goal.
The Relentless are yet another proof that Celest knows how to properly fit and implement different drivers without actually killing the overall cohesiveness. For sure, there is still room for improvement (i.e. the occasional sibilance and the slight touch of BA timbre), but the overall sound is pleasant and smooth for a hybrid configuration and the technical performance is up to the expectations for a 150$-200$ hybrid set.
It will be hard to recommend these to those who don’t like bright IEMs or V-shaped tunings, but except for those people everyone else will find the Relentless a fun and technically proficient IEM that will provide for very engaging and musical listening sessions.

Introduction​

Hidizs is very popular in the Chi-Fi industry and they have been experiencing a very nice period thanks to their positive reviews on the MP145, MS1 Galaxy and other IEMs in their lineup. Not only that, they have also received some praise for their dongle DACs, and in this review I am going to cover the Hidizs XO.

Disclaimer: the Hidizs XO was sent to me by Hidizs free of charge after being selected for the “Hidizs Product Feedback Insights Program”. This review represents my personal opinion on the set and it is by no means a promotional or paid content.
At the time of the review, the Hidizs XO was on sale for around 59$ at Hidizs’s official webshop.
I wanna thank Hidizs for this opportunity as I get the chance to try one of their products and give my honest feedback that will hopefully be helpful for the brand and the community.

Click to expand...

Technical Specifications​

• Size → 55mm * 24.5mm * 9.35mm
• DAC Chip → ESS SABRE ES9219C x 2
• Compatibility → MQA up to 16X (requires software support, recommended to use HiBy Music, DSD (Native DSD64/128/256), PCM (up to 384kHz/32bit)
• Output type → single ended 3.5mm jack, balanced 2.5mm jack
• Frequency Response → PO(3.5): 20Hz-40kHz (±0.12dB) / BAL(2.5): 20Hz-40kHz (±0.12dB)
• THD + N → PO(3.5): 0.0015% / BAL(2.5): 0.0005%
• SNR → PO(3.5): 118dB / BAL(2.5): 119dB
• Crosstalk → PO(3.5): 76 dB / BAL(2.5): 118 dB
• Output Power → 78mW + 78mW@32Ω 3.5mm SE, 195mW+195mW@32Ω Balanced 2.5mm
• Supported systems → Android, Windows, Mac OS, iPad OS, iOS (if you have older iPhones, though, you’ll have to buy a Type-C to Lightning adapter separately)
• Net weight → 11g

Packaging​

The box is very small, it has a very simple design and contains:

• The Hidizs XO dongle
• A Type-C to Type-C cable
• A Type-C to USB-A adapter
• User manual and warranty card
• Two small “Hi-Res Audio” stickers

Design and Build Quality​

The Hidizs XO is a true beauty in its (Rose Gold, in my case) metal chassis: it’s pleasant to look at, it’s very lightweight and its size also makes it easy to fit in small IEMs’ cases.
There are two RGB LED strips on the sides, on which Hidizs spent some effort (and words), since it’s a highlighted feature on the official product page on Hidizs’ website.



There are two physical buttons on the front:

• The X button: used for changing the RGB LEDs’ colors/effects;
• The O/rounded button: used for applying a sound filter (even though the difference is almost unnoticeable) which is recognizable by the color of the outer RGB LED ring.

Performance​

Power consumption and temperature
The XO is not the most efficient dongle out there, even though this doesn’t only depend on the output or the RGB lighting (which for sure, when active, leads to higher battery drain).
One of the main issues is that the temperature increases pretty fast after some minutes of listening; this leads to more energy dispersion due to the heat, hence more power consumption and lower efficiency overall. Summer will definitely be a stressful test bench for the XO, since the operating temperatures will be much higher.
Having a dedicated gain setting option would have been optimal since one could decrease the gain with very sensitive IEMs in order to have less energy consumption and lower temperatures (hence, better efficiency with certain loads).

Sound
In terms of sound, the XO is relatively neutral with a very soft touch of warmth. It’s not the most resolving, accurate or analytical dongle DAC out there for sure, but delivers an overall nice and kinda musical sound that pairs well with almost every IEM.
Soundstage is quite expansive, detail retrieval is nice and the overall instrument separation is in line with the price range. There isn’t anything dirty going on even when very sensitive IEMs are plugged in, and the overall sound is slightly smoothened in the extreme upper and lower end in a pleasant way (hence not the most transparent/clinical or the driest I’ve heard).

Pressing the physical rounded button should slightly change the sound since there are two filter presets, but I found the two settings basically indistinguishable. Let’s say that Hidizs has put much more attention on the lighting, on the build quality and the overall appearance rather than on the sound filter.
Unfortunately, there also isn’t any button nor any combination of buttons that can be used to select a different gain setting, which is a missed opportunity.

Click to expand...

Some comparisons:​

Hidizs XO vs Truthear SHIO
The SHIO sounds slightly more neutral, more transparent, a little more analytical and detailed. It feels like a more capable product in terms of small nuances and it’s a bit more powerful as well. Not only that: the SHIO drains less battery (in both the gain modes through both the outputs), it doesn’t heat up like the XO and also has two gain levels, a feature that is missing on the Hidizs XO.
Build quality and lighting are of great quality on the XO, no doubt, whereas SHIO looks and feels cheaper even though its performance is slightly superior overall.

Hidizs XO vs Type-C Apple Dongle
There’s really no competition when it comes to power output, so it doesn’t make any sense to compare them under this aspect. The Apple Dongle, though, sounds very good in terms of quality, with a more linear and transparent sound compared to the XO.
The XO wins in terms of soundstage and overall detail retrieval, but it’s also slightly warmer than the Apple Dongle, hence a bit more colored and musical.
The Apple dongle has no issues with heating (it isn’t very powerful, though, so that also plays a role) and it’s basically a cable, while the Hidizs XO has a full metal chassis, RGB lighting, a balanced output (the Apple Dongle only has an unbalanced output) and looks way more premium.

Hidizs XO vs Fosi Audio DS2
The Hidizs XO is warmer, and slightly smoother in the upper end with a tad more low-end body. The DS2 is a bit brighter instead and more transparent, sounding slightly drier than Hidizs’ dongle.
In terms of power and efficiency, the DS2 can reach higher volumes and it does that without becoming very warm/hot after some minutes of listening, a thing that happens instead on the Hidizs XO and that leads to more power consumption than the Fosi DS2.
Both are built very well, they are very lightweight and portable, both feel solid in the hands and both sport an added 4.4mm jack port for the balanced output, along with the unbalanced 3.5mm port. The Hidizs XO has RGB lighting but doesn’t have any volume control buttons, and the sound filters are basically identical in terms of sound. Another important difference is the fact that the XO sports a 2.5mm balanced port, whereas the Fosi DS2 features a more common and safe 4.4mm output (2.5mm outputs aren’t very appreciated because 4.4mm connectors are generally less delicate on the long run).
The XO is not a bad dongle but the Fosi DS2 is a product with an overall higher value for money, even though they sound slightly different in terms of sound approach..

Fosi DS2 vs Hidizs XO
The Hidizs XO is warmer, and slightly smoother in the upper end with a tad more low-end body. The DS2 is a bit brighter instead and more transparent, sounding slightly drier than Hidizs’ dongle.
In terms of power and efficiency, the DS2 can reach higher volumes and it does that without becoming very warm/hot after some minutes of listening, a thing that happens instead on the Hidizs XO and that leads to more power consumption than the Fosi DS2.
Both are built very well, they are very lightweight and portable, both feel solid in the hands and both sport an added 4.4mm jack port for the balanced output, along with the unbalanced 3.5mm port. The Hidizs XO has RGB lighting but doesn’t have any volume control buttons, and the sound filters are basically identical in terms of sound. Another important difference is the fact that the XO sports a 2.5mm balanced port, whereas the Fosi DS2 features a more common and safe 4.4mm output (2.5mm outputs aren’t very appreciated because 4.4mm connectors are generally less delicate on the long run).
The XO is not a bad dongle but the Fosi DS2 is a product with an overall higher value for money, even though they sound slightly different in terms of sound approach.

A very personal take on this dongle and its target market​

I think Hidizs tried to attract two kinds of customers with a single products:

• Audiophiles/audio gear hobbyists with the balanced + unbalanced outputs and nice technical specs
• Those who are attracted by RGB lightings (i.e. gamers and similar users)

I don’t really dig when things are mixed up because the final result is usually an in-between that works just ok for both kinds of users instead of excelling.

If Hidizs wanted to make something appealing to gamers, then a very good idea would have been making a dongle with unbalanced output and TRRS support so that gamers could also microphone input, and they could also have the RGB lighting that was implemented on the XO (which is definitely cool).
If they instead wanted to aim to the hobbyists that search for the best dongles around, then they should have put a bit more effort at making the XO more efficient, with a better temperature management and less battery drain (less effort on the lighting, more effort on the overall performance).

Final Thoughts​

The Hidizs XO is among the most compact and lightweight dongles out there, enclosed in a high quality metal chassis and featuring both balanced and unbalanced outputs, which lead to a versatile and powerful source.
The RGB lighting is the icing on the cake, but it really looks like Hidizs put too much effort on a feature that drains more battery on a dongle that isn’t already very efficient. In fact, I would have understood the RGB lighting if the product was targeted to gamers, but this one aims to those who listen to music and prioritize quality, power and efficiency on the move, and the lighting doesn’t really improve the overall experience.

I still think the XO is a great device, but there are even better dongles in their price bucket and if Hidizs managed to address the few mentioned issues, this could have been an even better contender (especially considering their original listing price).

Introduction​

Fosi is well known in Chi-Fi and has released some DAC/AMPs that were praised by many in the community. The DS2 is their latest dongle featuring both unbalanced and balanced outputs and comes in a very small format with USB Type-C connection.

Disclaimer: the Fosi DS2 was sent to me by HiFiGO free of charge in order to write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion and it is by no means a promotional or paid content.
At the time of the review, the Fosi DS2 was on sale for around 59$ at HiFiGO.

Click to expand...

As an important note, it seems like Fosi Audio has made a revision of this product since some have received the variant with the ESS9018K2M and others (like me) have received the variant with the CS43131, so be aware of this when looking at the various reviews as some opinions may vary substantially.

Click to expand...

Technical Specifications​

• Size → 53mm * 19mm * 12mm
• DAC Chip → Cirrus Logic CS43131 x 2
• Compatibility → PCM 32bit 384kHz, DSD256 (NO MQA)
• Output type → single ended 3.5mm jack, balanced 4.4mm jack
• Frequency Response → 20Hz-20kHz (±0.5dB)
• THD → 0.0001%
• SNR → 130dB
• Crosstalk → 117 dB
• Output Power → SE: 130mW@32ohm - BAL: 510mW@32ohm
• Recommended headphone impedance → 16Ω-300Ω
• Supported systems → Android, Windows, Mac OS, iOS (if you have older iPhones, though, you’ll have to buy a Type-C to Lightning adapter separately)
• Net weight → 15g

Packaging​

The box is very small, it has a very simple design and contains:

• The Fosi DS2
• A Type-C to Type-C cable
• A Type-C to USB-A adapter
• User manual and warranty card

Design, Build Quality and Buttons​

The Fosi DS2 has minimal design and it’s built like a tank. It’s also very lightweight and very small, and one can easily carry it in a small case with a pair of IEMs.



There are two dedicated buttons for the volume control, which are independent from the source volume (increasing the volume on the dongle doesn’t affect the source volume, so I just increase the source volume 100% and then adjust the volume directly on the dongle).
Unfortunately, even though someone reported that pressing both buttons together switched to the high gain mode, this is not the case on my DS2: this is probably due to the above mentioned recent revision of the product.

Performance​

Power consumption and temperature
The Fosi DS2 packs a lot of power: my Hifiman HE400 SE reach pretty high volumes and I can’t wear them if I max the volume or I’d risk becoming deaf very fast. For sure it's not the best dongle to pair with a neutral bright set and in fact I don't enjoy the HE400 SE a lot with the DS2.
It’s also an efficient dongle since it doesn’t consume a lot of power and doesn’t become very hot after a few minutes of listening. Listening to some high-res FLAC files on my Galaxy S23 Ultra with HiBy Music consumed 4% of battery after half an hour and the dongle DAC was still far from being warm to the touch, which is an overall good result in my opinion. Other dongles with higher operating temperatures would have consumed more power, and this is also thanks to the CS43131 being a very efficient solution.

Sound
The DS2 is transparent with a slightly bright tinge. It’s very resolving, detailed and analytical, and pairs well with warmer sets due to its dry nature. The soundstage isn’t the best out there, and in fact the sound is rather intimate (and makes warm IEMs even more intimate). Also, there isn’t any background noise or hiss with sensitive IEMs, and the overall response is not smoothened nor softened in any way.

I want to report, in addition, that if you pause and wait a few seconds, then when pressing play again the dongle will smoothen the volume instead of start playing at full volume in order to prevent hearing issues, which is good news. Unfortunately, though, the sound doesn't stop when the earphones are disconnected.

Click to expand...

Some comparisons:​

Fosi DS2 vs Truthear SHIO
The SHIO sounds a bit warmer and more natural, and the portrayed soundstage is slightly more spacious. It is also more powerful from my testing and has two gain settings to choose from. The SHIO is slightly more capable when it comes to the maximum sampling rate, going up to PCM 44.1 kHz - 768 kHz while the DS2 tops up at 384 kHz (more of a number thing, since it’s very hard to notice differences once these sampling rates are reached), even though both support up to DSD256. Power consumption is very similar and temperatures are not an issue on both (the SHIO is also covered by a very cheap pleather skin so it feels a bit less warm due to the fact that there’s another layer).
The overall build quality is superior on the DS2 whereas the SHIO looks and feels a bit cheaper (despite being slightly more powerful). Both have volume controls, which is good news.

Fosi DS2 vs Hidizs XO
The Hidizs XO is warmer, and slightly smoother in the upper end with a tad more low-end body. The DS2 is a bit brighter instead and more transparent, sounding slightly drier than Hidizs’ dongle.
In terms of power and efficiency, the DS2 can reach higher volumes and it does that without becoming very warm/hot after some minutes of listening, a thing that happens instead on the Hidizs XO and that leads to more power consumption than the Fosi DS2.
Both are built very well, they are very lightweight and portable, both feel solid in the hands and both sport an added 4.4mm jack port for the balanced output, along with the unbalanced 3.5mm port. The Hidizs XO has RGB lighting but doesn’t have any volume control buttons, and the sound filters are basically identical in terms of sound. Another important difference is the fact that the XO sports a 2.5mm balanced port, whereas the Fosi DS2 features a more common and safe 4.4mm output (2.5mm outputs aren’t very appreciated because 4.4mm connectors are generally less delicate on the long run).
The XO is not a bad dongle but the Fosi DS2 is a product with an overall higher value for money, even though they sound slightly different in terms of sound approach..

Fosi DS2 vs Type-C Apple Dongle
Easy one: the DS2 is more resolving, more powerful, more versatile also thanks to the double output (balanced + unbalanced) but it’s also much more expensive. The Apple Dongle can be found for around 6$-7$ on average and it’s a very transparent and versatile device if you use it on your PC, on an unlocked android phone or with a few apps (due to the fact that it has a very limited output if not under specific/optimal conditions). One thing to say is that the Apple Dongle also works with TRRS connectors, also transmitting microphone input, a thing that isn’t possible on the Fosi DS2 due to it having audio outputs only.

Final Thoughts​

The Fosi DS2 is an excellent portable dongle DAC/AMP: it has lots of power, it’s very efficient and the price is right, which is not something to take for granted. To be honest, the only thing that bothers me is the lack of a proper gain switch, but since the dongle volume is independent from the source volume, it’s something that I don’t consider as a dealbreaker.

Introduction​

Celest is already well known in the market: they started from the Gumiho and now they are back with the Pandamon 2.0 and the Ogryn, immediately after the great success of the Plutus Beast and Phoenixcall. The Pandamon 2.0 come also thanks to the positive feedback on the first Pandamon, a pair of nice sounding IEMs that was overlooked by many because of the “childish” appearance.

Disclaimer: the Celest Pandamon 2.0 were sent to me by HiFiGO so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set, it isn’t a promotional or paid content and I don’t get any revenue from the sales of this product.
At the time of the review, the Celest Pandamon 2.0 were on sale for around 59$ at HiFiGO.

Click to expand...

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → 1 x 10mm SPD™ (Square Planar Driver)
• Impedance → 9 Ω
• Sensitivity → 108 dB
• Frequency Response Range → 20Hz-20kHz
• Cable → 1,2m silver plated 5N copper cable with 0.72mm 2-PIN connectors
• Plug Type → Straight gold plated 4.4 mm jack connector (there is also a 3.5mm version)

Packaging​

The packaging of the Pandamon 2.0 is pretty simple, as shown in the photos, and it contains:

• The Pandamon 2.0
• A detachable cable (4.4mm cable in my case, but as said in the specs one can also buy the 3.5mm jack version)
• One set of Celest 221 tips and one set of Celest 608 tips (S, M, L)
• A storage bag
• User manual

Design, Build Quality, Comfort and Isolation​

The Pandamon 2.0 come in a rounded 3D printed resin shell that look rather elegant. The first version of the Pandamon featured a robotic Panda, which was a bit childish, but the newer version is a lot less fancy and could definitely appeal to more people.
The shells are very lightweight, they look sturdy and the correct nozzle length along with the smooth shell design lead to a very comfortable fit. The isolation is decent too, even though these aren’t the IEMs I would use for super crowded environments.

Cable​

The cable is decent, and even though there are IEMs with better stock cables in this price range, it’s hard to complain: it’s sturdy, it has a chin slider and it looks durable.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30, Fiio A3
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Moondrop May’s DSP cable with PEQ=0
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Fosi DS2, Hidizs XO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR, KZ AZ10

Do they need an amplifier?
They reach satisfying volumes without an amplifier but I found out they scale with some power, so I suggest a cheap dongle at least.

Sound signature
The Celest Pandamon 2.0 have a smooth and relaxed U-shaped tuning. The SPD™ is not a traditional planar driver so I was not expecting any kind of planar timbre, and in fact there isn’t any kind of inconsistency in this regard.

Lows
The lows are present but not exaggerated or particularly emphasized, with the sub-bass being very controlled yet not digging as deep as I expected. The bass is punchy and tight, even though, being honest, I was expecting slightly better bass textures considering the slower-than-average bass.
If you’re a basshead or if you are used to listen on low volume levels and still want some proper bass body, just skip this one, but if you are someone searching for a balanced low-end then these might be your cup of tea.

Mids
The midrange is softly recessed with forward vocals and lush instrument timbre. Male vocals sound pretty good (even though a touch more warmth would have made them even better) and female vocals sound natural and energetic, hitting the sweet spot between forwardness and intimacy although high volumes can lead to some hotness here and there in some tracks.
Songs from Dire Straits and Police (just to mention a few) and other rock groups sound delicious on these even though very complicated tracks or busy moments show some weaknesses here and there in terms of layering and speed. Songs that mainly involve instruments like piano and classic guitars (let’s say Coldplay, James Blunt and so on), instead, would benefit from a bit more sub-bass but this is me nitpicking.

Highs
The highs are well tuned with no excessive peaks or extreme brightness. Detail retrieval is pretty good even though not class leading and the lower treble boost don’t lead to a fatiguing listening experience. Those who usually like a pinch of added energy on top without going for the “bright” route will definitely like the treble on the Pandamon 2.0, whereas trebleheads will be better off skipping this one since the upper treble extension is not the best out there.

The soundstage is relatively small and the imaging is decent, even though the dark-ish upper-treble limits the soundstage expansion and leaves a bit less space for the instruments to move on the stage (and, of course, to be properly pinpointed). Some competitors in this price range, however, do better in terms of technical performance.

Some comparisons:​

Celest Pandamon 2.0 vs Celest Pandamon
The overall sound “direction” hasn’t changed a lot, but the two sound slightly different. The first Pandamon sound slightly warmer, speedier, with better treble extension (also thanks to the open back design) and a tad more technical overall. The Pandamon 2.0, instead, have more natural vocals, a fuller low-end and play in a more intimate soundstage. The newer version needs more power to shine.
Build quality, stock cable, comfort and isolation are instead better on the newer Pandamon 2.0.

Celest Pandamon 2.0 vs EPZ Q5
The EPZ Q5 are more resolving, more detailed, they have better imaging and they play in a bigger soundstage. The Pandamon 2.0 have a slightly more natural midrange reproduction but thinner instruments and vocals’ timbre. In addition, the Pandamon 2.0 are harder to drive.
Let’s say that the Pandamon 2.0 are more focused on being an all-rounder, the EPZ Q5 instead go for a technical and fun V-shaped sound which doesn’t fit every genre.
Both are comfortable but the EPZ Q5 are smaller and isolate in a better way from external noises, and may appeal to more people.
Build quality is good on both sets even though the EPZ Q5 seem like a more premium set, while stock cable is of comparable quality.

Celest Pandamon 2.0 vs EW200
The EW200 are brighter, more detailed and have better imaging, while the Pandamon 2.0 has slightly more enjoyable vocals, a lusher midrange and a much less fatiguing treble (yet less detailed). The EW200 are easier to drive.
Comfort-wise, the Pandamon 2.0 are better whereas the EW200 are tinge better in terms of isolation. Build quality is good on both, maybe a bit better on the EW200, and stock cable is of comparable quality.

Celest Pandamon 2.0 vs QoA Gimlet
Two different sets, even though they’re both warm-tuned.
The Gimlet have more low-end presence and body, better bass textures, warmer male vocals and more energetic female vocals, a more open and detailed treble, a slightly bigger soundstage and a marginally superior imaging. The Pandamon 2.0 are generally more natural, they have slightly better bass tightness, a smoother and less recessed midrange with lusher vocals and a darker upper treble that is pretty safe for everyone. As a sidenote, the Pandamon 2.0 are slightly harder to drive.
The build quality is good on both sets (Gimlet are more premium though), comfort is better on the Pandamon 2.0 and isolation is better with the Gimlet in the ears. The stock cable is comparable.

Final Thoughts​

Celest keeps demonstrating that they are able to “be different” from other brands with slightly different tunings when compared to the majority of products on the market.
The Pandamon 2.0 are a nice set, but everyone expected them to be an improvement over the first Pandamon, which isn’t 100% true unfortunately. The comfort, the isolation, the build quality and design saw a big improvement and this is undeniable, but the sound is slightly less technical even though a tad more mature.

Don’t get me wrong, the Pandamon 2.0 sound nice, but I was expecting a much bigger jump from their previous version, especially given the price and the actual competitors (i.e. Kefine Delci, with almost the same price and much better technical performance).

Introduction​

Kefine is a pretty new brand in the Chi-Fi industry, but it’s directly related to SIVGA that instead is not new on the market.
After the success of their Klanar (which I haven’t had the chance to try), they are back with a single DD set named “Delci”, and in this review I’ll dive deeper to understand their value and how they compare with other products.

Disclaimer: the Kefine Delci were sent to me by Kefine so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set, it isn’t a promotional or paid content and I don’t get any revenue from the sales of this product.
At the time of the review, the Kefine Delci were on sale for around 59$ at HiFiGO.

Click to expand...

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → 1 x 10mm DD
• Impedance → 28 Ω
• Sensitivity → 95 dB
• Frequency Response Range → 20Hz-40kHz
• Cable → 1,2m copper cable with 0.72mm 2-PIN connectors
• Plug Type → Straight gold plated 3.5mm jack connector

Packaging​

The packaging of the Delci is quite simple and contains:

• The Kefine Delci
• A detachable cable
• One set of wide bore tips and one set of narrow bore tips (S, M, L) along with the ones that are already mounted on the nozzles
• A hard carry case
• User manual

Design, Build Quality, Comfort and Isolation​

The Kefine Delci look very elegant and come in a dark grey color that I really dig, even though those who already own the Klanar will find them looking too similar (maybe Kefine should have found a way to differentiate them a bit more).
The build quality is excellent and there’s nothing to complain about.
Comfort is great as long as one uses the correct tips as these need a particularly deep insertion. At the same time, it’s better if the used tips have a stiffer inner tube since the nozzle is on the bigger side.
Isolation is decent in general.

Cable​

The cable is pretty good, even though I’ve already seen better cables in this price range: it has a chin slider, it’s well built and it feels durable. Let’s say that nowadays having braided cable in this price range would be even better, but I don’t wanna push so much on this since it’s a minor complaint.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30, Fiio A3
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Moondrop May’s DSP cable with PEQ=0
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Fosi DS2, Hidizs XO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR, KZ AZ10

Do they need an amplifier?
No, they don’t strictly need an amplifier.

Sound signature
The Kefine Delci follow a very warm U-shaped signature.

Lows
The sub-bass is deep and builds very solid foundations for every track or genre one can think of. It’s not exaggerated though, which is very good news.
The bass is punchy and full bodied (for a 10mm driver, nice job Kefine!), even though the texturing ability is just ok. Let’s say it’s not a set for those who usually prefer extreme basshead L-shaped sets, but you’ll definitely feel at home when using the Delci if you love bass in general.

Mids
The midrange sounds slightly recessed, with a lot of warmth in the lower midrange and a very refined upper midrange. Male vocals sound very deep and warm, even though sometimes this warmth can be a bit too much for some, while female vocals are deliciously intimate yet energetic at the right point. Acoustic instruments are weighty and portrayed with a very nice and pleasant warm tinge, a thing that also impacts some other instruments like violins or electric guitars that should sound a tad drier in some situations.
The layering is very nice too, which is good news.

Highs
The highs are non fatiguing overall but there’s some spice. I have noticed that the shallower the fit, the spicier the treble gets, so a deep insertion will actually improve the overall sound experience.
The treble carries a good amount of details and the extension is not bad. For sure the Delci are not extremely analytical nor do they aim to reproduce the smallest nuances of the tracks, but this also goes along with the tuner's intention, clearly focused on music enjoyment.

The soundstage is well rounded with good width and average depth and height. Imaging is very good both considering the signature and the price.

Some comparisons:​

Kefine Delci vs Truthear Hola
Very briefly, the Delci are the direct upgrade from the Hola. Except for the technical ability, the cable and the build quality, that are superior on the Delci, the Hola sound a bit more natural when it comes to male vocals and acoustic instruments whereas the Delci sound even warmer than the already warm Hola. The Hola are a bit spicier in the treble but also have a slightly more extended upper end.
Comfort and isolation are very similar.

Kefine Delci vs QoA Gimlet
The Delci are superior in terms of imaging and sub-bass extension, and they also have a tighter and faster low-end, whereas the Gimlet have more details and energy in the upper midrange and treble and play in a slightly wider soundstage. I find female vocals smoother and less borderline-hot on the Delci, whereas I find male vocals a bit more “correct” on the Gimlet. Overall it’s very hard for me to choose, and I gotta admit that the Gimlet still competes very well with newer stuff when it comes to music enjoyment.
Build quality is good on both sets, whereas cable, comfort and isolation are better on the more lightweight Delci.

Kefine Delci vs EW200
Two very different animals: bassy and warm vs bright Harman-neutral. The Delci have better low-end with more punch and better body, they reproduce deeper male vocals and more intimate female vocals and they play in a wider stage. The EW200, instead, have faster bass, a more linear and natural sounding midrange, more energetic (yet also more fatiguing) female vocals and better detail retrieval. Let’s say that it’s the usual warm vs bright battle but both are very competent. Imaging is on par more or less which is very nice for the Delci considering their warmer approach.

Kefine Delci vs TRI x HBB KAI
Those who love very warm stuff have probably heard about the TRI x HBB KAI, and you know what? Those who were interested but didn’t pull the trigger should instead replace the KAI with the Delci in the wishlist.
The Delci sounds smoother, more accurate, more detailed than the KAI. The KAI have a bit more emphasis on female vocals but somehow the same vocals sound better on the Delci, probably because of the better treble and midrange tuning. Soundstage is also bigger on the Delci.
Build quality and cable are better on the Delci, whereas comfort and isolation are slightly better with the KAI in the ears.

Final Thoughts​

The Delci are a great set overall and they are probably the best DD IEMs around the 50$ mark. Their biggest strength is the effortless and smooth reproduction of every track, the technical performance is very good for budget single DD IEM (especially considering it’s a 10mm driver) and the tuning is properly executed.
Maybe it will be too warm for some, but those who love bass and like to just sit and enjoy the music will definitely consider the Delci as a great day-to-day set.

Introduction​

Rose Technics has been around for a long time already, even though the “mainstream” Chi-Fi market didn’t see many of their products becoming very popular.
They have recently partnered with Ikko for the QuietSea, which is the product I’ll be speaking about in this review.

Disclaimer: the Rose Technics QuietSea were sent to me by Rose Technics free of charge so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set and it is by no means a promotional or paid content.
At the time of the review, the Rose Technics QuietSea were on sale for around 59$ at Aliexpress.

Click to expand...

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → 1 x Topology DD
• Impedance → 18 Ω
• Sensitivity → 95 dB
• Frequency Response Range → 20Hz-40kHz
• Cable → 1,20m 5N copper silver plated cable with 0.75mm 2-PIN QDC connectors
• Plug Type → L-type gold plated 3.5mm jack connector

Packaging​

The packaging of the QuietSea looks very nice and it’s clear that the brand wants the customer to see that the company cares about how their products are presented. The box contains:

• The Rose Technics QuietSea
• A very premium braided cable with 3.5mm jack plug (unfortunately with MMCX connectors)
• One set of tips (S, M, L) with oval shaped nozzle tube
• A hard carry case
• A plastic MMCX removal tool (quite interesting)
• User manual

Design, Build Quality, Comfort and Isolation​

The first time I picked them up from the box, I was pleasantly surprised by the great build quality and design of these: the metal build feels extremely sturdy (yet a bit weighty) and the faceplate with the black cut on the silver shell looks very cool.
A strange choice was made for the nozzle, which is oval-shaped instead of being rounded, no big issue.
Last, but not least in terms of importance, Rose Technics have decided to opt for MMCX connectors instead of a more traditional pair of 2PIN connectors, which could lead to less durability of the connectors over time and less versatility with aftermarket cables (even though the stock cable is excellent).



Comfort-wise, the QuietSea really depend on the tips: the nozzle is pretty short and the provided tips also have pretty short nozzle tubes, so they don’t help with a comfortable fit (at least in my ears). In addition, the shells have a couple of annoying edges that could lead to discomfort if the tips are on the short side.
I have tried using different tips with a more traditional rounded nozzle tube and they work pretty well, so there isn’t any issue with the metal nozzle being oval-shaped as I was able to find a good fit with some random aftermarket tip. That said, it’s not the most comfortable set I’ve tried for sure and it’s important to note that that using bigger tips in order to create more space between the shells and the ear can also alter alter the sound.
The QuietSea provide for average isolation from external noises, so they won’t be my first pick for outdoor listening sessions..

Cable​

The stock cable is excellent, and I can’t think of any set coming with a cable of this quality in the price range in which the QuietSea compete. It is braided, thick and soft to the touch as well, it sports a metal chin slider, a metal Y splitter and a straight gold plated jack plug.
It uses MMCX connectors, which is a bit of a letdown since it is more likely to have issues on the long run and it’s also less usable on other sets (most IEMs use 2-PIN connectors), but it snaps pretty well on my sample and the MMCX removal tool works fine so there’s nothing to complain about.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30, Fiio A3
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Moondrop May’s DSP cable with PEQ=0
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Truthear SHIO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR, KZ AZ10

Do they need an amplifier?
No, they don’t strictly need an amplifier, even though some amping helps a bit with low-end body (very small, yet present, difference).

Sound signature
The Rose Technics QuietSea follow a V-shaped signature.

Lows
The sub-bass isn’t very impactful nor does it have particularly good extension. Let’s say that the low-end extension is not excellent and in fact sometimes I felt the need for a bit more “oomph” in order to provide more solid foundations for some genres.
The bass is slightly elevated with nice textures and good punch, and it’s also quite decent at handling fast transients even though not the fastest bass around. It’s not the most authoritative and incisive bass out there but it’s tuned fairly well and doesn’t lack energy.
The low-end, in general, is definitely not for bassheads, but it’s still enjoyable and contributes to providing an engaging sound overall.

Mids
The midrange is slightly recessed but also very clean and rich. The instruments are well represented, well separated between each other and it’s hard to find things that aren’t done right, even though there is some timbrical inconsistency between male and female vocals. In fact, while female vocals sound very energetic, male vocals feel sometimes a bit subdued, probably due to the not-so-incisive midbass.
The upper midrange can be a bit too forward for some, especially because it’s combined with a lower treble boost and this can lead to some hotness here and there.

Highs
The highs are on the bright side, so the QuietSea should be avoided by those who seek for a slightly darker IEM. There’s a good amount of details, lots of air and sparkle and the performance is surprisingly good, but even though the overall brightness has some advantages, it also leads to a less likable and pleasant sound for the masses. However, the QuietSea somehow manage to sound pretty good considering the amount of treble, which is good news.
If you are treble sensitive it’s better if you spend your money on other products, whereas these are for you if treble spiciness is something that appeals to you.

Soundstage is well rounded with no dimension being rendered better than another. Imaging is decent too, I’d say in line with other products in their price bracket.

Some comparisons:​

Rose Technics QuietSea vs EPZ Q5
Very briefly, the EPZ Q5 have more sub-bass, less bass and a slightly more cohesive and treble response that packs some more details. The QuietSea sounds a bit less thin and has better bass textures. Soundstage and imaging are better on the EPZ Q5.
Build quality is great on both, isolation and comfort are better on the EPZ Q5. The QuietSea come with a much better stock cable, even though both have MMCX connectors.

Rose Technics QuietSea vs KZ Symphony
The victory goes to the QuietSea hands down. The Symphony has some inconsistencies between the drivers that become more and more evident the more you increase the volume.
The Symphony has better imaging, separation and details, but the QuietSea still have nice bass textures and good technicalities while still retaining an enjoyable signature.
Build quality goes to the QuietSea again, and so applies for comfort, isolation and stock cable (especially this last one).

Rose Technics QuietSea vs Moondrop Lan
The QuietSea have a more recessed midrange, more bass, and a bit more sub-bass (not a big difference in terms of extension honestly). They are also brighter and slightly more fatiguing than the Moondrop Lan, which instead have a more neutral approach with sparkling treble and a more linear midrange. The Lan behave much better at reproducing male and female vocals and they also sound a lot smoother and more natural overall, but the detail retrieval and instrument separation is very similar. Soundstage is a tad wider on the QuietSea, imaging is on par more or less.
Build quality is great on both sets, comfort and isolation are better on the Lan and the QuietSea, instead, get an easy win when it comes to the stock cable.

Rose Technics QuietSea vs Simgot EW200
The EW200 sound more natural with a slightly better sub-bass extension, less bass punch but also less spicy treble. Both tend to emphasize female vocals but the EW200 reproduce them in a more natural and intimate way, and the detail retrieval is also a bit better on the EW200. The QuietSea have a punchier and more textured bass and bit more air on top.
Soundstage width goes to the QuietSea, imaging goes to the EW200.
Build quality is great on both sets, comfort and isolation are better on the EW200, the QuietSea’s cable is better.

Final Thoughts​

The QuietSea offer a rich and vivid sound experience, with a pretty bright tonality, a pleasantly textured bass and good technical performance. It’s not the most natural sounding set out there nor is it the best technical performer you can get in their price brackets, but it’s really hard to find major flaws considering the overall package.

Introduction​

Moondrop is well known in the audio gear community and for a good reason: they usually provide good value products and nice tunings.
If it’s true that they are also (in)famous for the paint chipping and other QC issues, it’s also true that they are among the few brands who are able to establish benchmark or set the bar higher when needed.

Disclaimer: the Moondrop Golden Ages:1979 were sent to me by Shenzen Audio Store free of charge so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set and it is by no means a promotional or paid content.
At the time of the review, the Moondrop Golden Ages:1979 were on sale for around 79$ at Shenzen Audio Store.

Click to expand...

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → 1 x Annular 13mm Planar Magnetic Driver
• Bluetooth version → 5.3
• Compatibility → almost every bluetooth device such mobiles phones or computers with bluetooth connectivity
• Supported protocols → A2DP/AVRCP/HFP/HSP
• Codec → SBC/AAC/LDAC/LC3
• Earphone battery capacity → 3.7V/37mAh
• Charging case battery capacity → 3.7V/380mAh
• Earphone battery life → Approx. 6 hours (AAC)
• Charging case battery life → Approx. 18 hours (AAC)
• Working Distance → 10m (unobstructed open environment)
• Charging port → USB-C

Packaging​

Moondrop never disappoints with boxes, and in fact the Golden Ages:1979 come in a very fancy box on which the company always puts a lot of effort. It contains:

• The Moondrop Golden Age:1979
• The charging box
• A TPU case for the charging box
• 3 pairs of spare tips + 1 pair of tips that is already mounted on the set
• A USB-C charging cable
• User manual and warranty papers

Design and Build Quality​

The design of the Golden Ages:1979 is quite unique, and those who usually prefer this kind of form factor instead of bean-shaped TWS will certainly find these appealing.
It seems like they are pretty solid, even though one can easily tell this isn’t a premium TWS set: the overall assembly is definitely good but the materials don’t feel “premium”, so it’s not hard to guess that the purpose was creating a value for money champ.



The charging box is also well built, the lid closes very firmly and there isn’t any quality issue to report. There’s also a small LED here that tells you the IEMs are charging that I find quite useful:

• When the battery of the charging case is higher than 10%, the green light will always be there until the earphones are fully charged.
• When the battery of the charging case is lower than 10%, the orange light will be always on unless the earphones are fully charged or the case runs out of power.

You can also use the button on the back to see the charge status of the charging box: green light will tell you the battery is higher than 10%, while the LED will be orange if the battery is under 10%.

Comfort and Isolation (+ ANC)​

Comfort is decent but it’s very important to note that the stock tips may not be the best solution for everyone: the nozzle is also pretty short and the body of the earpieces is pretty thick and wide, so having some fit issues with the thin stock tips is not unlikely.
I wasn’t getting a proper seal with the oval-shaped stock tips and decided to use a pair of medium-sized KBEAR 07: although the nozzles are oval shaped the tips stay in place and I have no issues with charging (and this also slightly improves isolation and sound), but keep in mind that not every tip will grant a correct charging or adequate headroom for the lid to close properly.



The passive isolation is not great with stock tips and becomes decent with aftermarket tips, but I still think ANC is mandatory with the Golden Ages:1979 (and we have it, so why should we keep it OFF?). With a prolonged tap on one of the earpieces, the earphones switch from ANC OFF to ANC ON very fast, and a waifu voice (that many will appreciate) says “Shhh”, confirming that the noise cancellation was successfully turned on.
It’s not the best noise cancellation around, that’s for sure, and those who own or have used a pair of Galaxy Buds (2, 2 Pro, FE and so on) or a pair of Airpods Pro, will immediately notice the difference: if we suppose that a pair of Galaxy Buds 2 Pro cancel 90% of the environmental noises (just throwing some random numbers), then these cancel around 65/70% of the same noises more or less.
It’s not a dealbreaker since almost everyone will use these at medium volume (or even higher, even though that’s not really safe for our hearing) but if you come from TWS sets with better ANC the difference will be substantial.

Battery and Charging​

The battery is not bad for sure: the earphones last me around 3.5/4 hours on average on a single charge with ANC ON and using LDAC codec. For sure these are the first charging cycles, so maybe these numbers will slowly decrease, but this is definitely a nice battery life to start with.
Charging the earphones takes around 1 hour from 0 to 100% (not really fast) and the charging case goes from 0% to 100% in a little more than 1.5 hours.
Overall, the numbers aren’t bad even though not class leading, so no big complaints here.

Interactions, commands, sensors and other features​

The Golden Ages earpieces are splitted into two main parts: the upper part has touch sensors, the lower part sports the microphone.
The upper part is pretty sensitive and commands almost never fail. Actually, sometimes I even pause or play accidentally when I try to adjust the position of the earpieces in my ears (can happen).
The classic interactions like play/pause, switching songs, activating the assistant, accepting or refusing phone calls (and so on…) are available with single or multiple taps, even though there’s no way to adjust the volume through any command.

A slightly prolonged (1 full second) touch on one of the earpieces interacts with the ANC setting:

• “Hey” confirms that the transparency mode is active
• “Shh” confirms that the noise canceling mode is active
• “Ummm” confirms that the ANC is OFF

A low-latency mode (for gaming) can be activated with 4 taps on one of the earpieces and the latency can go as low as 55ms (also depending on the bluetooth device compatibility). I have noticed that some latency is still there and I wouldn’t consider these for gaming, except for some games in which the latency is not crucial for the overall experience.

There isn’t any sensor that stops the music of the earpiece once it is removed from the ear, so you should look elsewhere if this is a valuable feature for you. Same applies for multipoint connection or 360° sound, which are not a thing with the Golden Ages:1979.

Moondrop Link 2.0 App​

The Moondrop Link 2.0 app is downloadable from Moondrop’s official website and it isn’t available on the Play Store at the time of this review.
The app asks for nearby devices and position permissions, which is understandable since we are talking about a pair of wireless earphones that automatically connect to the phone when they’re taken out from the charging box, but somehow there is also a camera permission switch if one goes in the “Apps” section under the phone’s settings (this is quite strange).

Another point of attention is related to the detection of the connected devices.
The first time I paired the earphones, the name appearing in the Bluetooth scanned devices list was “Moondrop LEA”. I connected them and they worked “fine” but the app could not detect them, and the audio quality was a notch lower than expected.
Then, I unpaired the Moondrop LEA device, scanned again with the earphones in their charging case, and found “Moondrop Golden Ages” in the scanned devices list: when connected, the Moondrop Link 2.0 App recognized them, and except for a single time it never failed to detect them.

One thing that didn’t work (and still doesn’t work) is the firmware update: it sticks on “Initialization” and never ends the process. I have tried waiting for more than 20 minutes and still didn’t manage to update the firmware so I guess there are some issues going on.

The app works pretty well if I interact with some basic options, while it becomes much more complicated to re-map some functions due to some translation issues (i.e. if I try to change the way I skip a track, the available options are in chinese and there’s no way for me to understand what’s written).



I’d really like to see more commitment from Moondrop regarding this matter, and I think that it’s very important that they put more effort into refining the app and fixing some issues since their DSP cables and TWS sets highly rely on the companion app (which is part of the product itself).

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• Samsung Galaxy Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Windows PC and Notebook with 5.3 Bluetooth Adapter

I also have to specify that I have used the KBEAR 07 tips for my tests because the stock tips didn’t grant me an adequate seal (issue with my ears’ conformation).

Sound signature
The stock sound signature is the one that is called “Reference” in the Moondrop Link 2.0 app, even though there are also a “Monitor” and “Basshead” EQ settings.
In general, the Golden Ages:1979 sound pretty neutral with a small low-end hump, and the “Monitor” and “Basshead” settings basically just impact the low-end (“Basshead” has more low end than “Reference” and “Monitor” has less low-end than “Reference”).

Lows
Sub-bass doesn’t give that “oomph” that traditional DDs usually reproduce, nor it is the one with the best extension out there, but it’s nicely done overall. The bass is pretty much linear and I wish it was more impactful and full bodied, but I was kind-of expecting it considering the combination between the annular planar driver and the neutral signature.
The Golden Ages:1979 are NOT for bassheads, even in the “Basshead” EQ setting, so beware of these if you search for a bass-rich set: these focus on faster transients and nicer textures instead of reproducing thick and fat kickdrums.
I know the annular planar driver is not a traditional planar magnetic driver, but the low-end sounds like a typical planar being fast and textured with less focus on the low-end body or on the viscerality.

Mids
The midrange is not recessed and everything sounds on-point, from male to female vocals and instruments. Male vocals could use a bit more warmth, but it’s a minor complaint, whereas female vocals are well reproduced since they are intimate, natural and never sibilant.
From a technical perspective, I’d say layering is average while instrument separation is good for a TWS set, especially at this price tag.

Highs
The treble is non-fatiguing, with average extension yet enough perceived air that helps at preventing any kind of congestion. Plus, detail retrieval is pretty good and there aren’t any sharpness or unwanted peaks here and there.
I’d say a kind of treble tuning that won’t annoy anyone and that makes up for a clean and transparent sound without becoming aggressive or excessively forward.

Soundstage has very good width while depth and height are average. Imaging is generally good even though not the most precise around. Let’s say that the directions are precise but it’s not a millimetrically accurate set.

The microphone is nothing special: I have used it multiple times and if you are in windy or noisy environments (i.e. busy streets) there are still much better options out there. The overall experience during call is mediocre in these cases while it’s of acceptable quality when there are optimal conditions for calling.

UPDATE, JULY 2024
The microphone is still barely usable and there were no firmware updated that improved the microphone quality.

Some comparisons:​

Moondrop Golden Ages:1979 vs Moondrop Space Travel
The Space travel have a slightly punchier, more full bodied and more natural bass and a more energetic treble, leading to a more dynamic and less linear U-shaped sound, whereas the Golden Ages:1979 aim for a more accurate and neutral sound, boasting a faster and more textured bass, an improved and smoother treble range, a better soundstage and superior imaging on the Golden Ages:1979. In addition, the latter also have LDAC support that Space Travel lack instead.
ANC is better on the Golden Ages:1979, even though still not class leading, battery life is a bit better than on the Space Travel and the same applies when it comes to the microphone quality.
Comfort and build quality are very similar since the two sets have very similar size and shells and they also work basically in the same way when it comes to commands and interactions with the earpieces.
I wouldn't jump from the Space Travel to these for my tastes, but I see the reasons why one would like to.

Moondrop Golden Ages:1979 vs Hifiman TWS600
The TWS600 were placed at 199$ in summer 2020, but in my opinion they were never worth the asking price. The overall sound was technically good, but the timbre and tonality were not correct at all. They sounded fast and snappy but also very unnatural with almost every genre. They didn’t even have noise cancellation and they didn’t even have a good microphone.
If some time ago you would have bough a pair of these for around 199$, then what you can buy today with the 80$ is far better (the Space Travel at 20$ are already ages better).
No competition, sorry Hifiman.

Moondrop Golden Ages:1979 vs ASUS ROG Cetra True Wireless
Summing up, the Golden Ages:1979 sound a lot better than the Cetra, with more accurate bass, nicer vocals, more details, better technicalities and an overall better tonality. The ROG Cetra True Wireless have a less natural timbre instead, and go for a more traditional (yet not overly aggressive) V-shaped signature.
Low-latency mode is better on ASUS’ TWS, which can keep up with a bit more agility and less latency in fast-paced games, and the same applies for the microphone, that is slightly better on the ROG Cetra True Wireless.
When it comes to battery life, the Golden Ages:1979 surprise with the listening time using ANC and LDAC, while the ROG Cetra True Wireless charge a bit faster and have similar lifespan when charged.
ANC and transparency mode are better on the ROG Cetra True Wireless, that also happen to have two different levels of noise cancellation.
Commands are easier and more reliable on the Golden Ages:1979, comfort is on par more or less (even though the ROG Cetra True Wireless are slightly smaller) and build quality is similar.

Moondrop Golden Ages:1979 vs Airpods Pro 2nd gen
The Airpods Pro 2 have an overall more engaging sound with a more pronounced and more impactful bass, more forward female vocals and a slightly brighter treble response. It’s a more “energetic” approach compared to Golden Ages:1979, which instead have slightly speedier bass and a more neutral sound approach, including the treble (that sounds more forward, detailed and emphasized on the Airpods Pro 2).
Technicalities are slightly better on the Airpods Pro 2, but the Golden Ages are very close when it comes to soundstage.
In terms of noise cancellation, transparency mode, microphone, commands, sensors and build quality, the Airpods Pro 2 are instead on another level, even though the battery life of the Golden Ages:1979 is no joke.
One thing to mention is that the Moondrop Link app is not great on iOS devices, so the Golden Ages:1979 fit Android in a better way rather than on Apple’s ecosystem.

Final Thoughts​

It’s ok to criticize Moondrop when there are QC issues or other things to complain about (and, as a customer, I also do that when necessary), but it’s also true that it’s one of the few companies that are able to set true standards and raise the bar when the market asks for it.
The Golden Ages:1979 represent another win for Moondrop: the company has striked a good balance between price and overall quality, and even though this isn’t the best TWS set on the market, the sound capabilities are above average for the price range and that makes up for a very valuable option.

Being brutally honest, I still think there’s some room for improvement when it comes to the noise canceling and transparency modes and the microphone quality, all aspects that need some tweaks here and there. In addition, I would have really liked having slightly better eartips for better sealing, even though the oval shaped nozzles are not an issue and using aftermarket tips is perfectly fine and easy to do.
It’s also safe to say, though, that having such a nice balance between frequencies, good technical performance and a natural and neutral sound on a sub-100$ TWS is a breath of fresh air, and for all of this I genuinely think that the Golden Ages:1979 deserve some proper attention.
For those who already own the Space Travel, I don't think it's worth the upgrade: I find myself preferring the latter most of the times due to the more natural low-end and my playlist (pop/pop-rock, EDM, lo-fi, drum and bass and so on) generally favors them.

Introduction​

KZ has landed with their first IEM featuring a Planar/DD hybrid configuration called “Symphony”. This comes after many different planar IEMs (PR1, PR1 Pro, PR2 x HBB, PR3 and so on…) that they have used to improve and refine their in-house planar driver in order to follow a market trend that has brought us to sets that sport both planar drivers and DDs or BAs (combining the different strengths and weaknesses of them).
Let’s see how the Symphony fare against the competition.

Disclaimer: the KZ Symphony were sent to me by KZ free of charge so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set and it is by no means a promotional or paid content.
At the time of the review, the KZ Symphony were on sale for around 59$ at KZ’s official webstore.

Click to expand...

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → 1 x 13.2mm Planar driver + 1 x 6mm DD
• Impedance → 18 Ω
• Sensitivity → 95 dB
• Frequency Response Range → 20Hz-40kHz
• Cable → 1,20m 5N copper silver plated cable with 0.75mm 2-PIN QDC connectors
• Plug Type → L-type gold plated 3.5mm jack connector

Packaging​

The KZ Symphony come in a very minimal cardboard box that contains:

• The KZ Symphony
• One pack of starline eartips (S, M, L) and one set of medium-sized foam tips
• The detachable 3.5mm cable with 0.75mm 2-PIN QDC connectors
• User manuals and instructions

Design, Build Quality, Comfort and Isolation​

The KZ Symphony are for sure on the bigger side with average nozzle width and pretty short nozzles considering the overall size of the shells.
They look pretty good and the build quality is very nice, and there are no switches unlike most of the recent releases from KZ.
There’s a perforated grill underneath the faceplate which suggests that the Symphony are quasi “open-back”. I am not sure about this, but the fact that the isolation is also just “average” seems to confirm this. Comfort is ok if you have medium-to-big sized ears, whereas it is a big no if you have smaller ears.

Cable​

The stock cable is nothing special: it’s the same cable that KZ and CCA have been including for ages now, and even though it’s not bad (per se), I still think a small effort to include an even better cable could be done, since other brands have already done that in this price bracket (and also in lower brackets).

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30, Fiio A3
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Moondrop May’s DSP cable with PEQ=0
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Truthear SHIO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR, KZ AZ10

Do they need an amplifier?
The KZ Symphony don’t need an amplifier, but warmer sources are a must if you want to use them and push the volume a bit (see why in “Sound Signature”).

Sound signature
The KZ Symphony are V-shaped but it seems like the equilibrium between the frequencies highly depends on the volume.
It really seems like the 6mm dynamic driver and the 13.2mm planar driver don’t scale the same way with volume, and this becomes very evident when increasing the volume: at lower volumes, the Symphony sound pretty balanced, whereas things become messy when the volume is turned up as treble gets much louder than the rest (foam tips are mandatory, since the starline tips kinda emphasize the treble even more).
Let’s say it’s the first time I wish there were some switches in order to try compensating for this issue, and in fact there are already some EQ suggestions around on the web.

Lows
Sub-bass comes across with lots of control and there isn’t any exaggerated rumble. The bass has nice punch and slam, textures are decent and everything feels tight enough not to sound loose. Still, the dynamic driver is only 6mm and even though it’s probably doing something, it’s still not enough as the low-end needs a bit more weight.
All in all, these aren’t basshead stuff for sure, so beware of this if you’re searching for something that can really shake your head. I bet that some impedance adapters can improve these but since I don’t have one with me, I can’t be sure about it.

Mids
The lower midrange is recessed even though the bass shelf kinda helps with male vocals and acoustic instruments, albeit not giving them enough depth and warmth to sound as natural as they should be. Female vocals are full of energy and sound pretty good, but the treble emphasis makes sibilance episodes a lot more common than they should be.
The Symphony are spot on when it comes to instrument separation too, which is good news.

Highs
Here’s where the real issues come alive.
The highs are really too bright, and if we add the fact that the two drivers don’t scale consistently then you easily understand that the issues related to the tuning are instead caused by an immature implementation of this driver configuration.
If it wasn’t for this issue, for sure the treble would have been very bright, but we would have also had more low-end to counter that.
The detail retrieval is crazy good and the sound is very airy, but it’s too harsh for most people and often introduces sibilance especially when listening to female vocals.

Soundstage has good width and average depth and height, whereas imaging is on point for the price tag.

Some comparisons:​

KZ Symphony vs CCA Rhapsody UUUU
These are very different, with the Rhapsody being warmer and more powerful in the low-end, with better sub-bass extension and a punchier bass. Male vocals have more warmth on the Rhapsody, whereas female vocals, albeit energetic on both, sound slightly better on the Symphony (both have some episodes of sibilance though). The highs are more detailed and a lot more open on the Symphony, but they are also very fatiguing.
Soundstage is slightly more “cavernous” on the Rhapsody, but the Symphony have a bit more depth. Imaging is hands down better on the Symphony.
I’d also add that the Rhapsody feature a very good implementation of the driver configuration, and in fact they also scale much better when the volume increases (thing that doesn’t happen on the Symphony).
Build quality, comfort, isolation and design are comparable and they also come with the same cable.

KZ Symphony vs Moondrop May (PEQ=0, stock 3.5mm tuning)
Again, completely different.
The May are airy yet not bright, with a pleasant bass shelf and a Harman-ish signature that may appeal most customers. The Symphony are brighter, more detailed and more open sounding, even slightly more technical but ten times more fatiguing than the May and also less natural sounding.
The hybrid configuration of the Moondrop May is definitely more refined with perfect scaling when the volume increases, so there’s no competition under this point of view.
Imaging is slightly superior on the Symphony, with the May taking the lead in terms of soundstage thanks to their more natural space representation.
Build quality is great on both sets, design is very subjective, comfort is generally better on the smaller Moondrop May and the stock cable provided with the May looks better, feels better and also has a built-in DSP.

KZ Symphony vs Celest Gumiho
This is an interesting one because both have some issues here and there, especially in the overall timbre and coherency between the drivers.
The KZ Symphony sport a more pronounced low-end shelf but the overemphasized treble and the lower midrange recession lead to a thinner bass overall. In fact, the Gumiho reproduces a full bodied bass that is hard to replicate, and while the Symphony does good with transients and tightness, the Gumiho still win hands down when it comes to the impact, the punchiness and the overall bass timbre.
The midrange is more linear on the Gumiho, more energetic and aggressive on the Symphony, even though KZ’s hybrid manages to separate instruments slightly better. Sibilance is frequent on both sets, especially on the Gumiho.
When it comes to the treble region, both have some unnaturalness here and there, but the Gumiho are less fatiguing than the more detailed, airier and more analytical Symphony.
Soundstage is a tad wider on the Symphony, imaging is comparable.
Both have small issues with volume, since the Gumiho has some distortion at higher volumes whereas the Symphony has some scaling issues that lead to inconsistent volume between the two drivers, but Symphony’s issue has a more negative impact on the listening experience.
Both look good and feel sturdy, both are just ok in terms of comfort (Gumiho have strange shells and Symphony are huge), and the isolation highly depends on how one manages to fit them. In general, anyway, the Gumiho insulate a tad better. The stock cable of the Gumiho is better.

KZ Symphony vs KZ PR2
The PR2 were among the most criticized sets from KZ, mostly because of the fact that they were a collaboration with HBB but the promised tuning wasn’t the one that many people experienced with their brand new PR2 (from here, the mesh drama).
The PR2 have better sub-bass extension, a slightly less emphasized bass response and a more linear and warm lower midrange, all of this combined with a less energetic upper midrange.The lower treble is slightly more accentuated on the PR2 whereas the Symphony have a lot more mid-treble. The upper treble, instead, is comparable. The Symphony are generally more detailed, they have better instrument separation and sound slightly airier, but the PR2 are less fatiguing over long listening sessions.
Imaging and soundstage are better on the Symphony.
The PR2 need less power to run properly and have no issues with scaling since they have a single driver, so there isn’t any volume mismatching issue between the two drivers.
Build quality and design are very similar, whereas comfort is hands down better with the PR2 in the ears. Isolation is comparable, maybe a bit better on the Symphony. The stock cable is identical.

An opinion on KZ/CCA products turnover​

While I appreciate the fact that KZ has shown lots of improvements in the last couple of years, I cannot deny that their very high product turnover is not healthy (both for the market and for the customers).

The more the market becomes competitive, the more difficult it is to recommend some products over others, because competition forces brands to adhere to some standards and fight for the best price in order to become value kings.
Specifically, since I am speaking about a KZ product in this review, I think they should slow down and settle with a certain driver configuration trying to get the most out of it. Usually, in less than a week or two a new version of the same IEM is likely to pop-up and start a new hype.
Somehow, their marketing strategies still work because they offer fun sounding IEMs at affordable prices and their name is quite popular online, but the truth is that I really wish they could focus more on less products, showing more attention to details and higher quality standards on fewer models.

All in all, I don’t like the fact that there’s a really short timeframe between two releases, as this leads to very similar products with few-to-none advantages in buying every model, but this isn’t something we can control and I am not sure KZ is going to slow things down in the near future. I know it’s a very competitive market, but understanding when it’s time to steer and make smart moves is crucial for a company of this size.

Final Thoughts​

This is my first “bad” review on a recent KZ product, and this is no surprise since KZ has done lots of great IEMs in the last couple of years.. Lemons or bad apples sometimes happen when you are experimenting, and the Symphony are an example of this: they have tried to put nice ideas into practice, but the final product still has some major issues that need to be addressed. I would have really liked giving these a better vote, but I seriously need to see some more efforts on this kind of configuration and I genuinely know that KZ has the knowledge to do so.

The crucial topic about the Symphony is that the drivers need to walk hand-in-hand while the volume increases, since on this set the signature varies (and it’s almost impossible to keep the volume very low as the bass doesn’t shine properly, which is a shame in a V-shaped set) at different volume levels, and also for this reasons the Symphony don't really sound as the promotional graphs say (another reason why I always suggesting waiting some time before buying everything).

Apart from my brutally honest take, I personally enjoyed the Symphony at lower volumes, but it’s also true that I have a very high tolerance for treble peaks and brightness so I am not a benchmark by any means; in fact, their technical performance is a sign of KZ stepping into direction, and the same applies for the bass quality, which is better than previous sets like the PR2, but this now has to be paired with a nicer implementation of the driver configuration and a more refined tuning, things that weren’t done quite right on the Symphony.

As a honest side note: if you really want something from KZ, get the Rhapsody or the Trio, for a great V-shaped set or a more natural U-shaped set respectively: they are the true kings in KZ/CCA (even better than PR2, Symphony and so on) lineup and deserve my thumbs up hands down.

Click to expand...

Introduction​

CCA has always been “the handsome sister brand” of KZ, famous for offering more balanced and mature tunings than those of the KZ line-up..
The CCA Trio (also called “The Legendary 3DD IEM”, come after the much praised Rhapsody and their name also suggests they are somewhat related to the less recent CCA Duo.
In this review, I’ll try to give my opinion on these and will do some comparison with other similarly priced products.

Disclaimer: the CCA Trio were sent to me by CCA free of charge so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set and it is by no means a promotional or paid content.
At the time of the review, the CCA Trio were on sale for around 40$ at KZ’s official webstore.

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → 3 x DD
• Impedance → 15 - 20 Ω
• Sensitivity → 101-103dB
• Frequency Response Range → 20Hz-40kHz
• Cable → 1,20m 5N copper silver plated cable with 0.75mm 2-PIN QDC connectors
• Plug Type → L-type gold plated 3.5mm jack connector

Packaging​

Nothing new under the sunlight as the Trio come with the same packaging as older KZ and CCA products:

• The CCA Trio
• One pack of starline eartips (S, M, L) and one set of medium-sized foam tips
• The detachable 3.5mm cable with 0.75mm 2-PIN QDC connectors
• A SIM Card removal needle (needed to move the switches)
• User manuals and instructions

Design and Build Quality​

The CCA Trio are slightly smaller with similar thickness and identical nozzle size. I would have really liked a smaller font for the “Trio” label on the shell, but this is very subjective. The dark-silver faceplate is glossy and elegant, and there are three diagonal-striped holes that should be open, even though I’m not sure if they are vents or if it’s just a decorative part of the shell.
The switches are located on one side of the IEM, but the reason why the switch panel is not symmetrical between the two IEMs is still unknown to me.
The nozzle is not as wide as on other sets but it’s not a small nozzle either.
Overall, the Trio are well built and feel sturdy and very solid in the hands.

Cable​

The stock cable is again nothing special: it’s the same cable that KZ and CCA have been including for ages now, and even though it’s not bad (per se), I still think a small effort to include an even better cable could be done, since other brands have already done that.

Comfort and Isolation​

Comfort is generally good even though those with very small ears could find the shell thickness annoying over prolonged listening sessions. In any other case, they fit very well and have a solid grip.
Isolation is more than enough for outdoor listening sessions.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30, Fiio A3
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Moondrop May’s DSP cable with PEQ=0
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Truthear SHIO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR, KZ AZ10

Do they need an amplifier?
The CCA Trio don’t need an amplifier and there aren't any tangible differences when they are connected to a dedicated amplifier.

Sound signature
The sound signature depends on the switches’ positions. The first two switches have impact on the bass, the other two twitches have impact on mid&high frequencies. Basically, setting the first bass switch in the UP position increases the low end, but if the second bass switch is also switched in the UP position, then the low end increases even more. Same applies for the mid&highs switches.
There are many possibilities and one can really try playing with them, but this review will be based on the UUUU combination, which leads to a U-shaped signature.
Moving the switches in different ways by starting from this position helped me understand the various effects of the switches, but your mileage may vary of course.

This is the UUUU config (UP, UP, UP, UP), since all of the switches are UP (the image looks inverted but it's clear since both letters and numbers are upside down):



Lows
The low-end is punchy with an elevated bass and a rumbly sub-bass that has decent extension. Bass textures are average, but there’s a good punch and enough tightness. With the right switches’ setting, basshead will also be satisfied (the DDDD setting, for example, has lots of bass and similarly forward treble so you’re basically getting a nicely done basshead set.

Mids
The midrange is recessed but overall it’s presented nicely. Instruments are reproduced in a natural way and female vocals come across in a balanced way with basically no sibilance (it only occurs in very rare cases when tracks are prone to get sibilant), but male vocals could use a bit more warmth for sure.
Overall, it’s well tuned midrange and it’s refreshing to see KZ finally giving the midrange a chance to stand out even when the bass and the treble are the stars of the show.

Highs
The treble is for sure brighter than average, so it might not be up your alley if you’re treble sensitive, but it’s not annoyingly bright. Detail retrieval is average and the upper end extension is not among the best out there, but it’s a set with which most people will be ok for long listening sessions (except for those who are very sensitive to treble).
The overall smoothness of the Trio in this switch setup is pleasant, I gotta say, since it has a well tuned treble, nothing more and nothing less.

Soundstage is average and so is the imaging.

My favorite combination of the various switches: UUUU.​

The UUUU combination focuses on sub-bass instead of bass and strikes a good balance between the low-end and the treble. Thanks to this, the midrange also pops out as very natural and pleasant.

Some comparisons:​

CCA Trio UUUU vs CCA Rhapsody UUUU​

The difference is pretty clear: the Trio are U-shaped while the Rhapsody are V-shaped. It may seem a very small difference but it’s easy to notice that going from one set to the other.
The Rhapsody have more bass and sub-bass and also the low-end extension is a bit better, they have a more recessed midrange, warmer male vocals, more forward upper-mids and a slightly brighter treble that packs a better upper-end extension.
The Trio, on the other hand, have a less recessed midrange, a slightly inferior resolution and a smoother treble response which makes them a bit less resolving in the treble area. Let’s say that the Trio go for a bit more smoothness by sounding more natural whereas the Rhapsody sound a tad more artificial but pack slightly better technical performance.
The soundstage and the imaging are a notch better on the Rhapsody, but the difference is very small.
Build quality is the same, even though the Trio kinda look more premium. Comfort-wise, the Trio are smaller, but the Rhapsody somehow manage to be a tiny bit more comfortable (at least in my ears); isolation is very similar instead. The stock cable is the same.

CCA Trio UUUU vs CCA Duo​

The Duo has no switches and have a bass light signature whereas the Trio tend to have more bass and less treble in the DDUU config (which should be the configuration with the least amount of low-end). The sub-bass extension is better on the Trio, whereas the Duo have a speedier (yet even less textured and punchy) bass. The midrange is leaner, more forward and less engaging on the Duo, warmer and more recessed on the Trio. Vocals sound much more natural on the Trio. The highs are more emphasized and have better extension on the Duo, that sound more detailed yet also more fatiguing and less natural than the Trio.
Soundstage and imaging are is a bit better on the Trio.
Build quality is good on both sets but the Trio feel a bit sturdier and look more premium, while the Duo are a tad more comfortable. Isolation is comparable. Stock cable is the same.

CCA Trio UUUU vs KZ PR2 (no-mesh version)​

From a tonal perspective, it’s a free win for the Trio since the PR2 were a bit messy due to the mesh-drama.
The sub-bass and bass have better textures, speed and control on the PR2 thanks to the planar driver, but the Trio have a more natural decay and no planar bass so those who like DDs may like the Trio more. The midrange is more natural on the Trio, even though male vocals and acoustic instruments sound better on the PR2, that also have slightly better instrument separation. Female vocals sound more natural on the Trio whereas sibilance is a lot more frequent on the PR2. The PR2 are more detailed and resolving in the treble but they are also a lot more fatiguing and unnatural: the Trio win hands down in this regard.
Soundstage and imaging are better on the PR2.
Build quality is similar, comfort is similar and isolation is better on the Trio. The stock cable is identical.

An opinion on KZ/CCA products turnover​

Even though my review is generally positive regarding this product, I’d really like to point something out regarding KZ and CCA’s recent behavior on the market: while I appreciate the fact that they have shown lots of improvements in the last couple of years, I cannot deny that their very high product turnover is not healthy (both for the market and for the customers).

The more the market becomes competitive, the more difficult it is to recommend some products over others, because competition forces brands to adhere to some standards and fight for the best price in order to become value kings.
Specifically, since I am speaking about a CCA product in this review (which is under KZ’s hate) It’s very hard to recommend KZ and CCA sets sometimes because in less than a week or two a new version is likely to pop-up and start a new hype.
Somehow, their marketing strategies still work because they offer fun sounding IEMs at affordable prices and their name is quite popular online, but the truth is that I really wish they could focus more on less products of higher quality and with better technical performance.

All in all, I don’t like the fact that there’s a really short timeframe between two releases, as this leads to very similar products with few-to-none advantages in buying every model, but this isn’t something we can control I don’t think KZ is going to slow down in the near future.

Final Thoughts​

CCA has been releasing solid IEMs characterized by respectable tunings, and The CCA Trio is no exception, coming both with a well balanced sound and tuning switches that make them a pretty versatile set.

The CCA Trio are an improvement over the Duo and a much more mature set when compared to the PR2, but the Rhapsody have set a slightly higher bar that the Trio cannot reach from a technical perspective.
Despite what I’ve just said, though, the Trio do better in the overall tonality and reproduces music in a more natural way, also thanks to the less recessed midrange and the use of a full-DD configuration instead of a hybrid one.

Do I recommend it? Well, it really depends on what you currently have.
If you already have a CCA Rhapsody or Castor Bass, I’d stick with them since this is not a big upgrade. If you instead come from a cheaper or older set and think that the Rhapsody may be too V-shaped for you, then the Trio can be considered as a nice add to CCA’s product portfolio (and to your inventory).

Introduction​

NiceHCK has always been a renowned brand for cables, accessories and other stuff, but apart from some very interesting old releases (such as the Bro, the EZ Audio D4, the NX7 and some of their earbuds like the EBX and EB2) they have never been among the most discussed brands.
With the “planar battle” going on, they decided to step in with some stuff, and among their newest sets the F1 Pro, featuring a planar driver, is the one that received most interest.

Disclaimer: the NiceHCK F1 Pro were sent to me by NiceHCK free of charge so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set and it is by no means a promotional or paid content.
At the time of the review, the NiceHCK F1 Pro were on sale for €114 on NiceHCK's Official Aliexpress Store.

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → 1 x 14,2mm Planar driver
• Impedance → 16 Ω
• Sensitivity → 104 dB/mW
• Frequency Range → 20Hz-28kHz
• Cable → 1,20m 5N copper silver plated cable with 0.78mm 2-PIN connectors
• Plug Type → straight gold plated 4.4.mm jack connector

Packaging​

The NiceHCK F1 Pro come in a very simple yet well organized package that contains:

• The NiceHCK F1 Pro
• 3 sets of different eartips (wide bore, shallow bore and medium bore diameter)
• The detachable 4.4mm cable with 2-PIN connectors
• A sturdy carry case covered by leatherette
• User manuals and instructions

Design and Build Quality​

The NiceHCK F1 Pro look very clean and well assembled, with no imperfections around their Metal Aluminum Alloy shells or on the nozzle. The shell diameter isn’t very big because the company has chosen to have a thicker shell instead of a longer and larger one.
The light blue painting is opaque, so they’re not fingerprint magnets, and the little golden triangle showing on the faceplate doesn’t look very showy. Also, the “F1 Pro” naming on the shell is very discrete since it’s printed on the back of the IEMs and doesn’t appear with shiny and high contrast colors on the faceplate (which would be honestly a bit weird).
The ear-facing side of the shell has a pressure vent to prevent pressure buildup issues and the nozzle is of average size for nowadays’ planar sets (I’ve seen bigger ones around).

Cable​

The 4.4mm is clearly something you would want only if you are plugging these to a balanced output, but NiceHCK also sells the F1 Pro with 3.5mm jack cables so it’s up to the customer (you have to choose the right model before adding them to cart).
The pre-made hooks are comfortable, there is a chin slider, and overall it’s a very nice cable with no real cons.

NiceHCK also provided me with one of their Cyan 4.4mm cables, and it’s a very interesting one. It’s a braided cable that I am sure will last long, and has a very different look from your average rubberized cable.
There is no difference in terms of sound when compared to the stock cable, but the Cyan cable is definitely more “unique” in terms of overall feeling and looks.



And here's a bonus pic of the F1 Pro with the Cyan braided 4.4mm cable:

Comfort and Isolation​

Comfort is fairly good since the shells are not large, and most people will find these very comfortable. Using tips with longer nozzle tubes is recommended, even though the included stock tips do the job very well.
Isolation is average.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30, Fiio A3
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR, KZ AZ10, Moondrop May’s DSP cable with PEQ=0

Do they need an amplifier?
No, the NiceHCK F1 Pro don’t strictly need an amplifier. They scale a bit with some power but it’s not a night and day difference so I don’t think it’s really worth it to buy a specific dongle just for these.

Sound signature
The NiceHCK F1 pro follow a U-shaped signature with some emphasis on the lower range and low-mid treble.
NOTE: looking at some graphs online, it seems like the F1 Pro sound VERY SIMILAR to the Letshuoer S12 Pro. I do not own the latter so I cannot compare them, but I really suggest you read some reviews and comparisons to understand which one is the better.

Lows
The sub-bass is not visceral and exaggeratedly rumbly, instead it extends well in a very controlled manner, touching the lowest notes with no real issues, providing for very solid foundations for almost every track one can think of.
The bass is punchy and has more than satisfying speed that makes the F1 Pro good for fast-paced tracks that involve multiple loops of rapid basslines. Planar drivers generally tend to deliver faster thus leading to a less natural representation of kickdrums, and the F1 Pro is no exception: in fact, the low-end is still less natural than similarly priced DD IEMs due to the faster decay, even though more technical than most of them. In addition, the low-end boost helps a bit the overall note weight even though it’s still not on par with a traditional DD.
It’s not basshead’s material for sure, so beware of this, but it’s still a very compelling option for those seeking for some added bass while still enjoying a speedy and qualitative low end.

Mids
The midrange is generally recessed and kind of laidback, but it’s warm and very smooth, particularly during the reproduction of male vocals and acoustic instruments. Male vocals are pretty nice to listen to on the F1 Pro, and they are never covered by the bass shelf that instead helps them gain some more depth and warmth. Female vocals are upfront thanks to the ear gain that emphasizes the upper-midrange region, giving them more energy, even though their timbre is not always on point accurate and there could be some instances of sibilance due to the lower treble lift. In any case, the upper midrange is in a nice sweet spot, and apart from those above-mentioned episodes of sibilance, these are not very intense nor shouty and this makes them suitable for those who think the Harman target is too intense. The occasional sibilance is the only drawback of this upper midrange, considering the overall tuning of the F1 Pro.

Highs
The lower treble is emphasized and this combines with the upper midrange to have some added energy during the reproduction of most vocals and instruments such as trumpets, electric guitars, cellos and so on, even though this comes at the cost of some sibilance here and there (as said while talking about the midrange).
There’s a good amount of detail and it’s possible to catch-up some small nuances as well, and even It’s not the most detailed set in this price bracket, it’s definitely one of the few on which detail retrieval capabilities aren’t paired with a very fatiguing and harsh treble (which is great news). In fact, the treble is safer than some other planars for sure, so most folks will likely find these pretty smooth to listen to, but there’s still a peak between the lower and mid treble that could annoy the most sensitive out there.

Soundstage is of average size but there’s no direction that sacrifices another and this is good news; let’s say the F1 Pro portray a well rounded (yet not too expansive) sonic scene. The imaging is fairly good in most cases, although different heights of vocals and instruments in orchestras aren’t pinpointed with razor sharp precision (nitpicking).

Some comparisons:​

NiceHCK F1 Pro vs Hidizs MP145​

The MP145 have a similar response until the upper range, but the use of a different shell (and acoustic chamber) and a different driver make them pretty different.
The MP145 have a more powerful and punchy low-end with a more rumbly low-end, which sounds slightly more natural than on the F1 Pro. The midrange feels less scooped with more upfront vocals and instruments, and the treble is a bit more detailed and open-sounding (even though a bit less safe). Soundstage is also bigger and deeper on the MP145 with just a tad better imaging on the MP145.
Build quality is very good on both sets, but the shells are very different, with the MP145 being a lot bulkier than the F1 pro, thus making the latter generally more comfortable for the masses.
The stock cable is good on both sets, and both come with a generous set of tips. Isolation is slightly better with the MP145 in the ears.
The MP145 are more expensive but they are generally superior, and since they also come with tuning filters they are also more versatile in general. The price difference is justified by the above said differences, so the F1 Pro are a nice pick only if you have a limited budget or smaller ears.

NiceHCK F1 Pro vs KZ PR2​

Very different.
The PR2 Pro were part of a “drama” due to the fact that the first batches had a piece of foam on the back of the driver, whereas the more recent ones didn’t, making them very different from the first graphs (and reviews, since early reviewers have spoken about the “with-foam” batch).
The PR2 have more sub-bass, hotter upper mids and a more aggressive treble region. The F1 Pro has less sub-bass, a cleaner and faster bass (yet less punchy) and an overall more mature and refined upper midrange and treble that make them a lot less fatiguing than KZ’s cheaper planar set. Soundstage is a bit wider on the PR2 but height and depth are better on the F1 Pro, which also happen to have a more precise imaging, clearer layering and better instrument separation.
The F1 Pro win when it comes to build quality, stock cable, provided tips and isolation, whereas comfort is comparable.
Overall, the F1 Pro come out as more refined and better sounding IEMs that show more attention to details (their price is higher, but the difference in price is worth it).

NiceHCK F1 Pro vs Celest Phoenixcall​

The Celest Phoenixcall feature a SPD patented driver (whichi is not a traditional planar driver) and they also sport balanced armatures and a dynamic driver, things that make them a hybrid set.
When compared to the NiceHCK F1 Pro, the Phoenixcall sound very different even though both have a recessed midrange (the Phoenixcall are more V-shaped though).
The sub-bass on the F1 Pro digs deeper and is more forward, while the bass quantity is similar. The midrange is more recessed on the Phoenixcall and in this regard the F1 Pro take the lead in terms of timbre and naturalness during the reproduction of both male and female vocals. The treble is generally more refined and has better extension on the F1 Pro, but the Phoenixcall are more detailed and more resolving overall.
The soundstage is wider on the Phoenixcall and slightly deeper on the F1 Pro, while height is very similar. Imaging is precise on both sets with the Phoenixcall being a tad more precise at pinpointing instruments, vocals and enemies during gaming sessions.
They look both very good, but the Phoenixcall have a very unique and distinctive design and the shells are more comfortable. In addition, the Phoenixcall insulate a lot better from external noises.
They both come with good stock cables but Phoenixcall’s stock cable is more premium to the touch and looks a bit more durable.
Both are very nice sets, and deciding which one to buy isn’t an easy choice for sure. I’d say that if you want the more resolving set among the two, then the Phoenixcall will have a bit more to offer, at the expense of a less natural and a brighter sound. If you instead prefer a more versatile set with more accurate timbre, slightly better upper treble extension and a less recessed midrange, then the F1 Pro are the ones to get.

NiceHCK F1 Pro vs Moondrop May​

The sub-bass is more emphasized and extends a bit better on the Moondrop May (also thanks to the traditional dynamic driver) and bass is slightly punchier and a bit slower than on the F1 Pro, contributing to slightly better note weight. The F1 Pro, instead, have faster transients and handles very fast basslines in a better way. The midrange sounds more natural on the May with more accurate male and female vocals, but the F1 Pro are better at portraying instruments’ details and separating them. Details are better on the F1 Pro that are also brighter than the May, which instead sound slightly more open-sounding and smoother in comparison.
Imaging is better on the F1 Pro, whereas the Moondrop May have a slightly wider soundstage (even though the F1 Pro have more stage depth).
Build quality is very good on both sets, both ship with a nice cable (even though the May come with a DSP cable, which is more “useful” and interesting) and both are very comfortable. Isolation is a bit better while wearing the May. Another thing to say is that the F1 Pro are shipped with a wider choice of tips, which basically makes tip rolling an effortless task.
Overall, the May are the smarter choice for those who search for a more accurate and musical representation, while the F1 Pro are way better from a technical standpoint (imaging, speed, details, instrument separation and so on).

Final Thoughts​

The NiceHCK F1 Pro are interesting thanks to their small shells, their tuning and the very nice technicalities. It’s not the most detailed IEM out there and they probably won’t be for those looking for an IEM with forward and richer mids or delicious vocals, but it’s an intriguing and technical product for those that like sets with some bass and treble lift, an engaging and more colored sound and would like to try a competent and easy to drive planar set.
Nothing comes "free of charge" and in fact there are still some timbre imperfections and some sibilance here and there, but overall it's a well done IEM that ticks many boxes.
I wouldn't buy these at full price, but they have been discounted a couple times already and could be bought for less than €100 with the Cyan cable included, which represents a good value combo.

Sidenote: if it’s true that the F1 Pro sound almost as good as the S12 Pro (I do not know this, I am just making an hypothesis), then these will become even more interesting with some coupons or discounts on Aliexpress, since they already cost less money than the S12 Pro.

Introduction​

2023 was the year in which Simgot really showed everyone what they’re capable of.
The EW200 and the EA500 were basically among the most (if not the most) appreciated and discussed IEMs in the chi-fi market.
The EA1000 “Fermat”, featuring a 1DD+1PR configuration and swappable nozzles (with different tunings) are among their latest releases and have already received lots of endorsements from reviewers and customers, so I was very interested in trying them. And here I am, with a pair of EA1000 and ready to share my impressions with everyone.

Disclaimer: the Simgot EA1000 Fermat were sent to me by Simgot free of charge so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set and it is by no means a promotional or paid content.
At the time of the review, the Simgot EA1000 Fermat were on sale at Amazon.com for 219$.
The LC7 cable, instead, is available at Linsoul for 69,99$.

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → 1 x 10mm DD + 1 x PR (Passive Radiator)
• Impedance → 16 Ω
• Sensitivity → 127 dB/mW
• Effective Frequency Response Range → 20Hz-20kHz
• Cable → 1,20m Litz structure high-purity OFC silver plated cable with 0.78mm 2-PIN connectors
• Plug Type → straight gold plated 3.5mm jack connector

Packaging​

The unboxing experience is pleasant for sure, even though the packaging has a sort of “glossy” texture that makes it a fingerprint magnet.
Everything in the box is properly positioned, the accessories are in separate small cardboard boxes and everything appears in a pleasant way, so one can easily tell that Simgot cares about how the product is presented to the customer.
This is what you’ll find in the box:

• The Simgot EA1000 Fermat (from now on “EA1000” or only “Fermat”)
• Two identical sets consisting in 3 eartips each (S, M, L), even though it makes no sense to include two sets of the same eartips
• Three pairs of different nozzles (of which one is already mounted on the EA1000)
• Some spare o-rings to mount the nozzles on the shells
• The detachable 3.5mm cable with 0.78mm 2-PIN connectors
• A gorgeous carry case
• User manuals and a “Fermat gold card” (which is a very funny idea)

Look at the third photo: the packaging really looks a funny face. Hopefully Simgot did that on purpose

Click to expand...

Design and Build Quality​

The EA1000 recall Simgot’s house design with a simple yet captivating faceplate design: the Simgot logo is centered on a white background (yet painted with some minimal and very subtle decorations), underneath a solid transparent glass layer, and everything is framed by a golden outline.

The all-metal body of the earpieces make up for a very premium feeling and (hopefully) a very durable set, even though this comes at a cost: being a fingerprint magnet and being heavier than the average resin or plastic shell (pros and cons, I’d say).
As you can see from the photos, and as seen from the packaging, the nozzle filters are swappable and they easily screw in and out with no issues.



In the inner side of the shell we find the passive radiator vent (easy to spot also thanks to its golden grill) underneath the L and R side indication, along with two pinhole vents that prevent pressure buildup issues, whereas the sides are free from any other holes.

Cable​

The stock cable is good to very good. It looks and feels solid, it sports a chin slider and it’s not prone to tangling. I gotta say I have seen some IEMs in these price brackets that come with worse but there are also IEMs sold for less that come with even better cables. The fact that Simgot provided a good cable in the box should not surprise since we’re talking about a pair of IEMs that sell for around 200$, but at the same time I feel an extra-effort could have been done.
Unfortunately, there’s no way to get a pair of EA1000 with 2.5mm or 4.4mm cable, which is a missed opportunity imho.



In that regard, Simgot also sent me one of their aftermarket cables, the LC7, in order to pair it with the EA1000. It’s hard not to love it: it’s thick, it doesn’t tangle, it looks and feels amazing and it also comes with a 3.5mm to 4.4 mm balanced adapter so that one can also use the IEMs out of a balanced output. It’s not really cheap, since it’s almost 70$, but if you are willing to get an aftermarket cable, here you have one (an amazing one, too), even though I think Simgot could include it with the EA1000 for some promos here and there.

Comfort and Isolation​

The Simgot EA1000 are comfortable, particularly with slightly stiffer and longer tips since they don’t have very long nozzles. The stock tips didn’t meet my expectations considering the price, especially because they didn’t provide me with a good seal leading to an inconsistent listening experience. Not only that, the two sets of stock tips are identical, and it makes no sense since it would have been way better to provide two sets of tips with different nozzle diameters or different materials.
I ended up using a pair of KBEAR 07 tips, which are the ones I’ve used to write the review (not because I didn’t like the sound from the stock tips, but because I really couldn’t find a proper and stable seal) and the EA1000 became extremely comfortable for long sessions, also thanks to the fact that the shells don’t have any sharp edge or protruding wing.
When it comes to isolation, I think the EA1000 can do the job on most occasions, but I don’t think this is an IEM to use in very crowded environments.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30, Fiio A3
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Moondrop May’s DSP cable with PEQ=0
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Truthear SHIO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR, KZ AZ10

Do they need an amplifier?
The Simgot EA1000 don’t need an amplifier because of their low impedance and their high sensitivity. This means they are very efficient, but on the other hand it also translates in some small hiss when plugged to sources with higher impedance.
I think driver efficiency is very important when it comes to IEMs and I really appreciate the fact that I can use these without always carrying a portable amp with me.

Sound signature
The Simgot EA1000 have three slightly different tunings depending on the nozzle that’s mounted on the IEMs (even though everything lays around the Harman Target).
The Golden nozzle has more upper midrange and slightly less sub-bass compared to the stock red o-ring filter, whereas the black o-ring filter takes this upper-midrange and treble focus a bit further while giving some more sub-bass.
Overall, already mounted red o-ring nozzle has slightly better note weight and seems like the warmer and more bass-focused nozzle compared to the others, this also because the others have more upper midrange and treble.

For this review, I am gonna use the silver nozzle with the black o-ring as it’s the one that strikes a good balance between the other filters.

Lows
The sub-bass has very good extension and incredible control, and it’s a very satisfying experience listening to very deep sub-bass sounds with the EA1000.
The bass is impactful, deep, punchy and even though not the most textured around it sounds very natural and doesn’t leak into the midrange.
What amazes me is the outstanding quality of the bass and how clean it sounds: the EA1000 truly mastered bass reproduction, period.

Mids
The mids are neutral with both male and female vocals sounding very good. Particularly, the female vocals are intoxicating, with a lot of energy and intimacy that really make them shine. In some occasions, there is some episode in which the “S” sound become borderline hot, not to the point of becoming annoyingly sibilant but this isn’t a set for those who don’t like some upper-midrange energy, especially because they EA1000 really rule in this region.
Male vocals sound very good too even though slightly more laidback than female vocals ald could be just a tad warmer, even though they are never overshadowed by the bass thanks to excellent low-end control.
Instruments sound very natural, with layering and separation being helped by a good treble extension that provides for a lot of space in which they are precisely distinguished from each other.

Highs
The highs have a lot of details, it’s easy to spot small nuances and the perceived resolution is among the best I have tried. The treble extension is very good overall: there’s a lot of air and sparkle and this leads to a very “open” feeling while still retaining the naturalness one expects from IEMs in this price range, avoiding every kind of harshness one could think about.
For sure, those who are treble sensitive should probably look elsewhere, especially if we consider the EA1000 with the golden and black nozzle (even though the red o-ring nozzle still has some added treble that may bother the most sensitive ones out there).

Soundstage is expansive with nice width a surprisingly good depth, even though height is average.
Imaging is very good with instruments being portrayed right were they should be with high precision.

Some comparisons (EA1000 with black o-ring silver filter):​

Simgot EA1000 vs Hidizs MP145 (Rose Gold/Balanced filter)​

The MP145 were among the most hyped IEMs of 2023, thanks to their very nice technical chops along with the versatility of the swappable nozzles (just like the EA1000).
Overall, the MP145 are bassier and warmer with less upper mids and less treble extension, whereas the EA1000 are more focused on vocals and resolution.
From a tone/timbre perspective, the EA1000 sound more open and natural, while the MP145 sound a bit more closed-in with more warmth and intimacy. From a technical standpoint, instead, the EA1000 outperform the MP145 with better detail retrieval, imaging and separation, even though MP145’s soundstage feels a bit more “cavernous”.
The build quality is great on both sets, but the EA1000 look more “premium”. The stock cable is of similar quality. Comfort-wise, the EA1000 win hands down as the MP145 are very bulky and may not suit smaller ears. Isolation is slightly better with the MP145 in the ears. If there’s one more think that needs to be pointed out is that the MP145 come with a better set of tips, since the EA1000 come with two set of tips that are actually identical and don’t provide variety.

Simgot EA1000 vs KBEAR Believe​

There aren’t many things to say: the EA1000 win hands down.
The Believe really surprised the market some years ago with their outstanding DD quality, but time and further development of the Chi-Fi industry killed them. The EA1000 win in everything: from sub-bass to upper treble extension, the EA1000 outperform the Believe in every part of the frequency spectrum, and they do that with no mercy.
The driver is also more efficient, they are built slightly better and look way more premium, and the overall resolution is ages ahead.
The only thing in which the KBEAR does better is the variety of tips they come with, but they are inferior at everything else.

Simgot EA1000 vs Celest Phoenixcall
The EA1000 are more resolving, more detailed, and also have much better bass quality than the Phoenixcall. The Phoenixcall are tuned in a more “unique” way, with a stronger midrange recession and more elevated low-end, while the EA1000 follow the Harman target and they’re also more versatile thanks to the tuning filters. Vocals sound more natural, intimate and detailed on the EA1000, whereas they can sound slightly unnatural on the Phoenixcall due to their midrange recession.
The soundstage width is comparable but the EA1000 play in a deeper and slightly taller stage.
Build quality is great on both sets, even though they are built of different materials. Design-wise, it’s a matter of personal preferences, but the Phoenixcall look more unique and captivating. Comfort is great on both sets, but the Phoenixcall tend to fit like a custom IEM and provide for a much better isolation from external noises. Both IEMs come with great stock cables, but the Phoenixcall are also shipped with a wider selection of tips that could help with tip rolling.

Simgot EA1000 vs Simgot EM6L
It’s very easy to distinguish them and to guess what’s the more expensive set. The EM6L are warmer with much more sub-bass and less treble extension, leading to an overall more closed-in, more laidback and more relaxed signature. The EA1000, on the other hand, sound more engaging, more detailed, more resolving, with more forward vocals and brighter treble region. The low-end quality differences really draw the line between the EM6L and the EA1000, since the difference in bass quality and control is night and day: while the EM6L sometimes lose bass control, the EA1000 never let the bass leaking in the midrange, providing for a super clean transition from the lows to the mids. The soundstage is more expansive on the EA1000, with slightly better width and height even though depth is what really stands out on the EA1000. Imaging is good on both sets but the EA1000 are even more precise.
Both are very comfortable and well built but the EA1000 look more premium. The EA1000 come with a better cable and a better set of stock tips. Isolation is slightly better with the EM6L in the ears.

Final Thoughts​

The EA1000 are outstanding: they are engaging, resolving, accurate, detailed, with a high quality and controlled low-end and great end to end extension.
It’s really hard to find weakness in the EA1000, expect for the improvable bass textures and the upper midrange glare with the golden and black-oring filter that could make some “S” sound very hot (they don’t become sibilance but the extra energy may bother some).

It was a very difficult review, especially because everytime I put them in my ears I didn’t want to write. It’s very difficult to sit and start describing sound when you start moving your feet and shaking your head, driven by the dynamism and musicality of this single DD IEM.
I am very happy for Simgot: it has been a great year for them and they released true bargains in the Chi-Fi industry: although I don’t know what’s coming next (except for their newly presented EA500LM, which hopefully I’ll be to try), I am sure they have the potential to set new benchmarks in this 2024.

Introduction​

CCA has always been “the handsome sister brand” of KZ, famous for bringing products g more balanced and better sounding tunings with respect to their strongly V-Shaped counterparts.
The CCA Rhapsody are among the latest releases from the brand, featuring 6 drivers per side (2 DD + 4 BA) and tuning switches, and has already received some good reviews online.

Well, guess it’s my turn now!

Disclaimer: the CCA Rhapsody were sent to me by CCA free of charge so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set and it is by no means a promotional or paid content.
At the time of the review, the CCA Rhapsody were on sale for 35,99$ at kztws.com.

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → Hybrid (2 DD + 4 x BA)
• Impedance → 8 Ω
• Sensitivity → 108dB
• Effective Frequency Response Range → 20Hz-20kHz
• Cable → 1,20m 5N copper silver plated cable with 0.78mm 2-PIN connectors
• Plug Type → straight gold plated 3.5mm jack connector

Packaging​

Nothing new under the sunlight as the Rhapsody come with the same packaging as older KZ and CCA products:

• The CCA Rhapsody
• One set of starline eartips (S, M, L)
• The detachable 3.5mm cable with 0.78mm 2-PIN QDC connectors
• A SIM Card removal needle (needed to move the switches)
• User manuals and instructions

Design and Build Quality​

The CCA Rhapsody are larger and taller than average, with a thick shell that hides a multi-driver setup and tuning switches. The dark-silver faceplate is glossy and elegant, and the “Rhapsody” name isn’t ugly to see (which is good news) and there’s a hole on the faceplate with a visible grill, even though I’m not sure if it’s an open vent or if it’s just a decorative part of the shell.
The switches are located on one side of the IEM, but the reason why the switch panel is not symmetrical between the two IEMs is unknown to me.
The nozzle is not as wide as on other sets but it’s not a small nozzle either.
Overall, the Rhapsody are built very well with no major assembly flaws and they also feel very sturdy and well built to the touch.

Cable​

The stock cable is, unfortunately, nothing to write home about. It’s the same cable that KZ and CCA have been including for ages now, and even though it’s not as bad as the one they used to provide in the past, I still think a small effort to include an even better cable could be done.

Comfort and Isolation​

Comfort can be good or bad depending on the size of the ears: those who have small ears will likely have some comfort issues overtime, mostly related to the size of the shells (including their thickness), whereas others will find them sitting in a stable and comfortable way in their ears.
Isolation is more than enough for outdoor listening sessions.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Moondrop May’s DSP cable with PEQ=0
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Truthear SHIO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR, KZ AZ10

Do they need an amplifier?
The CCA Rhapsody don’t need an amplifier, but giving them some juice is not a bad idea. I’ve noticed a bit better low-end tightness when connecting them to a proper amp.

Sound signature
The sound signature depends on the switches’ positions. The first two switches have impact on the bass, the other two twitches have impact on mid&high frequencies. Basically, setting the first bass switch in the UP position increases the low end, but if the second bass switch is also switched in the UP position, then the bass increases even more. Same applies for the mid&highs switches.
There are many possibilities and one can really try playing with them, but this review will be based on the DDUU combination, which basically avoids too much bass emphasis or a subdued upper range by following the Harman target more or less.
Moving the switches in different ways by starting from this position helped me understanding the various effects of the switches, but your mileage may vary of course.

Lows
The low-end is solid with average extension, a pleasant yet limited rumble and a very punchy bass that is more forward than the sub-bass. The bass is not the tightest or the fastest around, and the textures are only average, but it sounds very impactful in a pleasant way. I think these will be perfect for bassheads since there’s already a good amount of bass in the DDUU config and the switches really make the bass even more powerful, deeper and punchier.
For sure these are not for those seeking for neutrality, especially because they already have emphasized bass even in the switches’ combination with the least amount of low-end.

Mids
The lower midrange is slightly compressed between the emphasized bass and the upper midrange, and even though this happens, it still has some pleasant warmth that brings some character to male vocals (even though they don’t really “stand out”). The upper midrange is forward, just like on most Harman-ish sets, and although some instances of sibilance are still a thing, they don’t occur very often and aren’t unbearable, also thanks to the fact that the treble is gently roll-off providing more smoothness.

Highs
As said some lines above, the treble is rolled-off but still has enough energy to make good contrast with the low-end, providing a very engaging and dynamic sound. And good news, BA timbre is not a thing in most cases (even though it can pop-up at very high volumes and while listening to genres that require more treble such as metal).
The detail retrieval and resolution are below average for the price but the overall sound is very smooth and cohesive also thanks to the treble tuning. In addition, if we put the switches into the equation, then it’s easy to understand that everyone, including those who are sensitive to treble, has a chance to like these.

Soundstage is average and so is the imaging.

My favorite combination of the various switches: UUUU.​

The UUUU combination has a more controlled midbass, more sub-bass extension and rumble, a bit less subdued lower mids and slightly better timbre overall. The other frequencies remain basically the same, so it’s more of a personal preference than anything else.

Some comparisons:​

CCA Rhapsody DDUU vs TRI Star River DD (Balanced and Natural position)​

Both have switches but the Rhapsody has even more, thus giving more combinations of up and down positions.
Overall, the Rhapsody are a lot better in terms of tonality, timbre and cohesiveness even though they are a hybrid set. The Star River has a bit more sub-bass extension with respect to the DDUU config of the Rhapsody, even though the latter can easily compensate by using the UUUU config. Going up top, the Rhapsody are more natural too and can be used also by those who are sensitive to treble, whereas the Star River are bright even in the least bright config, even though they have better details, resolution, imaging and soundstage.
The Rhapsody are more refined and pleasant to the ears, the Star River are more technical but way less pleasant and fun to listen to.
Both are well built, very comfortable and insulate well from external noises and both come with average cables, but the Star River come with a much better set of tips (since they also include TRI Clarion eartips).
If someone told me to choose only one of the two, I’d get the Rhapsody without thinking twice.

CCA Rhapsody UUUU vs CCA CRA​

To compare them in a fair way, the Rhapsody have been set to UUUU combination.
The low-end is perceived as more emphasized on the Rhapsody but this is just because they have less treble than the CRA. The CRA, instead, have better treble extension, more details, better resolution. Soundstage and imaging are slightly better on the CRA.
From a tonal perspective, the CRA are very bright so they are a no-go for those who are sensitive to treble, whereas the Rhapsody are very versatile and usable even in their brightest switches’ combination. In fact, the biggest step up from the average KZ/CCA set is the timbre, which is greatly improved on the Rhapsody.
Both are well built and the CRA are more comfortable but the Rhapsody insulate better from external noises. Both come with very average cables, to say the least.
I would probably pick the CRA for the brighter signature since I like a more sparkling upper-end, but I think the Rhapsody are more refined and easier to recommend to anyone.

CCA Rhapsody DDUU vs Celest Wyvern Pro​

Both are Harman-ish but the Rhapsody are more fun, warmer and bassier overall, while the Wyvern Pro are technically superior and more balanced with better end-to-end extension.
They have more mid-bass quantity and punch, slightly warmer male vocals, and a touch less forward upper-midrange. The Wyvern Pro have less midbass that is also faster and more accurate, slightly more subdued male vocals and more forward and energetic female vocals. The treble extension is decent on both but the Wyvern Pro are slightly superior and more resolving due to the fact that their midbass is not as prominent as on the Rhapsody.
Soundstage and imaging are a lot better on the Wyvern Pro.
Build quality is very good on both. Comfort is very subjective since both have something that could make them tricky to keep in the ears: the Wyvern Pro have a protruding wing on the shell, whereas the Rhapsody have very bulky shells. The Wyvern Pro come with a better cable.
If I were asked to pick one, I’d choose the Wyvern Pro any day, but I also understand those who like a lot of bass will find the Rhapsody a more interesting set from a timbrical point of view.

Final Thoughts​

CCA has really done wonders with the overall cohesiveness and timbre of the Rhapsody: they are fun, warm, pleasant to listen to, easy to drive and versatile thanks to the switches. I think this is the best driver implementation KZ has done to date, especially considering that there are multiple drivers that come into play.
Where do they fall? Soundstage, imaging, resolution and detail retrieval aren’t their “forte”. They are not bad under those aspects, but since there are lots of IEMs that are technically capable in this price range it’s time for KZ and CCA to step up on that, especially now that they have reached enough confidence with the tuning and that they have shown (i.e. with the Duo) that they can make technically competent stuff for cheap.

I am pleased to recommend the Rhapsody, but only if you are able to buy them for around their launch price or discounted price (i.e. around 30$): that is a very good price for them and they are definitely worth that money if you want a fun and smooth sounding set and are not bothered by their bulky shell.

Introduction​

As many of you probably know, Celest is under Kinera’s hat and aims to provide value-for-money IEMs that have a different music approach when compared to your average Harman-ish tuning. Every IEM from the brand is also related to a mythology beast, and this is another thing that differentiates Celest from other brands.
The new product from Celest is the Plutus Beast, a set that features a tribrid configuration using their patented SPD, a balanced armature and a bone conduction driver. It’s basically the cheapest tribrid set featuring a bone conduction driver and this is the reason why many are waiting for some reviews about these.

The Plutus Beast have a lore, like any every other set from Celest, but since you can find every detail of the mythology behind them on HiFiGO's website, let's get straight to the review: I cannot wait to share my impressions anymore!

Disclaimer: the Celest Plutus Beast were sent to me by HiFiGO free of charge so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set and it is by no means a promotional or paid content.
At the time of the review, the Celest Plutus Beast were on sale for 89$ at HiFiGO's Official Webstore, Amazon US, Amazon Japan and Aliexpress.

Click to expand...

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → Tribrid (1 x BC + 1 x BA + 1 x SPD™)
• Impedance → 8 Ω
• Sensitivity → 108dB
• Effective Frequency Response Range → 20Hz-20kHz
• Cable → 1,20m 5N copper silver plated cable with 0.78mm 2-PIN connectors
• Plug Type → straight gold plated 3.5mm jack connector

Packaging​

Celest always do their best to well package their products and the Plutus Beast come in a very good looking box that contains:

• The Celest Plutus Beast
• 3 pairs of Celest 221 Vocal Eartips (Black) + 3 pairs of Celest 608 Balanced Eartips (Red)
• The detachable 3.5mm cable with 0.78mm 2-PIN connectors
• A very nice pleather carry case
• A Plutus Beast metal bookmark
• User manuals and instructions (why the FAQ paper card is only in Chinese? Makes no sense)

Design and Build Quality​

The Plutus Beast are not very showy or fancy IEMs but they certainly look great in their polished, refined and small shells painted with contrast(y) colors and glitters.
The shells are very smooth and have no sharp edges and their thickness is slightly more pronounced under the nozzle rather than on the outer edges.
The nozzle is not the smallest around but I’d say it’s on the average size for nowadays’ standards, and the grill shows a lot of care to small details since the order of the holes resembles a flower and his petals around (these are the kind of nuances that sometimes matter when you want to know how much a company cares about providing refined and well thought products).

Cable​

The stock cable is sturdy but it’s a bit on the stiffer side; a softer cable would have been even better and more comfortable around the ears (not that it isn’t comfortable, but it’s definitely improvable in terms of overall feeling).
The chin slider has a pretty large diameter, but somehow works properly and I find it even better than many other chin sliders.
There is no microphone or remote control on the cable.

Comfort and Isolation​

Comfort is very good since the shells are small and don’t have any sharp edges; plus, the stock tips are very good so it’s also easy to fit these properly. Isolation is good as well.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Moondrop May’s DSP cable with PEQ=0
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Truthear SHIO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR, KZ AZ10

Do they need an amplifier?
The Celest Plutus Beast don't need an amplifier thanks to their average sensitivity and lower than average impedance. The low impedance, though, means that the Plutus Beast will have a small background hiss when plugged to sources that don’t have low output impedance when nothing is being reproduced, so beware of this if you’re annoyed by this kind of behavior.

Sound signature
The Plutus Beast has some bass emphasis and neutral lower midrange, with forward upper midrange and very rolled-off treble. The combination of these tuning choices lead to an inoffensive and impactful tuning with an upper range that is darker than average.

Lows
The sub-bass and bass are of very good quality: nice extension, very good impact, overall nice body and good textures. The bass is punchy, tight, pretty fast indeed and delivers what’s necessary without struggling on most occasions. It’s not a basshead set, since it would need even more bass for that, but tracks in which the bass is “the star of the show” really shine on the Plutus Beast as they guarantee a very satisfying and dense low-end.

Mids
The bass to lower mids transition isn’t the cleanest around, and this also because the bass and sub-bass power translates into added warmth in the lower midrange, also helped by the treble roll-off. Male vocals, in fact, sound very warm, but they are sometimes not as incisive as they should due to the fact that the added warmth and the treble roll-off tend to smoothen them a bit.
The upper midrange sounds forward with intimate female vocals that sound in front of the listener, even though they can occasionally get hot or nasal and lose some naturalness. There’s no sibilance though, which is good news.
For sure, the upper midrange is more forward than the average Harman-tuned IEM, so it’s a love or hate situation here as it depends on your average playlist: if you listen to a lot of rock music, for example, these may become very hot depending on the recording (and on the volume).
Instrument layering is just ok but it’s more of a relaxed and timbre-focused approach rather than a clinical one, so very complicated tracks seem to “ask for a bit more space” in many cases.

Highs
The highs are not absent, but the very noticeable and aggressive roll-off lead to a very intimate, dark and smooth presentation that makes the Plutus Beast less versatile. In genres where spatiality, air and soundstage matter, in fact, the Plutus Beast won’t be the best set to use.
The detail retrieval mostly relates to macro-details rather than small nuances, so if you’re searching for the most detailed set in this price range you should probably consider something else. Instead, those who are very sensitive to treble will find the Plutus Beast very appealing and smooth, even though the upper midrange glare cannot be left out of the equation.

Soundstage is relatively small also due to the signature leading to an intimate listening experience. In its small size, though, it’s well rounded with decent spatial cues and in fact imaging is mostly on point, even though it lacks a bit of precision when it comes to properly differentiating vocals and instruments at different depths. Let’s say instruments are positioned where they should be but it’s millimeter-precise, that’s all.

What’s the impact on sound that the stock tips have?

• Celest 221 Vocal Eartips (black): slightly less low-end, less warmth in male vocals, clearer and more energetic female vocals, a bit more details and clarity when reproducing instruments
• Celest 608 Balanced Eartips (red): a bit more bass than black filters, warmer male vocals, slightly less nasal yet less engaging and intimate female vocals, a bit less details and clarity overall

Some comparisons (with Celest 221 Vocal Eartips)​

Celest Plutus Beast vs Moondrop May​

Very different.
The May are U-shaped with elevated bass response, more treble sparkle and a more lively and open sound. The Plutus Beast have a more mature tuning, a darker treble, and vocals are less upfront (they really sound a lot less “standard” than the May, that instead go for a very common sound signature).
Bass quality is better on the Plutus Beast, but the May are overall a bit more natural sounding. Technical performance would be on the same level if the Plutus Beast had a tad more treble, but out of the box the May have a bigger soundstage and a more precise imaging. Also, instrument separation is clearer.
Both are built very well and both are comfortable, but the Plutus Beast insulate in a better way from external noises.
The May come with a DSP Type-C cable, whereas the Plutus Beast come with a standard 3.5mm cable, and both are of good quality.

Celest Plutus Beast vs QoA Vesper 2​

Both sets are warm and tend to sound darker than most competitors.
The Plutus Beast have a faster, more impactful and more textured low-end, with more forward and energetic (yet more fatiguing and shouty) vocals and a bit more detail overall.
The Vesper 2 sound darker with a leaner midrange and slightly more neutral (yet less engaging) vocals overall. Details are very similar, but the treble is a bit leaner on the Vesper 2 whereas the Plutus Beast are a touch less closed-in.
Soundstage is intimate on both sets, imaging is slightly superior on the Plutus Beast.
Both are very well built, both are extremely comfortable and both come with good cables and a nice set of tips. The Vesper 2 insulate a touch better.

Celest Plutus Beast vs Celest Pandamon​

The Celest Pandamon were truly overlooked when it was their time to shine, and I think it’s a shame because their performance is still great for their price. Their design is too “childish” for most hobbyists out there, so that’s maybe one of the reasons why they didn’t get the attention that they (still) deserve.
The Pandamon sound more neutral in general, with a less prominent low-end and more treble. The detail retrieval of the Pandamon is also slightly superior due to the fact that the treble is a bit more open since there’s less bass quantity and warmth. The Plutus Beast, on the other hand, are a lot warmer and more intimate with more impactful and tactile bass.
Vocals are more intimate and warmer on the Plutus Beast, more neutral and more open-sounding on the Pandamon.
The soundstage is wider on the Pandamon and the imaging is a touch better on the Pandamon as well thanks to the fact that there’s less bass overall.
What differentiates them in terms of sound is definitely their timbre, since the Plutus Beast are a niche product and it’s really clear that the tuner’s intention wasn’t to make an “all-rounder”.
Build quality, design, comfort, isolation and stock cable are miles better on the Plutus Beast.

Celest Plutus Beast vs Celest Phoenixcall​

The Phoenixcall were released before the Plutus Beast and became popular because of their superbly designed shells.
They are more V-shaped than the Plutus Beast, with brighter, more extended and more detailed highs, superior resolution, bigger soundstage and better imaging. The Plutus Beast, instead, go for a more relaxed and non-fatiguing approach, with more intimate vocals and an overall warmer and darker presentation. The bass on the Plutus Beast is a notch better, both in terms of impact and textures, and male vocals sound slightly fuller than on the Phoenixcall also thanks to the warmth given by the low-end.
In the end, the Phoenixcall are targeted to those who want a very dynamic, fun and resolving IEMs with a brighter top-end and a more versatile sound, whereas the Plutus Beast were truly designed to appeal those who are more into fatigue-free mature tunings with forward vocals: they are basically sidegrades and the trade-off lays between technicalities and timbre.
Build quality is awesome on both sets but Phoenixcall’s design is much more captivating and they also come with a better cable. Comfort is great on both for me but probably the smaller shells of the Plutus Beast may be better for those with small ears. Last, but not least, the Phoenixcall win when it comes to isolation.

Celest Plutus Beast vs Celest Gumiho​

The Celest Gumiho were the first IEMs from Celest, and already a lot of time has passed since their release.
The Plutus Beast are more refined overall, with totally absent BA timbre, better bass quality, more mature and warmer male vocals and more intimate female vocals. The Gumiho have more details, better treble extension and better soundstage, but this comes at the cost of some splashiness, and the more one increases the volume, the more the BA timbre is noticeable. One thing to say, also, is that vocals sound better on the Plutus Beast, even though their timbre is not the most natural around.
Build quality, cable, comfort and isolation are better on the Plutus Beast.

Final Thoughts​

Celest is experimenting a lot and this tribrid is another well executed implementation of a brand that really brings something different (from the usual tunings and driver configurations) on the table. The Plutus Beast are an interesting set, with a mature, warm and dark-ish sound along with forward vocals, non-fatiguing treble and an excellent low-end.
Everything comes at a cost, though: the treble roll-off and forward upper midrange make less versatile and the technical chops are only average for the price range.

They literally sit in Celest’s product catalogue as a sidegrade from the Phoenixcall and as a more engaging solution than the Vesper 2, with full focus on providing a niche signature with a very unique timbre (which is good news since we see a lot of very similar and boring IEMs nowadays) that is not for everyone.

Making very unique IEMs, in fact, also means there’s the risk that a product may appeal only a portion of customers, and the Plutus Beast are the perfect example for this statement: a very unique-sounding set that will be discovered only by those who have the right library and tuning tastes to appreciate this type of tuning.

Introduction​

KBEAR is a well known brand in the Chi-Fi industry thanks to some of their releases that were recognized as very good products.
It’s been a while since I've tried anything from KBEAR, and lately they have been in a sort of “stagnation” since other brands were literally running from one release to another while they were a bit passive with few releases that got overlooked for the most.
The KBEAR Flash is their latest release featuring a hybrid configuration (DD+BA) and it’s the one we’re gonna analyze in this review.

Disclaimer: the KBEAR Flash were sent to me from KBEAR free of charge so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set and it is by no means a promotional or paid content.
At the time of the review, the KBEAR Flash were on sale for about 30$ at Keephifi’s official Aliexpress store.

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → Hybrid (1 DD + 1 BA)
• Sensitivity → 108 dB
• Impedance → 32 Ω
• Frequency Response Range → 20Hz-20kHz
• Cable → 1,20m 4N silver plated OFC cable with 0.78mm 2-PIN QDC connectors
• Plug Type → L-type gold plated 3,5mm jack connector

Packaging​

The packaging is simple and with very few things inside:

• The KBEAR Flash
• The cable
• 2 sets consisting in 3 pairs of tips (S, M, L) each set
• User manual

Design and Build Quality​

The KBEAR Flash look pretty simple with a resin shell and an opaque and silver-colored faceplate. It’s a good-looking minimal shell design overall so nothing fancy that screams uniqueness.
There is a single pressure vent on the ear-facing side of the earpieces, just above the DD, and the nozzle is of average size and sports a small lip.

Cable​

The stock cable is nothing to write home about and does the job with no frills. For sure, there’s stuff that comes with a slightly better cable and there’s no doubt about it.

Comfort and Isolation​

Comfort is very good and I was honestly expecting the Flash to be comfort since KBEAR has always been a benchmark in this regard. Personally, when someone asks me for a very comfortable cheap IEM, the first brand that comes to my mind is KBEAR, and this because their product portfolio is the one with the most comfortable shells around (on average).
Isolation is more than decent and definitely enough for outdoor listening sessions.
The stock tips are more than decent and provide a good seal, at least for me.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Truthear SHIO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, ElGato Wave XLR, KZ AZ10, Moondrop May's DSP Cable with PEQ=0

Do they need an amplifier?
The KBEAR Flash don’t need an amplifier, and they don’t improve a lot when connected to a proper amplifier.

Sound signature
The KBEAR Flash is a very warm and mild V-shaped set with some upper midrange emphasis.

Lows
Sub-bass is present but not prominent, with an elevated and thick bass that adds some fun to the mix.The texture isn't bad for the price, but this low-end it’s more about the fun factor and thickness rather than speed and texture quality.
I don’t think it’s a truly basshead IEM, but I am sure those who love bass and warm sets will find a satisfying low-end in the KBEAR Flash.

Mids
The midrange is slightly recessed as expected on a U-Shaped set. The lower mids are forward with a thick timbre that makes male vocals and acoustic instruments very warm. The upper midrange is also slightly emphasized with female vocals sounding very intimate but not as energetic and clear as they should be. In fact, due to the lack of treble extension, vocals sometimes sound unnatural and nasal, while violins, cellos and electric guitars lack the sparkle and energy that they usually need. Those who don’t like upper-midrange “borderline” stuff with a very rolled-off treble may not like the overall tuning.

Highs
The highs are non-fatiguing with a very noticeable upper treble roll-off and detail retrieval is nothing to write home about.
It’s a pretty intimate-sounding and in-your-head IEM with mediocre treble extension, but it’s also safe to say that these are basically fatigue-free and very good for treble sensitive people or night listening sessions.

Soundstage is perceived as small-sized while imaging is decent considering the very warm and thick nature of the signature.

KBEAR Flash vs Truthear Hola​

Both are warm, both are non fatiguing, both go for a U-shaped signature, but even though they may seem to share a lot, they sound pretty different.
The Hola are a bit more sub-bassy whereas the Flash are bassier. The lower midrange is thicker on the Flash with warmer and deeper male vocals and instruments like acoustic and classic guitars or piano. The upper midrange is slightly leaner on the Truthear Hola, that perform generally better and less fatiguing when it comes to vocals, even though male vocals are slightly less warm and deep than on the Flash. The highs are non-fatiguing on both but the Hola sound a touch less closed-in and more detailed than the Flash.
Soundstage and imaging are slightly better on the Hola even though the Flash have a pretty good imaging considering the very warm and thick nature of their sound signature.
The build quality is good on both. The Hola are shipped with a softer and more comfortable cable.
Comfort is very similar (great on both) even though the Hola are a bit trickier to wear because of their shorter nozzles (which creates the need for some tip rolling), whereas isolation is marginally better on the KBEAR Flash.

KBEAR Flash vs TRN MT4 Pro​

These are pretty different. Both are U-shaped but while the MT4 Pro Harman-ish, the KBEAR Flash are thicker, warmer, with less pinna gain, less sub-bass and less-treble.
Sub-bass and bass are more impactful on the MT4 Pro, that have a better low-end hands down. The lower mids are better on KBEAR Flash, with better male vocals, acoustic and classic instruments, while the MT4 Pro have more energy and sparkle when it comes to violins, female vocals, sax and so on, with a slightly more natural timbre. One thing to note, though, is that the MT4 Pro sometimes get sibilant, thing that doesn’t happen on the KBEAR Flash. The highs have more details and sparkle on the MT4 Pro, that also have better upper treble extension. The KBEAR Flash, on the other hand, are much less fatiguing with a softer, warmer and overall darker treble that favors long listening sessions.
Soundstage is better on the MT4 Pro, while imaging is on par more or less.
Build quality is better on the KBEAR Flash. The stock cable isn’t dramatically different but the one included with the MT4 Pro looks and feels a tad better.
Comfort and isolation are better on the KBEAR Flash.

KBEAR Flash vs Celest Wyvern Pro​

These two IEMs share the same price bracket more or less but sound very different.
The KBEAR Flash have a thicker and more prominent low-end with more quantity than quality, while the Wyvern Pro have a faster, more textured yet less thick bass, with a slightly better sub-bass extension. The lower midrange is more emphasized on the KBEAR Flash, whereas the upper midrange is more present, energetic and clearer on the Wyvern Pro, even though the latter can easily become borderline shouty on some tracks. The treble is darker, more polite and less detailed on the KBEAR Flash, while the Wyvern Pro have more details and more sparkle overall, even though their upper treble extension isn’t anything special.
Soundstage and imaging are way better on the Wyvern Pro.
Build quality is great on both, the Wyvern Pro come with a better cable overall.
Comfort is better on the KBEAR Flash since the Wyvern Pro have a protruding shell wing that may not appeal to some people, and isolation is on par more or less.

Final Thoughts​

After the great KBEAR Ink MKII and the disappointing Streamer and Pecker, which registered many bad reviews around the web, KBEAR has released the Flash, a set that goes all-in on the warm and lush timbre with a thick bass, very warm male vocals, a noticeably rolled-off (and almost dark) treble, and all of this while being very easy to drive and very comfortable to wear. Despite these strengths, though, the timbre and tonality are unnatural for the most, the sub-bass lacks proper extension when compared to the forward midbass and female vocals miss their natural clarity and energy due to the lackluster treble extension.

The KBEAR Flash is a very warm and pleasing IEM, but going safe is not enough to compete in the very crowded market we’re living nowadays, especially when many competitors boast better resolution, staging capabilities, detail retrieval and an overall better sound experience. The flash is only “average” technically, and even though I find some uniqueness and effort in their timbrical approach and in the overall cohesiveness between the drivers, I think that they’re not up to par with the competition.
They will be loved by some (for sure), but I think an extra effort could have been done since they compete in a very difficult market.

I know what KBEAR is capable of and I don't think the Flash deserve to represent their potential. I am sure that KBEAR has much more for us and I cannot wait to try the stuff they’ll be releasing this year.

Introduction​

Moondrop is among the most popular Chi-Fi brands and probably among the few that reached almost every country on a worldwide basis (also through their sister brand Truthear in the entry level bracket and the Softears brand in the upper brackets).
People know their products because of their appealing design and packaging, and of course because of their value for money.

The Moondrop May is their latest release that consists of a pair of hybrid IEMs that use a standard full range dynamic driver and an annular planar magnetic driver for the treble (which is not a traditional planar driver), both combined with a two-way crossover. Plus, they get shipped with a Type-C DSP cable with 0.75mm connectors (just like the Moondrop Free DSP cable) instead of a standard 3.5mm jack cable.

Let’s see what the Moondrop May is about and how they compare with some other IEMs.

Disclaimer: the Moondrop May were sent to me by Shenzen Audio Store free of charge so that I could write an honest review. This review represents my personal opinion on the set and it is by no means a promotional or paid content.
At the time of the review, the Moondrop May were on sale for 64.99$ at Shenzen Audio Store.

Technical Specifications​

• Driver Configuration → Hybrid (1 x 10mm Dynamic Driver + 1 x 6mm Annular Planar Magnetic Driver) with two-way crossover
• Sensitivity → 120 dB/Vrms (@1kHz)
• Impedance → 30 Ω ± 15% (@1kHz)
• Effective Frequency Response Range → 20Hz-20kHz
• Cable → 1,20m silver plated cable with 0.78mm 2-PIN QDC connectors and DSP module
• Plug Type → Type-C USB connector

Packaging​

The packaging looks very good and contains:

• The Moondrop May
• The Type-C DSP cable
• A beautiful pleather carry case with zipper closure
• User manuals and instructions (why the FAQ paper card is only in Chinese? Makes no sense)

Design and Build Quality​

The Moondrop May look really good in their 3D printed opaque black resin shells, with glossy silver faceplates that are decorated with flowers. One would think it’s a very showy faceplate but in fact it looks very clean and less tawdry than it looks in the photos you can find online.
The 3D printed resin is basically the same used for products like the Truthear Hexa and the Truthear Hola, it looks good and feels good in the hands, and unlike metal shells these are very lightweight.
There is one pressure vent down below the 2-PIN connectors and one in the ear-facing side of the shell, just above the DD.

Cable​

The stock cable is very nice and it’s basically the same as the Moondrop Free DSP cable. It has a USB Type-C plug to connect it almost everywhere (PC, Mobile Phones, Notebooks) and this type of connection was also used in order to give users the freedom of applying DSP parameters and do some EQ. It also has both a chin slider and a remote control with a microphone module, so there’s literally nothing missing.

Comfort and Isolation​

Comfort is very good thanks to the small shells with no sharp edges, and isolation is decent as well.
The stock tips are nothing to write home about, and even though some users will want to do some tip rolling, I think most people will be okay with the stock ones.

The Moondrop Link 2.0 App and the DSP settings​

The Moondrop Link 2.0 app is not available for download from the Play Store, so one has to download the APK from Moondrop’s website in order to be able to use the cable at its full potential.
On my phone, the app asks for “nearby devices” permission since Moondrop Link 2.0 is also compatible with bluetooth products such as the Space Travel, the Moondrop Voyager and the Space Force. If you don’t use/own any of these bluetooth devices, you can simply decline the permission request and the app will still run fine using the USB cable with the Moondrop May.

The app has three main sections:

• “Product”: contains list of products divided by the type of connection (Wired, USB, Wireless) and so on;
• “Add device”: should be called “Devices” in my opinion, since it’s the part of the app by which the user reaches the EQ and DSP profiles. This is also where you connect and find new products around you or try to detect them when they are connected to your device.
• “About”: contains privacy and policy documentation, a form to report issues or feedbacks, a login section and some social networks’ links.

The “Add Device” section contains the DSP settings and the PEQ profiles and one can also download PEQ presets in order to tune other IEMs as well. The DSP settings, instead, are limited and they also have some gain differences that can be annoying at times (and there is no way to explore what is the DSP doing or modifying it).
Back to the PEQ settings from Moondrop, a very few sets are featured, but there are some users sharing their PEQs for other IEMs as well. Unfortunately, many descriptions or notes in the app are in chinese, and I think Moondrop seriously have to work on this as non-chinese users may find some issues at distinguishing the various PEQ presets.
The number of bands in the equalizer is limited to 9 bands, so it’s nearly impossible to do a fine tuning, but using PEQ settings or importing them is still something valuable (nothing that one cannot do with Wavelet more or less though, but with the DSP cable the settings are saved).

One thing to say, though, is that sometimes the app seems to struggle detecting the DSP cable, so the user may need to unplug the cable and then reconnect it again.

Sound​

GEAR USED FOR THE TEST

• DAC: Topping E30
• AMP: Topping L30
• Mobile phones: Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Xiaomi Mi A3, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Dongle: Apple Type-C dongle, Truthear SHIO
• Portable DAPs: Benjie S8/AGPTEK M30B
• Other sources: Presonus AudioBox iONE, Elgato Wave XLR, KZ AZ10

Do they need an amplifier?
The Moondrop May don’t strictly need an amplifier, having enough sensitivity to run properly from any device. Providing a good amplification makes them a bit more dynamic and improves the overall note weight but it’s not a night and day difference.

Sound signature
The Moondrop May is a very balanced set with some warmth and forward vocals and smooth treble. Let’s say a type of U-shaped set that works with almost every genre.

One note regarding the DSP cable and DSP settings
Using the DSP cable with DSP set to “Standard” IS NOT the same as using another cable with a 3.5mm jack. If you want to know how the May sound without DSP or EQ impact you want to head in the PEQ section, check that every gain is set to “0” and then click Apply.
The “Standard” DSP setting slightly reduces the low-end and the upper-midrange, making the central part of the midrange slightly less recessed. It’s a more neutral approach and comes down to personal preferences.
In order to write this review, I have set PEQ parameters to 0 gain and clicked apply, in order to have the same signature with or without DSP cable.

Click to expand...

Lows
The sub-bass has very good extension and kicks in in a very controlled yet engaging way. The bass is of moderate speed, it's slightly elevated and has good textures. Those who seek for more neutrality (or those who are used to VDSF tuned sets) will find the bass on the boomier side, but the truth is that the May sound good also because of this bass boost that brings a lot of warmth to the overall mix. It's not the most accurate and tight bass around but it certainly leads to a very enjoyable low-end that will appeal to most listeners.
Even though the low-end is slightly emphasized, the May are far from being a basshead’s set, so beware of this unless you go with more aggressive PEQ options or bassier DSP settings (still, if I was a basshead I wouldn’t buy these).

Mids
The lower midrange is slightly warmer than average with nice male vocals, also thanks to the emphasized bass, and female vocals are forward and intimate at the same time without becoming annoying or sibilant. In fact, it’s very easy to make the upper midrange shouty or annoying in general, but Moondrop has really done a great job with the May, no doubts, giving both female vocals and instruments like Cello, Sax, Violins, and also higher bass notes, a detailed yet engaging presentation. Despite the fact that the tuning is good, sometimes female vocals lack that kind of bite that they usually have on IEMs with more treble sparkle, so those who are used to that kind of presentation may feel female vocals lacking a bit of "bite".

Highs
The keyword for the treble is “smoothness”. The details are good although not excellent, there’s enough sparkle, they don’t sound claustrophobic by any means and there's enough air between instruments and vocals. Trebleheads or those who seek for the best treble extension should probably look elsewhere as the May are tuned to reach a sweet spot between smoothness and sparkle.
Treble sensitive people should still give these a try because even though the treble is not noticeably rolled-off, it’s well done and could probably be satisfying and not as fatiguing as on other sets.

Soundstage is well rounded, and there’s no direction or dimension that is better than the other. Depth, width and height strike good balance and it’s a very natural (yet not out-of-your-head still) stage presentation.
The imaging is ok and even though it’s not the most precise IEM available in the sub-100$ bracket the May do their job in this regard as well.

How do they change with different DSP settings?​

• “Standard” setting: makes them more natural with less low-end, a slightly more relaxed upper midrange and a leaner treble with a tad more extended upper treble.
• “Basshead” setting: same as Standard setting with a low-end boost. It’s called Anti-Herbert probably because Moondrop’s CEO doesn’t like boosted bass (maybe that’s one of the reason why Moondrop products are not extremely bassy).
• “Reference” setting: equalizes the May towards VDSF target. It’s more or less like the “Standard” setting but the low-end is even less present.
• “No bass” setting: even less bass than the Reference setting.
• “Harman” style: the equalization title says it all. It makes the May more forward in vocals and adds proper sub-bass and bass. It’s a slightly more V-shaped approach than the May with PEQ=0, with a slightly less forward upper midrange.

Some comparisons (DSP cable with PEQ=0 or 3.5mm cable):​

Moondrop May vs Truthear HEXA​

This is probably the comparison that everyone looks for since both are in the same price range and target a similar audience.
The first thing that pops up while listening to both is that they have a very different approach to music: the HEXA sound more neutral, precise, sterile and clinical, the May sound less neutral and are more engaging and fun-oriented.
The sub-bass and bass are slightly more emphasized and impactful on the May. The lower midrange is neutral on the HEXA and just a tad less present on the May. Going up towards the upper midrange reveals both sets’ nature, with the May taking the lead for engagement and forwardness in vocals while the HEXA remain more controlled and neutral. The treble is more extended, more sterile and also more detailed on the HEXA, whereas the May have a smoother and more natural upper range.
The soundstage is a little bit wider on the May but the HEXA have more depth and slightly better imaging.
Build quality is great on both sets and design-wise it all comes down to personal preferences.
Both are comfortable but the May have no sharp edges on the shell so they’ll likely be more comfortable to those who have smaller ears. Isolation is good with both sets in the ears but the HEXA insulate a tad better.
Overall, the May are much more musical and less “boring” than the HEXA, but the HEXA are more detailed, more resolving and with superior technical performance. In the end, all comes down to personal preferences (both in terms of signature and accessories).

Moondrop May vs Simgot EW200​

The EW200 were the among the most endorsed sets in 2023 and comparing it to the May could be useful for many.
Sub-bass and bass are more emphasized on the May but the EW200 have a faster and tighter bass. The lower midrange is perceived as warmer on the May, with slightly warmer male vocals, whereas the EW200 have more energetic female vocals and more forward cellos, violins and electric guitars. The highs are brighter and more detailed on the EW200 but the May are smoother and less fatiguing over time.
When it comes to soundstage the May play in a slightly wider sound field, but the EW200 have superior imaging. Even though the May are warmer and more relaxed, it’s really hard for them to compete with the EW200 in terms of details, resolution and overall technical performance.
Build quality is good on both sets: the EW200 are made by metal, the May come instead from a 3D resin production process. Both are very comfortable but the May insulate a tad better. The May come with a DSP cable while the EW200 come with a very nice 3.5mm cable.
Summing up, the May are more relaxed, more musical, smoother and more versatile thanks to the DSP type-c cable included. The EW200, on the other hand, have more details and superior resolution, along with a superior imaging, and since they are cheaper one could buy them and save some money to spend on a cheaper type-c dongle and a set of spare tips.

Moondrop May vs Moondrop LAN​

The Moondrop LAN aren’t one of the most successful products from Moondrop, but they were praised by those who were seeking for good vocals and a cohesive neutral-bright sound.
The sub-bass and bass are a lot less impactful and full bodied than the May, thus making the latter much more engaging and versatile, and also giving lower notes more body. The midrange is tuned very similarly, but the more forward low-end on the May makes them warmer, richer and more exciting. Female vocals sound slightly more forward on the LAN due to them having less bass, but it’s mostly a difference that depends on the overall signature rather than the midrange tuning itself. The treble is not annoying on both sets but the May are smoother and more musical, even though the detail retrieval is very similar and just marginally better on the May.
Soundstage and imaging are better on the May.
Build quality is great on both sets, even though the LAN feel a bit sturdier. The May come with DSP cable that is also better looking and more comfortable than the one provided with the LAN. May have smoother shells and they also insulate slightly better than LAN.
Overall, the May are a superior and more versatile set, no doubts.

Moondrop May vs Simgot EM6L
The low-end feels a bit more weightier on the EM6L due the less emphasized upper treble and the smoother upper-midrange. The lower midrange is slightly warmer on the EM6L whereas the upper midrange is more emphasized on the May with a more energy in female vocals, cellos and electric guitars. The lower treble is slightly more pronounced on the EM6L with a bit more details whereas the May sound more open and airy thanks to the fact that they have a more extended upper treble (still very smooth).
Soundstage is slightly wider on the EM6L and imaging is a notch superior on the EM6L.
Build quality is great on both sets, they are both extremely comfortable and with similar isolation.
It’s a very tough choice since both are excellent. The EM6L sound slightly more laidback and safe whereas the May sound a tiny bit more forward and energetic. It all comes down to personal preferences, but the Moondrop May cost a lot less money and it’s a more versatile set so they might be a smarter choice for those with a tighter budget, even though the EM6L are more refined and technically superior.

Final Thoughts​

Moondrop couldn’t have closed this very interesting year in a better way: the May are well tuned, very musical, super comfortable, versatile and come for an affordable price. But this also comes at the cost of less impressive technical performance, even though I still think it’s more than adequate for the overall price of the set.
The DSP cable included in the box makes them usable with a smartphone and the app has some useful presets and EQ settings that make up for a versatile and enjoyable experience. The app itself still needs some work, especially considering that many things are still in Chinese only (with no translation) and that sometimes the DSP cable struggles to be detected. Moondrop has to work on this aspect for sure, even though it’s not something that happens every time, but the overall product is a complete and versatile package.

If you are in the market for an all-rounder, smooth and musical set under 100$, look no further and grab these. If you instead search for a more technical and resolving set, then the Truthear HEXA or the Simgot EW200 provide better technical performance and resolution, even though their tuning is not as cohesive and smooth as on the May.