Reviews by PhonoPhi
With the detailed pros and cons above, I will try to expand on them briefly and provide some comparisons and perceived synergy with several IEMs, rather than going through all features already described in other reviews.
First, I have purchased KA17 entirely with my own money for ca. $135 in the recent AE sales, so the subjective opinion is entirely my own.
Fiio in part started me in my audiophile journey: with Q1 first, then Q1-II with the 2.5-mm outputs engineered to push consumers to the world of balanced cables (perhaps, Fiio can request its cut from cable makers). Then I also got BTR3K and BTR5 that are very good products in my experience. (While FD11 became decisively my very last Fiio IEM: shabbily-made shell, proprietary connectors, hardly competitive even at $20-25, IMO.) Lastly, KA17 is my first Fiio product of the “7” series (feel BMW-inspired somehow).
While acquiring KA17, I pretty much knew what to expect: power hogging of a new ESS chip (being strongly Cirrus-biased now, I would prefer Cirrus implementation); good THX amps and a nice design and build.
I pretty much got all of this. Below is the unboxing image:
Then the sound was even better than I expected: sharp and precise, especially in the desktop mode and the high gain. KA17 rendering feels quite neutral for ESS-based DACs, though switching from Cirrus DACs, the perception of some ESS treble glare is there (perhaps a but psychologically and possibly also the feature of the sharp precise sound delivery). For those bothered with this glare, the slow filter option seems to alleviate it a bit. Also very nice colours to my taste again: charming shades of blue for both the DAC and the case!
The power consumption also exceeded all expectations. Notably, amps seem to be reasonably power-efficient, given their output. The ESS chip takes a lot of juice, and no idle shutdown, not ESS.
So in the desktop mode KA17 draws 250-260 mA, while playing music, and 224 mA in idle (music processing is always on with ESS, perhaps some MQA background rendering…)
In the normal mode, 200-205 mA and 185-190 mA, respectively is drawn by KA17, not drastically less compared to the desktop mode, so one may very well enjoy the power and might of all amps firing in the mighty desktop mode.
Surprisingly to me, at least at first (then making some sense given that the chip and amplifications circuits are separated), even with the battery connected, the desktop mode still consumes 25-35 mA playing music and 18-20 mA in idle, respectively.
Lastly, in a normal mode, the power consumption of KA17 with the battery connected is 8-10 mA and 5 mA respectively, finally gentle to the phone battery.
Notably, I could not perceive much of a difference in sound when a battery is connected – KA17 seem to be able to draw the power smoothly for its full operation. While many other DACs in my experience sounded noticeably better with the battery connected, e.g. E1DA.
For comparison numbers, Muse M3 (my previous record power hog) consumes 145-150 mA and 185-190 mA playing music and in idle, respectively; and no mistake – more power consumption in idle – one is expected to always play music with the Muse and those ESS chips.
E1DA SG3 takes only 92 mA and 80 mA playing music and idling, respectively.
Kuang Pai Plus4 uses 122 mA and 104 mA respectively, twice less than KA17, yet a lot of processing power consumed for a Cirrus-based DAC.
Nicely efficient Tempotec E44 uses 62 mA and 0 mA (!), with more than enough power delivered and still competitive sound.
Lastly, Apple DAC draws 23 mA with 0 mA in idle, while most efficient DACs (Moondrop Droplet, Samsung AKG USB-C OEM IEM (also sold as Urban X) draw 5 mA to produce comparably loud sound, that is 50 times less power (!!) than consumed by KA17).
IEM tested with KA17:
recent KZs including ZAT, AS24 and my favourite wide-nozzle modified ASX; CCA Trio; Celest Phoenixcall and Plutus; 1More Penta; Simgot E6ML; Tempotec T800; Hisenior T4; and old Brainwavz B400, among few others.
Main take on IEM synergy: softer sounding IEMs benefited from the precise punchy delivery of KA17, it also helps a bit with the overly prominent mid-bass of some IEMs. For instance, Penta has been pushed to sound a bit better, though more mid-bass taming would be still great. Polite E6ML sounded more engaged and assuring, hence feeling more competitive. Plutus benefited nicely accentuating its prominent bass with more treble energy; while Phoenixcall behaved more neutrally. Trio sounded nicely as well, though I think the difference with hybrids is a bit more (?)
A lot of benefits of KA17 for quite a few IEMs overall.
For already punchy and engaging all-BA IEMs, KA17 may be a bit too much for many. I still liked the overall rendering of all that I tried, but I am not a long-term listener, and lower volumes if sonically overhelmed, for the records.
Overall, this synergy story is just a scratch of the surface with already more than a half a day spent, so definitely my last review weaning off HeadFi.
Finally, few DAC comparisons with the images continuing with the background of “musical instruments”:
In the last image, left to right are E1DA SG3, Fiio KA17, Kuang Pai Plus4, and Muse M3. I thought to compare with more DACs (and with some I did) , but all the comparisons already happened to be quite exhaustive. Really feeling here for good reviewers (and sadly remorsing how copy-paste ones "win their game").
Overall, KA17 sounds most energetic of all my DACs, especially in its ESS-rendered treble; again, prominently precise, powerful and clean sound delivery.
First, ESS-based comparisons:
Muse M3 sounds noticeably more mellow, not unlikeable and also synergizing easier with more engaging and punchy IEMs.
Muse M3 is much bulkier and heavier compared to KA17 for the practicality of the fully portable use. KA17 is of the nice size for me, only a touch larger than Plus4 that I use everywhere.
E1DA SG3 is then in between KA17 and M3, being quite neutral, but with some touch of the bass added in its rendering - still a very competitive sound to my ears. The main downsides of E1DA are EMI and those prominent pop-ups on connecting/disconnecting that are most noticeable among all the DACs that I have.
Nicely contrasting, KA17 is free of those “pop ups”. Also E1DA strongly benefits from an external battery, while with KA17, even with my old S10, enough power is provided to operate KA17 fully; only the battery drain is mighty.
Then if to mention Shanling UA2 here – its warm ESS rendering with the noticeable added background noise, perhaps an attempt on mimicking AK-like “velvet” sound, as well as those lamp amps, coupled with the “famous” Shanling software support, made it my last Shanling product. To continue digressing: iBasso is also out for me with their two out of two dongles not recognized by Samsung phones without extra efforts. It is really great that there are many diverse competitors in the DAC market.
Now, my favourite Kuang Pai Plus4 still remains my preferred DACs for its many appealing aspects. Cirrus rendering is cleaner and more transparent. When switching back from ESS, Cirrus-based DACs can be perceived as more plain, but this neutrality is arguably better to appreciate all the subtle differences in IEMs.
The filters of Plus4 are definitely more functional with nicer more meaningful difference compared to KA17 filters. Furthermore the stage expansion of Plus4 is simply unmatched. The button operation of Plus 4 is also quite straightforward even without the screen.
In its turn, KA17 features the screen that is definitely useful. The design of KA17 is also more to my tastes. Lastly, the precise punchy sound of KA17 can synergize better with several IEMs, especially on a mellow side. So KA17 is quite closely completive with Plus4, just my current strong bias for Cirrus is decisive in preferring Plus4. Hopefully, Fiio will consider making a Cirrus-based KA17 analogue.
Now, this section is strictly for the “believers” and “believers in the believers” and "total believers" (others must totally skip it).
Thinking about the double amp of KA17, it occurred to me: what about bringing together two Plus4 DACs for twice more of the mighty audiophile mental power and beliefs! This doubling setup coupled with a prowess of the nice supporting short cable circuit (pictured as a contrasting heart of silver and gold below, made of super proprietary graphene one and Penon’s renowned connectors), delivered the sound that transcended one or two levels up (beautiful smooth and penetrating harmonic transients, extra clarity and the stage totally mushroomed in 4 dimensions); so you know, close and beyond even if compared to DAP totls. The mighty power of audiophile imagination totally ultimately rulz!
Lastly, my experience with AK chips, as with AK4493SEQ-based Kuang Pai KP1, made me feel that “velvet’ rendering is the furthest from my tastes. Cirrus implementations are the cleanest and delivering more transparent rendering that fully enable IEMs to display their own unique characters.
ESS rendering can be more engaging, but more of the imposed colouring requires more specific matching for the synergy that can be somewhat more limiting.
Overall, KA17 sound rendering definitely deserves 5-stars; while an appreciable list of shortcomings made me think about 4.5 or even 4 stars overall. Now, 4 stars would be rather unfair, given that new products pushing the boundaries further are bound to have more initial limitations.
So 5 stars for the sound and 4.5 stars overall with a great potential for further improvements.
Future work for Fiio (I feel free to suggest here, Fiio may feel equally free to dismiss these suggestions): building a similar DAC with similar amps, PEQ and external power that is based on Cirrus chips for better power management and more engaging filters. Fitting between, KA13 and KA17, this “KA15” with the MSRP of $120-130 will be a great DAC/amp (I would be in). For true audiophiles, KA19 based on the latest and greatest AK chips and with the power delivered close to 1 W can be a mighty attractive proposition.
First, I have purchased KA17 entirely with my own money for ca. $135 in the recent AE sales, so the subjective opinion is entirely my own.
Fiio in part started me in my audiophile journey: with Q1 first, then Q1-II with the 2.5-mm outputs engineered to push consumers to the world of balanced cables (perhaps, Fiio can request its cut from cable makers). Then I also got BTR3K and BTR5 that are very good products in my experience. (While FD11 became decisively my very last Fiio IEM: shabbily-made shell, proprietary connectors, hardly competitive even at $20-25, IMO.) Lastly, KA17 is my first Fiio product of the “7” series (feel BMW-inspired somehow).
While acquiring KA17, I pretty much knew what to expect: power hogging of a new ESS chip (being strongly Cirrus-biased now, I would prefer Cirrus implementation); good THX amps and a nice design and build.
I pretty much got all of this. Below is the unboxing image:
Then the sound was even better than I expected: sharp and precise, especially in the desktop mode and the high gain. KA17 rendering feels quite neutral for ESS-based DACs, though switching from Cirrus DACs, the perception of some ESS treble glare is there (perhaps a but psychologically and possibly also the feature of the sharp precise sound delivery). For those bothered with this glare, the slow filter option seems to alleviate it a bit. Also very nice colours to my taste again: charming shades of blue for both the DAC and the case!
The power consumption also exceeded all expectations. Notably, amps seem to be reasonably power-efficient, given their output. The ESS chip takes a lot of juice, and no idle shutdown, not ESS.
So in the desktop mode KA17 draws 250-260 mA, while playing music, and 224 mA in idle (music processing is always on with ESS, perhaps some MQA background rendering…)
In the normal mode, 200-205 mA and 185-190 mA, respectively is drawn by KA17, not drastically less compared to the desktop mode, so one may very well enjoy the power and might of all amps firing in the mighty desktop mode.
Surprisingly to me, at least at first (then making some sense given that the chip and amplifications circuits are separated), even with the battery connected, the desktop mode still consumes 25-35 mA playing music and 18-20 mA in idle, respectively.
Lastly, in a normal mode, the power consumption of KA17 with the battery connected is 8-10 mA and 5 mA respectively, finally gentle to the phone battery.
Notably, I could not perceive much of a difference in sound when a battery is connected – KA17 seem to be able to draw the power smoothly for its full operation. While many other DACs in my experience sounded noticeably better with the battery connected, e.g. E1DA.
For comparison numbers, Muse M3 (my previous record power hog) consumes 145-150 mA and 185-190 mA playing music and in idle, respectively; and no mistake – more power consumption in idle – one is expected to always play music with the Muse and those ESS chips.
E1DA SG3 takes only 92 mA and 80 mA playing music and idling, respectively.
Kuang Pai Plus4 uses 122 mA and 104 mA respectively, twice less than KA17, yet a lot of processing power consumed for a Cirrus-based DAC.
Nicely efficient Tempotec E44 uses 62 mA and 0 mA (!), with more than enough power delivered and still competitive sound.
Lastly, Apple DAC draws 23 mA with 0 mA in idle, while most efficient DACs (Moondrop Droplet, Samsung AKG USB-C OEM IEM (also sold as Urban X) draw 5 mA to produce comparably loud sound, that is 50 times less power (!!) than consumed by KA17).
IEM tested with KA17:
recent KZs including ZAT, AS24 and my favourite wide-nozzle modified ASX; CCA Trio; Celest Phoenixcall and Plutus; 1More Penta; Simgot E6ML; Tempotec T800; Hisenior T4; and old Brainwavz B400, among few others.
Main take on IEM synergy: softer sounding IEMs benefited from the precise punchy delivery of KA17, it also helps a bit with the overly prominent mid-bass of some IEMs. For instance, Penta has been pushed to sound a bit better, though more mid-bass taming would be still great. Polite E6ML sounded more engaged and assuring, hence feeling more competitive. Plutus benefited nicely accentuating its prominent bass with more treble energy; while Phoenixcall behaved more neutrally. Trio sounded nicely as well, though I think the difference with hybrids is a bit more (?)
A lot of benefits of KA17 for quite a few IEMs overall.
For already punchy and engaging all-BA IEMs, KA17 may be a bit too much for many. I still liked the overall rendering of all that I tried, but I am not a long-term listener, and lower volumes if sonically overhelmed, for the records.
Overall, this synergy story is just a scratch of the surface with already more than a half a day spent, so definitely my last review weaning off HeadFi.
Finally, few DAC comparisons with the images continuing with the background of “musical instruments”:
In the last image, left to right are E1DA SG3, Fiio KA17, Kuang Pai Plus4, and Muse M3. I thought to compare with more DACs (and with some I did) , but all the comparisons already happened to be quite exhaustive. Really feeling here for good reviewers (and sadly remorsing how copy-paste ones "win their game").
Overall, KA17 sounds most energetic of all my DACs, especially in its ESS-rendered treble; again, prominently precise, powerful and clean sound delivery.
First, ESS-based comparisons:
Muse M3 sounds noticeably more mellow, not unlikeable and also synergizing easier with more engaging and punchy IEMs.
Muse M3 is much bulkier and heavier compared to KA17 for the practicality of the fully portable use. KA17 is of the nice size for me, only a touch larger than Plus4 that I use everywhere.
E1DA SG3 is then in between KA17 and M3, being quite neutral, but with some touch of the bass added in its rendering - still a very competitive sound to my ears. The main downsides of E1DA are EMI and those prominent pop-ups on connecting/disconnecting that are most noticeable among all the DACs that I have.
Nicely contrasting, KA17 is free of those “pop ups”. Also E1DA strongly benefits from an external battery, while with KA17, even with my old S10, enough power is provided to operate KA17 fully; only the battery drain is mighty.
Then if to mention Shanling UA2 here – its warm ESS rendering with the noticeable added background noise, perhaps an attempt on mimicking AK-like “velvet” sound, as well as those lamp amps, coupled with the “famous” Shanling software support, made it my last Shanling product. To continue digressing: iBasso is also out for me with their two out of two dongles not recognized by Samsung phones without extra efforts. It is really great that there are many diverse competitors in the DAC market.
Now, my favourite Kuang Pai Plus4 still remains my preferred DACs for its many appealing aspects. Cirrus rendering is cleaner and more transparent. When switching back from ESS, Cirrus-based DACs can be perceived as more plain, but this neutrality is arguably better to appreciate all the subtle differences in IEMs.
The filters of Plus4 are definitely more functional with nicer more meaningful difference compared to KA17 filters. Furthermore the stage expansion of Plus4 is simply unmatched. The button operation of Plus 4 is also quite straightforward even without the screen.
In its turn, KA17 features the screen that is definitely useful. The design of KA17 is also more to my tastes. Lastly, the precise punchy sound of KA17 can synergize better with several IEMs, especially on a mellow side. So KA17 is quite closely completive with Plus4, just my current strong bias for Cirrus is decisive in preferring Plus4. Hopefully, Fiio will consider making a Cirrus-based KA17 analogue.
Now, this section is strictly for the “believers” and “believers in the believers” and "total believers" (others must totally skip it).
Thinking about the double amp of KA17, it occurred to me: what about bringing together two Plus4 DACs for twice more of the mighty audiophile mental power and beliefs! This doubling setup coupled with a prowess of the nice supporting short cable circuit (pictured as a contrasting heart of silver and gold below, made of super proprietary graphene one and Penon’s renowned connectors), delivered the sound that transcended one or two levels up (beautiful smooth and penetrating harmonic transients, extra clarity and the stage totally mushroomed in 4 dimensions); so you know, close and beyond even if compared to DAP totls. The mighty power of audiophile imagination totally ultimately rulz!
Lastly, my experience with AK chips, as with AK4493SEQ-based Kuang Pai KP1, made me feel that “velvet’ rendering is the furthest from my tastes. Cirrus implementations are the cleanest and delivering more transparent rendering that fully enable IEMs to display their own unique characters.
ESS rendering can be more engaging, but more of the imposed colouring requires more specific matching for the synergy that can be somewhat more limiting.
Overall, KA17 sound rendering definitely deserves 5-stars; while an appreciable list of shortcomings made me think about 4.5 or even 4 stars overall. Now, 4 stars would be rather unfair, given that new products pushing the boundaries further are bound to have more initial limitations.
So 5 stars for the sound and 4.5 stars overall with a great potential for further improvements.
Future work for Fiio (I feel free to suggest here, Fiio may feel equally free to dismiss these suggestions): building a similar DAC with similar amps, PEQ and external power that is based on Cirrus chips for better power management and more engaging filters. Fitting between, KA13 and KA17, this “KA15” with the MSRP of $120-130 will be a great DAC/amp (I would be in). For true audiophiles, KA19 based on the latest and greatest AK chips and with the power delivered close to 1 W can be a mighty attractive proposition.
PhonoPhi
I could not use PEQ fully due to Fiio software requiring way too many of different permissions.
A short review. There are a lot of reviews out there, so just a different perspective of not a "reviewer" and no "unbiased opinions of free samples" (I purchase all items in this hobby with my own funds, driven by curiousity, and express my personal opinion that is only personally biased; as in no BS, such as proclaiming "no BS" by some self-delusional courtesans of this hobby...)
My motivations for getting the Plutus were the following:
1) To experience a BC driver with their deep bass;
2) To enjoy great beatiful art and aesthetics of Kinera;
3) To explore another different and less conventional sound signature of Celest IEMs.
All three points above worked out well.
1) The bass is deep, visceral, palpable - well extended in the sub-bass, punchy but not sluggish or tubby (as in CCA Rhapsody of the recent IEMs), without much of the midbass (as in otherwise excellent TRI I3), and dominant but not totally overwhelming - that worked out perfectly well for me.
2) The aesthetics, design, packaging, all the attention to details are totally top-notch as expected from Celest. For instance, the case hues are matched really nicely and the material (be it leather or a very good substitute) is great, for one of the best IEM cases in my experience.The cable is less compared to that of Phoenixcall, but perfectly functional 4.4 mm, and it would be hard to expect more for the overall $89 (I paid $87 for the record) overall package.
3) The sound signature is the most L-shaped that I have experienced in IEMs for a unique addition to my collection. Then with the treble released by simple modding - the resulting L-toward-V sound signature was most enjoyable.
The source was Kuang Pai Plus 4 that ended my DAC quests. TRI tips (that also ended my tip quests).
I did hope that the BC bass of an adapted DD driver (vs. piezo crystals of an alternative BC implementation) could work well for reproduction of pipe organs. Indeed, the physicality and the extension of the BC bass of Plutus are impressive there. I really enjoyed the organ of the Mormon Tabernacle, with Richard Elliott majestic rendering of Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor!
For the overall tonality, string quartets rendering of "as is" Plutus was OK, but nothing to write about - cello tonality is adorably (to me) bass-skewed, violin overtones are noticeably covered, and violas reproduced not the greatest I'vheard (violas, arguably, are the hardest to reproduce, if one is looking for a good timbre gauge (I can attest to it as a former technical assistant of an orchestral viola player
)).
Physical fit of the shells are very nice for me - being deep and slightly less wide than that of Phoenixcall - so great seal and resulting isolatiom, and no any adjustments were needed for me to enjoy Plutus without long-term (2 hours) discomfort.
I further went to compare Plutus with other Celest IEMs that I have
I noticed more treble extension of Gumiho (it gave me a chance to appreciate Gumiho nice soft tuning again), so I thought whether the treble could be freed.
In order to get there - I opened the nozzle screens, and indeed a black nylon (or polyester) mesh was covering the nozzle entirely.
i removed the mesh (a simple needle does the job, just lifting both screens and mesh slowly to let the sticky glue flow well moving slowly is the only "trick" that can be mentioned) and then put back the sceens.
Mesh filter (right) and the nozzle screen (left) above.
The BA is firing directly into the nozzle, as pictured above.
I really enjoyed the resulting signature with the filters removed that gets more treble - both in magnitude and some extension. The modified sound signature gets closer to (or at least noticeably towards) "V"-shaped the bass is still the star.
I do have some different meshes for modding, but I did not feel to modify the resulting treble - it may be a touch rough, but I really like it this way, and would not mind a bit more treble.
Now, cables need to be touched upon (and electrons moving through them), as in most reviews in this hobby.
After a lot of pondering and tinkering - I settled on a 24-core cable for Plutus, so that electrons could flow more freely: blue ones for electrons carrying the treble information, and the bronze ones - for the electrons delivering mighty visceral bass to shine.
Not unimportantly, this cable came from HiSenior T4 for the proper preconditioning and fine aligning of the metal nanostructures - with the resulting splendidly enhanced overall finesse and especially more refined harmonious mids
A final thought: comparing Plutus with few other recent hybrids that I have - for the imaginary "hybrid of hybrids" - Plutus BC lows plus mids and highs of Penta "BA-looking" compact planars can make a mighty beast of an IEM - Kinera is definitely in a position to make one, the only question is the price tag... to end the musings here.
Overall summary of the stars: before the simple modding, I felt "4 stars" for the sound, plus possibly extra 0.5 star for the overall aesthetic positive experience.
After the modding - Plutus became solid 4 5 stars for me, with 5 overall stars not being much of a stretch.
Settling these oscillations on 4.5+ stars.
My motivations for getting the Plutus were the following:
1) To experience a BC driver with their deep bass;
2) To enjoy great beatiful art and aesthetics of Kinera;
3) To explore another different and less conventional sound signature of Celest IEMs.
All three points above worked out well.
1) The bass is deep, visceral, palpable - well extended in the sub-bass, punchy but not sluggish or tubby (as in CCA Rhapsody of the recent IEMs), without much of the midbass (as in otherwise excellent TRI I3), and dominant but not totally overwhelming - that worked out perfectly well for me.
2) The aesthetics, design, packaging, all the attention to details are totally top-notch as expected from Celest. For instance, the case hues are matched really nicely and the material (be it leather or a very good substitute) is great, for one of the best IEM cases in my experience.The cable is less compared to that of Phoenixcall, but perfectly functional 4.4 mm, and it would be hard to expect more for the overall $89 (I paid $87 for the record) overall package.
3) The sound signature is the most L-shaped that I have experienced in IEMs for a unique addition to my collection. Then with the treble released by simple modding - the resulting L-toward-V sound signature was most enjoyable.
The source was Kuang Pai Plus 4 that ended my DAC quests. TRI tips (that also ended my tip quests).
I did hope that the BC bass of an adapted DD driver (vs. piezo crystals of an alternative BC implementation) could work well for reproduction of pipe organs. Indeed, the physicality and the extension of the BC bass of Plutus are impressive there. I really enjoyed the organ of the Mormon Tabernacle, with Richard Elliott majestic rendering of Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor!
For the overall tonality, string quartets rendering of "as is" Plutus was OK, but nothing to write about - cello tonality is adorably (to me) bass-skewed, violin overtones are noticeably covered, and violas reproduced not the greatest I'vheard (violas, arguably, are the hardest to reproduce, if one is looking for a good timbre gauge (I can attest to it as a former technical assistant of an orchestral viola player
)).Physical fit of the shells are very nice for me - being deep and slightly less wide than that of Phoenixcall - so great seal and resulting isolatiom, and no any adjustments were needed for me to enjoy Plutus without long-term (2 hours) discomfort.
I further went to compare Plutus with other Celest IEMs that I have
I noticed more treble extension of Gumiho (it gave me a chance to appreciate Gumiho nice soft tuning again), so I thought whether the treble could be freed.
In order to get there - I opened the nozzle screens, and indeed a black nylon (or polyester) mesh was covering the nozzle entirely.
i removed the mesh (a simple needle does the job, just lifting both screens and mesh slowly to let the sticky glue flow well moving slowly is the only "trick" that can be mentioned) and then put back the sceens.
The BA is firing directly into the nozzle, as pictured above.
I really enjoyed the resulting signature with the filters removed that gets more treble - both in magnitude and some extension. The modified sound signature gets closer to (or at least noticeably towards) "V"-shaped the bass is still the star.
I do have some different meshes for modding, but I did not feel to modify the resulting treble - it may be a touch rough, but I really like it this way, and would not mind a bit more treble.
Now, cables need to be touched upon (and electrons moving through them), as in most reviews in this hobby.
After a lot of pondering and tinkering - I settled on a 24-core cable for Plutus, so that electrons could flow more freely: blue ones for electrons carrying the treble information, and the bronze ones - for the electrons delivering mighty visceral bass to shine.
Not unimportantly, this cable came from HiSenior T4 for the proper preconditioning and fine aligning of the metal nanostructures - with the resulting splendidly enhanced overall finesse and especially more refined harmonious mids
A final thought: comparing Plutus with few other recent hybrids that I have - for the imaginary "hybrid of hybrids" - Plutus BC lows plus mids and highs of Penta "BA-looking" compact planars can make a mighty beast of an IEM - Kinera is definitely in a position to make one, the only question is the price tag... to end the musings here.
Overall summary of the stars: before the simple modding, I felt "4 stars" for the sound, plus possibly extra 0.5 star for the overall aesthetic positive experience.
After the modding - Plutus became solid 4 5 stars for me, with 5 overall stars not being much of a stretch.
Settling these oscillations on 4.5+ stars.
PhonoPhi
I am now in the process of writing/updating (had to it this way by constantly saving after loosing a lot of content prior); I will put all details and few pictures of this simple modding within an hour or two.
Papa253
I read somewhere that the bone conductors don’t do base their job is high end but I’m not sure maybe you’re?????
I would like to know for sure.
I would like to know for sure.
PhonoPhi
Thete are two main types of bone conductors: first based on piezos, and second - based on modified dynamic drivers.
The impressions that you read about are for the former piezo-based BCDs that indeed largely do higher frequencies.
Plutus uses DD-based BCD (it is a DD with enhanced resonances at low frequencies). This BCD does bass very well (and not highs, that is why Plutus incorporates BA & SPD drivers).
.
What is impressive about Plutus bass that it is not only very impactful but nicely tight and punchy.
The impressions that you read about are for the former piezo-based BCDs that indeed largely do higher frequencies.
Plutus uses DD-based BCD (it is a DD with enhanced resonances at low frequencies). This BCD does bass very well (and not highs, that is why Plutus incorporates BA & SPD drivers).
.
What is impressive about Plutus bass that it is not only very impactful but nicely tight and punchy.
A brief opinion (well, at least I tried to keep it short while reflecting on key points) to share my very positive impressions of this less-known DAC.
About the manufacturer:
Kuang Pai is a Taiwanese company that does not seem to make much efforts to sell their products in the West, so their do not have much published materials in English. I bought mine Plus4 from AE, and interestingly, the name of the company is not mentioned in the text (only in images), perhaps due to their Taiwanese origin.
Disclaimer:
I bought Plus4 with my own funds (and no any special discounts) for ca. $125 from Ali Express. One can seach "Plus4 DAC" on AE to find the only store that (currently) sells Plus4. I did use information about Plus4 from their site - that should be acknowledged.
Package, accesories and build:
Plus4 comes in a relatively small box:
Included in the package are the DAC itself, USB C to USB C cable, USB C to Apple cable, USB C to A adaptor, and brief instructions exclusively in Mandarin. Cables are black and thick, while definitely flexible enough not to cause any problems, while feeling nice.
Plus 4 is very solidly built of two pieces of black anodized aluminum. Three buttons (two for volume control and the middle one to switch modes) are slightly protruding - that some may like and some may not. Buttons are a bit loose to my strict judgment (and compared to Tanchjim Space) but not rattling as in Tempotec BHD pro.
Plus4 is surprisingly quite compact and light, given its capabilities
In the image above, shown from left to right are Kuang Pai Plus4, Tanchjim Space, Tempotec BHD pro and E44, Muse M3, JCAlly AP90 and AP20 (DAC with an in-built battery).
Plus4 is only slighly longer and thicker than Tempotec BHD pro and not much heavier, so it can be comfortably handled similar to small DACs/dongles.
Main features:
1. Nice independent volume controls (>100 steps, and more than enough for me).
2. Three gains, changed by the long press of the middle button. I usually run all my dongles in low gain, since I use IEMs. Yet, for Plus4, while changing the filters and inadvertently changing the gain, I liked how different the sound was in the high gain, so I plan to explore it more.
3. Six filters, that can be changed by a short press of the middle button, and displayed by one of the LEDs. The filters are subtle but definitely functional and distinguishable at least between extreme options, e.g. expanding and curtailing the treble. So far I liked the first one (blue light).
4. Last, but most definitely not least, is the two tuning options of "classic analogue" and "wide space" overall sound rendering, selected by pressing two volume buttons simultaneously.
The "wide space" (the expanded stage) is definitely engaging and, IMO, demonstrates that to a signicant extent, the perception of stage can be generated by DSP, likely manipulating phase delays.
3 gains, two stage options, 6 filters - 36 different options altogether!
Power consumption and management:
Plus4 consumes ca. 120 mA while working, and 100-105 mA, when idle. The working power is very reasonable given a lot of processing. Idle power could be less/better, but perhaps dedicated audiophiles do not run their sources idle
Importantly, less difference (e.g. compared to E1DA) perceived when externally powered - good on-board power management.
I do not have demanding headphones to compare and evaluate the voltage-limited power of Plus4 and my other dongles.
Summary of the sound impressions:
Plus4 is unmistakably Cirrus 43131/43198 in its sound rendering, and on top of that, it is definitely neutral for lean, crisp sound as a base. Then, different options, such as different stage rendering (more) and filters (less) add well on top of the neutrality for multiple synergies.
I really like an expansive stage option with most of my music, other than some chamber pieces with already good separation between instruments.
Plus4 can run demanding low-impedance IEMs, such as Audiosense T800.
Comparisons with several other DACs:
Muse M3 vs. Plus4
From my very first impressions - Plus4 does all that I wished M3 do - true balanced with all outputs, reasonable power consumption, not that bulky and heavy.
So by utility, M3 is just not competitive.
The only aspect where M3 wins for me is the design.
Then, convenience aside, M3 sound rendering is different (ESS): equally capable and interesting in its 7 variations, and quite complimentary to Plus4. M3 rendering can be perceived aa more engaging, at least based on initial impressions.
I used to like ESS rendering with its thicker mids and more emphasized highs, when I started in this hobby. I slowly grew to appreciate and prefer Cirrus neutrality now. Also, MQA-rendering chips did not help ESS perception for me.
Curiously, M3-II is now Cirrus-based and may be closely related to Plus4, but I do not have any plans to explore another Muse DAC....
E1DA SG3 vs. Plus4
E1DA is ESS-based, and with its touch of emphasis on bass, feels powerful and authorative. Plus4 is more natural and spacious, and emphasizes transducer's rendering more naturally. Plus4 also seems to manage the power better, being less dependent on external power to sound the best, at leaat with old smartphones, like S10.
Plus4 handles demanding T800 at least as equally well, as externally-powered E1DA - a mighty accomplishment.
The rivalry beteeen E1DA and Kuang Pai seems to propagate in their product descriptions. Kuang Pai emphasizes specifically no EM interference (definitely properly done by Plus4), while E1DAs, less so SG3, are quite prone to EMI.
E1DA's creator, in turn, criticized the amps used in Kuang Pai, as potentially clipping. I could not notice any clipping/distortions with my IEMs (mighty demanding headphones are needed to reach any clipping, if it is at all the case...)
So, overall, Plus4 solidly wins over E1DA for me, by being more versatlie, better managing the power and working better for my subjective sound preference.
Tanchjim Space and Tempotec BHD pro vs. Plus4
All three are Cirrus-based DACs that are quite close in sound rendering. While the pronounced difference with Space is its special treble rendered for more perceived air and spaciality. BHD pro (with its original firmware, I have not tried to change so far) is different by its gentle warmth.
I really liked both flavours of Space and BHD pro (and plan to use both along with Plus4). At the same time - as with all flavours - they may not synergize universally with all IEMs, while more neutral Plus4 can be appreciated as more compatible and emphasizing the transducer sound, but then it may take some time to get use to Plus4 neutrality for many.
The expansive stage option of Plus4 is definitely a win in all comparisons.
Overall impressions:
Kuang Pai Plus4 is a nice well-built, powerful, very versatile in its hardware options, compact DAC built around neutral Cirrus sound.
Given its great versatility, especially in staging, and in absence of any major pitfalls/disappointments - Plus4 is well worth its asking price, and 5 stars are fully deserved, IMO.
About the manufacturer:
Kuang Pai is a Taiwanese company that does not seem to make much efforts to sell their products in the West, so their do not have much published materials in English. I bought mine Plus4 from AE, and interestingly, the name of the company is not mentioned in the text (only in images), perhaps due to their Taiwanese origin.
Disclaimer:
I bought Plus4 with my own funds (and no any special discounts) for ca. $125 from Ali Express. One can seach "Plus4 DAC" on AE to find the only store that (currently) sells Plus4. I did use information about Plus4 from their site - that should be acknowledged.
Package, accesories and build:
Plus4 comes in a relatively small box:
Included in the package are the DAC itself, USB C to USB C cable, USB C to Apple cable, USB C to A adaptor, and brief instructions exclusively in Mandarin. Cables are black and thick, while definitely flexible enough not to cause any problems, while feeling nice.
Plus 4 is very solidly built of two pieces of black anodized aluminum. Three buttons (two for volume control and the middle one to switch modes) are slightly protruding - that some may like and some may not. Buttons are a bit loose to my strict judgment (and compared to Tanchjim Space) but not rattling as in Tempotec BHD pro.
Plus4 is surprisingly quite compact and light, given its capabilities
Plus4 is only slighly longer and thicker than Tempotec BHD pro and not much heavier, so it can be comfortably handled similar to small DACs/dongles.
Main features:
1. Nice independent volume controls (>100 steps, and more than enough for me).
2. Three gains, changed by the long press of the middle button. I usually run all my dongles in low gain, since I use IEMs. Yet, for Plus4, while changing the filters and inadvertently changing the gain, I liked how different the sound was in the high gain, so I plan to explore it more.
3. Six filters, that can be changed by a short press of the middle button, and displayed by one of the LEDs. The filters are subtle but definitely functional and distinguishable at least between extreme options, e.g. expanding and curtailing the treble. So far I liked the first one (blue light).
4. Last, but most definitely not least, is the two tuning options of "classic analogue" and "wide space" overall sound rendering, selected by pressing two volume buttons simultaneously.
The "wide space" (the expanded stage) is definitely engaging and, IMO, demonstrates that to a signicant extent, the perception of stage can be generated by DSP, likely manipulating phase delays.
3 gains, two stage options, 6 filters - 36 different options altogether!
Power consumption and management:
Plus4 consumes ca. 120 mA while working, and 100-105 mA, when idle. The working power is very reasonable given a lot of processing. Idle power could be less/better, but perhaps dedicated audiophiles do not run their sources idle
Importantly, less difference (e.g. compared to E1DA) perceived when externally powered - good on-board power management.
I do not have demanding headphones to compare and evaluate the voltage-limited power of Plus4 and my other dongles.
Summary of the sound impressions:
Plus4 is unmistakably Cirrus 43131/43198 in its sound rendering, and on top of that, it is definitely neutral for lean, crisp sound as a base. Then, different options, such as different stage rendering (more) and filters (less) add well on top of the neutrality for multiple synergies.
I really like an expansive stage option with most of my music, other than some chamber pieces with already good separation between instruments.
Plus4 can run demanding low-impedance IEMs, such as Audiosense T800.
Comparisons with several other DACs:
Muse M3 vs. Plus4
From my very first impressions - Plus4 does all that I wished M3 do - true balanced with all outputs, reasonable power consumption, not that bulky and heavy.
So by utility, M3 is just not competitive.
The only aspect where M3 wins for me is the design.
Then, convenience aside, M3 sound rendering is different (ESS): equally capable and interesting in its 7 variations, and quite complimentary to Plus4. M3 rendering can be perceived aa more engaging, at least based on initial impressions.
I used to like ESS rendering with its thicker mids and more emphasized highs, when I started in this hobby. I slowly grew to appreciate and prefer Cirrus neutrality now. Also, MQA-rendering chips did not help ESS perception for me.
Curiously, M3-II is now Cirrus-based and may be closely related to Plus4, but I do not have any plans to explore another Muse DAC....
E1DA SG3 vs. Plus4
E1DA is ESS-based, and with its touch of emphasis on bass, feels powerful and authorative. Plus4 is more natural and spacious, and emphasizes transducer's rendering more naturally. Plus4 also seems to manage the power better, being less dependent on external power to sound the best, at leaat with old smartphones, like S10.
Plus4 handles demanding T800 at least as equally well, as externally-powered E1DA - a mighty accomplishment.
The rivalry beteeen E1DA and Kuang Pai seems to propagate in their product descriptions. Kuang Pai emphasizes specifically no EM interference (definitely properly done by Plus4), while E1DAs, less so SG3, are quite prone to EMI.
E1DA's creator, in turn, criticized the amps used in Kuang Pai, as potentially clipping. I could not notice any clipping/distortions with my IEMs (mighty demanding headphones are needed to reach any clipping, if it is at all the case...)
So, overall, Plus4 solidly wins over E1DA for me, by being more versatlie, better managing the power and working better for my subjective sound preference.
Tanchjim Space and Tempotec BHD pro vs. Plus4
All three are Cirrus-based DACs that are quite close in sound rendering. While the pronounced difference with Space is its special treble rendered for more perceived air and spaciality. BHD pro (with its original firmware, I have not tried to change so far) is different by its gentle warmth.
I really liked both flavours of Space and BHD pro (and plan to use both along with Plus4). At the same time - as with all flavours - they may not synergize universally with all IEMs, while more neutral Plus4 can be appreciated as more compatible and emphasizing the transducer sound, but then it may take some time to get use to Plus4 neutrality for many.
The expansive stage option of Plus4 is definitely a win in all comparisons.
Overall impressions:
Kuang Pai Plus4 is a nice well-built, powerful, very versatile in its hardware options, compact DAC built around neutral Cirrus sound.
Given its great versatility, especially in staging, and in absence of any major pitfalls/disappointments - Plus4 is well worth its asking price, and 5 stars are fully deserved, IMO.
Build and appearance:
BHD pro offers a very nice solid build of the beatifully machined and finished full aluminum enclosure.
The bottom panel can be unscrewed for more in-depth endeavours including potential modifications (I did not go that far yet...)
The top panel has a nice window with a nice view of the insides, similar to Tanchjim Space.
There are some general similarities in appearance with Space, so a direct comparison can be instructively made.
First, points to Space being lighter and smaller (though the larger BHD pro is not much of a factor for me, still small enough).
Second, the top-panel window is definitely nicer on BHD pro - more elegantly rounded, and smartly covering with its longer extension less sightly USB port and with a good text signature. I also like more prominent illuminarion of BHD pro, shown in the above image, but it can be more subjective - some may prefer more subtle lights of Space.
As well, I really like the option of space gray finish on mine rather than just silver - very attractively looking for my preferences.
Lastly, the area where Space clearly takes points is its much nicer sturdy volume rocker switch with very considerately different height levels for + and - for an easy tactile recognition - very nice!
BHD pro has a simple rocker that can actually rattle.
Minor, but more than "nitpicking", as it can trigger some OCD and better be avoided - really the only deficiency in otherwise excellent build and appearance.
Power consumption:
Truly excellent with ca.61-62 mA consumed while playing, shutting down to 14 mA while idle, unlike many other Cirrus-based competitors. Similar to E44 and BHD original, with slightly higher idke for BHD pro (14 vs. 5 mA) because of bright illumination.
Space has 78/78 mA (playing/idle) - no shutdown in idle. That was the main point for me preventing Space being noticeably superior to BHD pro.
Some dongles can use up to 200 mA (Muse M3), 150 mA (AP90), so BHD pro values are great, especially for the power it can provide.
IEMs used for testing:
Two demanding (<16 Ohm impedance at 1 kHz) all-BAs were largely used: HiSenior U4, and Audiosense T800. The latter is notorious to be very sourse sensitive with its 9 Ohm. For instance, with AP90, T800 sadly was no show becoming lackluster. At the same time, all Cirrus-based dongles that I tested, were good, providing at least 85% of "juice" compared to an externally-powered E1DA SG3 (a good standard for a very capable dongle for me)
Sound rendering:
A brief summary here, with more in comparisons below.
BHD Pro builds upon Tempotec Cirrus-lineage with the neutrality, air and spatiality, while paying some tribute to a warmer original BHD heritage. Then the warmth of BHD pro is implemented carefully and gracefully, working for ca. 85% of my recordings nicely, while being acceptable for the rest.
Comparisons:
BHD Pro is not uncoloured, like Sonata HD pro that is one of my most neutral DACs.
When compared to BHD original, BHD pro is not smoothing transients but rather adds a bit of bass carefully, more of the midbass. While I really liked original BHD with many of my sharper all-BA IEMs, it was harder to universally recommend. BHD pro definitely offers more universal sound rendering that should be also more universally liked and even preferred by many. The airy treble is there to balance the added warmth.
E44 is colder by comparison, while BHD pro and E44 are closer together (compared to E44 and BHD original) and are quite complementary to each other.
Tanchjim Space is more airy and spacious. At this point and time, I prefer Space rendering for shorter sessions. In longer listening with my all-BAs and Space can be a bit overwhelming, there BHD pro will fit nicely.
iBasso DC03 pro, while nicely euphonic, is disqualified from comparisons for not being compatible with my older Samsung S10 (I could make it work with some usb splitters, but no more iBasso for me, should not have even tried 03 pro after truly bad (in many aspects of implementation rather than sound) DC04).
I will be happy to provide more comparisons and to answer more specific questions.
Disclaimer: purchased with my own funds at the June introductory discount available to all previous Tempotec customers (no any review talk/obligations; the reason to write a bigger review is solely for my appreciation of Tempotec).
Overall conclusion:
Great solid construction, very attractive appearance, nice sound, excellent power management and the promise of 6 different firmware to be released for different sound rendering - solid 4.5+ stars for me.
With the firware released, BHD Pro can (and, hopefully, will) become a great 5-star story.
P. S. Size comparison of BHD pro, Space, and JCAlly AP20
BHD pro offers a very nice solid build of the beatifully machined and finished full aluminum enclosure.
The bottom panel can be unscrewed for more in-depth endeavours including potential modifications (I did not go that far yet...)
The top panel has a nice window with a nice view of the insides, similar to Tanchjim Space.
There are some general similarities in appearance with Space, so a direct comparison can be instructively made.
First, points to Space being lighter and smaller (though the larger BHD pro is not much of a factor for me, still small enough).
Second, the top-panel window is definitely nicer on BHD pro - more elegantly rounded, and smartly covering with its longer extension less sightly USB port and with a good text signature. I also like more prominent illuminarion of BHD pro, shown in the above image, but it can be more subjective - some may prefer more subtle lights of Space.
As well, I really like the option of space gray finish on mine rather than just silver - very attractively looking for my preferences.
Lastly, the area where Space clearly takes points is its much nicer sturdy volume rocker switch with very considerately different height levels for + and - for an easy tactile recognition - very nice!
BHD pro has a simple rocker that can actually rattle.
Minor, but more than "nitpicking", as it can trigger some OCD and better be avoided - really the only deficiency in otherwise excellent build and appearance.
Power consumption:
Truly excellent with ca.61-62 mA consumed while playing, shutting down to 14 mA while idle, unlike many other Cirrus-based competitors. Similar to E44 and BHD original, with slightly higher idke for BHD pro (14 vs. 5 mA) because of bright illumination.
Space has 78/78 mA (playing/idle) - no shutdown in idle. That was the main point for me preventing Space being noticeably superior to BHD pro.
Some dongles can use up to 200 mA (Muse M3), 150 mA (AP90), so BHD pro values are great, especially for the power it can provide.
IEMs used for testing:
Two demanding (<16 Ohm impedance at 1 kHz) all-BAs were largely used: HiSenior U4, and Audiosense T800. The latter is notorious to be very sourse sensitive with its 9 Ohm. For instance, with AP90, T800 sadly was no show becoming lackluster. At the same time, all Cirrus-based dongles that I tested, were good, providing at least 85% of "juice" compared to an externally-powered E1DA SG3 (a good standard for a very capable dongle for me)
Sound rendering:
A brief summary here, with more in comparisons below.
BHD Pro builds upon Tempotec Cirrus-lineage with the neutrality, air and spatiality, while paying some tribute to a warmer original BHD heritage. Then the warmth of BHD pro is implemented carefully and gracefully, working for ca. 85% of my recordings nicely, while being acceptable for the rest.
Comparisons:
BHD Pro is not uncoloured, like Sonata HD pro that is one of my most neutral DACs.
When compared to BHD original, BHD pro is not smoothing transients but rather adds a bit of bass carefully, more of the midbass. While I really liked original BHD with many of my sharper all-BA IEMs, it was harder to universally recommend. BHD pro definitely offers more universal sound rendering that should be also more universally liked and even preferred by many. The airy treble is there to balance the added warmth.
E44 is colder by comparison, while BHD pro and E44 are closer together (compared to E44 and BHD original) and are quite complementary to each other.
Tanchjim Space is more airy and spacious. At this point and time, I prefer Space rendering for shorter sessions. In longer listening with my all-BAs and Space can be a bit overwhelming, there BHD pro will fit nicely.
iBasso DC03 pro, while nicely euphonic, is disqualified from comparisons for not being compatible with my older Samsung S10 (I could make it work with some usb splitters, but no more iBasso for me, should not have even tried 03 pro after truly bad (in many aspects of implementation rather than sound) DC04).
I will be happy to provide more comparisons and to answer more specific questions.
Disclaimer: purchased with my own funds at the June introductory discount available to all previous Tempotec customers (no any review talk/obligations; the reason to write a bigger review is solely for my appreciation of Tempotec).
Overall conclusion:
Great solid construction, very attractive appearance, nice sound, excellent power management and the promise of 6 different firmware to be released for different sound rendering - solid 4.5+ stars for me.
With the firware released, BHD Pro can (and, hopefully, will) become a great 5-star story.
P. S. Size comparison of BHD pro, Space, and JCAlly AP20
A very short review. I hope I reasonably summarized most in pros and cons.
Tips: perhaps, the foams are the best (and nice and sturdy foams are supplied), but I really can't stand the tactile feeling, so no foams for me. Then, luckily, my favourite TRI Clarions seem to do a very good job for me.
Fit and isolation are great with Clarion - very small and not pulling, as often the case with the bullet shape factor.
Sound: great out of a single BA, but "processed/modified" would be a part of overall perception.
Bass - on the margin of overenhanced, overprocessed to me, but does the job well (and remarkably, squeezing a single BA).
Mids - nice, almost as good as legendary 29689 in Etymotic (could not imagine owing Ethymotic - the tight fit is not an option for me at all).
Highs - great for a single BA.
Music fit: quite universal across the genres for me. I listened to a Chesky sample disk - anything from lows of a pipe organ to highs of flutes and violins sound good, and the jazz vibes feel fine. Nothing remarkable, as well as nothing overly detrimental for the stage. The dynamics is reasonable, likely pushed back by DSP processing.
The Droplet is surprisingly acceptable for string quartets (an equivalent of high praise).
Technical achievements: 5-6 mA of power consumption (WOW, like really wow!). The Apple dongle is ca.14-15 mA, while other lower-power dongles, including Moondrop Click, are at 25-30 mA. I had to double check with another instrument to confirm these measurements.
Overall: very enjoyable experience, and overall 4.5+ stars.
Tips: perhaps, the foams are the best (and nice and sturdy foams are supplied), but I really can't stand the tactile feeling, so no foams for me. Then, luckily, my favourite TRI Clarions seem to do a very good job for me.
Fit and isolation are great with Clarion - very small and not pulling, as often the case with the bullet shape factor.
Sound: great out of a single BA, but "processed/modified" would be a part of overall perception.
Bass - on the margin of overenhanced, overprocessed to me, but does the job well (and remarkably, squeezing a single BA).
Mids - nice, almost as good as legendary 29689 in Etymotic (could not imagine owing Ethymotic - the tight fit is not an option for me at all).
Highs - great for a single BA.
Music fit: quite universal across the genres for me. I listened to a Chesky sample disk - anything from lows of a pipe organ to highs of flutes and violins sound good, and the jazz vibes feel fine. Nothing remarkable, as well as nothing overly detrimental for the stage. The dynamics is reasonable, likely pushed back by DSP processing.
The Droplet is surprisingly acceptable for string quartets (an equivalent of high praise).
Technical achievements: 5-6 mA of power consumption (WOW, like really wow!). The Apple dongle is ca.14-15 mA, while other lower-power dongles, including Moondrop Click, are at 25-30 mA. I had to double check with another instrument to confirm these measurements.
Overall: very enjoyable experience, and overall 4.5+ stars.
Preamble:
I have acquired Muse M3 based on advice/recommendations of Andy (while taking full adultish responsibility, and being grateful for his detailed description and guidance; using my own funds, saving for the disclaimer).
Despite several glaring functional deficiencies (and venting them here), musically, M3 fullfilled exactly (or very close) to what I was looking for in a DAC: gentle and capable interpretation of the ESS sound rendering. Given the great Andy's review below, and mostly agreeing with his description, I made my "opinion piece" to be complementary, largely reflecting upon a personal perspective of my journey in DACs.
While trying to make a short review, I did spend a good chunk of time enjoying M3 using several IEMs: KBear Neon (a very revelaling sugle BA), KZ AS16 pro (one of my favourite all-BAs), KZ PR1 pro (a good budget planar with the treble piercing to many), and KZ EDX (LCP single DD on a warmer side; an unapologetic KZ fan here) and comparing with several DACs: E1DA SG3, Shanling UA2, iBasso DC04, Tempotec Sonata HD pro, Sonata III, E44, and BHD among few other sources.
Starting, as promised, with the grudges on functionality:
First, 4.4 and 3.5 outputs are hard-wired, so M3 is an undoubtedly a single-ended source. The output power values are not provided by Muse, perhaps, to disguise this aspect. Furthermore, provided slightly different THD+N values are a bit deceptive, considering, once again, two directly hardwired outputs.
From a positive perspective, I do love how Andy put it in his review: no need for volume adjustments between two different outputs here - they are perfectly identical after all
To further aggravate the hard-wired 4.4-mm output, all my 4.4 cables did not work without the spacers (that are included but not mentioned anywhere in the instructions, not saving for a lot of unnecessary frustrations).
Andy was able to put a nice positive spin on this aspect, once again: some special cables may benefit from the flexibility provided by spacers (that is why he is an expert reviewer
)Next, and most significant, M3 is the total power hog - consuming 145 mA while playing - an absolute record value compared to 62 mA of E44 and 92 mA of mighty powerful E1DA SG3. To add onto it: M3 takes 185-195 mA (1 W!!) in idle with no shutdown after 5+ minutes.
Ridiculous (at least for the idle) would not be a poweful enough word.
From an attempt on a positive perspective here, all the power is likely needed for the capable music rendering/processing. As for the idle - well, no idle is expected with this dongle - total music immersion is an absolute must
Third, despite being heavy at 50+ gram, M3 gets pretty hot, especially in idle, and instructions are trying to address that it is "normal", stating that it "only consumes a small amount of power", which is so far from reality: nearly 200 mA translates to >1 W wasted (!!)
What else on the functional downside - the knobs are clicking while cold. When M3 gets hot, the expansion fills the gaps, so the "clicking" is likely another unfortunate aspect of the power management together with the heavy metal enclosure.
To summarize all the pitfalls, evoking the Muse motto on the box: "Pursue the ultimate in the ultimate" (the power consumption and the weight are totally it), "find simplicity in the simple" (hardwired 4.4 and 3.5 surely qualify there).
But (and that is a big "BUT" pardon my pun), the musical output if M3 is really nice, and the ESS 9038 filters are well implemented for a simple device and seem to be more different than I could expect, based on my previous experience with 9018 filters, and finally the positive of the nice aesthetics of the design, which is one of the Muse distinctive features.
I really have significant difficulty trying to break the sound into the ranges: it is nicely coherent and not too much skewed or coloured to my ears. After all, the source does not make any sound on its own. So I leave it to Andy's great description, with which I essentially fully agree and have little to add to.
What I can add that for the filters. 2 and 5 felt most "musical", while I liked 1 and 6 as well for more crisp rendering.
Reflecting on ESS rendering/"cooking" - it is accomplished really tastefully.
I have E1DA SG3, UA2, Zishan Z4 and Fosi amp with the same ESS 9038 chip to compare.
UA2 is "cooked" way too much to my taste, perhaps, an effort to make AKM-like sound, not unlikeable, but far from good sound rendering to me.
Z4 and Fosi are unabashed "rough ESS": piercing and "glaring". I do find them useful, but could not help looking for softer rendering, especially with my stable of bluntly piercing all-BA IEMs.
E1DA SG3 is nice: while brighter, I do perceive its bass being somewhat enhanced, and while tasteful, it still feels coloured to me.
With M3, I do not perceive any specific colouring, while ESS rendering is somewhat gentler but still not much compromising in treble - the best rendering solution to my ears.
M3 pairs especially well with bright IEMs, while matching with warmer ones, like KZ ESX, still works, and I really appreciate this universality!
Final verdict:
Sound rendering: 5/5 or 5+/5
Functionality, well... is to shave at least one star from the overall rating.
Overall: music shall prevail: after all, it is all about the music in this hobby!
senorx12562
Very generous review. While I have not heard it, and I find it's appearance very pleasing, I am less than sanguine about the functional issues you note. If it sounds good I am far more likely to give it a pass (hello w2 @ $320, I'm looking at you) but the 4.4 output piggy-backing on the se circuit seems a little shady to me. Maybe I'm just a grumpy old 
. Thanks for your efforts.
. Thanks for your efforts.
CT007
The limits of a bad DD 
PhonoPhi
Are there ”the limits of a bad DD” or a fundamental limits of a single DD, in principle – a good question to consider/discuss.
In other words, can money buy an ultimate resolution and happiness here?
Transcending from near-existential facets of this question to simple physics: a DD is a single circular membrane with a non-zero mass and a limited surface area, especially in IEMs.
Now imagine a big symphonic orchestra: 50+ instruments playing with their own unique signature, timbre, overtone series and dynamics. Can a single oscillating membrane faithfully reproduce all these frequencies at once with a good dynamic response? Really hard for me to see how can it work well
In other words, can money buy an ultimate resolution and happiness here?
Transcending from near-existential facets of this question to simple physics: a DD is a single circular membrane with a non-zero mass and a limited surface area, especially in IEMs.
Now imagine a big symphonic orchestra: 50+ instruments playing with their own unique signature, timbre, overtone series and dynamics. Can a single oscillating membrane faithfully reproduce all these frequencies at once with a good dynamic response? Really hard for me to see how can it work well
PhonoPhi
If the theory considerations may not be convincing, a relevant Chi-Fi example of DUNU immediately comes to mind: their efforts to develop the best single DD. Based on physics, beryllium is the ideal material given its low density and high rigidity, so DUNU spent a lot of time, money and efforts to develop an ideal single DDs. Based on their post-reflection (and arguably the results at least from the price/performance ratio), while their efforts and contributions to the field undoubtedly deserves the highest praise and respect), the limitations were quite apparent. Any material is hard to produce defect free, beryllium films were no exception, if not one of the most demanding materials.
Another direction in single DDs is ultrathin membranes (5 microns and thinner). The resolution of the recent budget CCA CRA is quite impressive, while the inevitable limitations of treble distortions are there as well.
Another direction in single DDs is ultrathin membranes (5 microns and thinner). The resolution of the recent budget CCA CRA is quite impressive, while the inevitable limitations of treble distortions are there as well.
A brief review. Most important points are already summarized in Pros & Cons.
I have purchased TRI I3 entirely with my own money, so really my own opinion, not a "quasy-nonbiased" one.
The purchase price was ~$120 ($150 Cad) on AE, without any extra coupons, while the price as low as $103-$105 was reported here - a really great deal for I3 given its overall capabilities, in my opinion.
Box/accesories: nothing impressive or very useful for me. The tips were tossed away, I use wide bores. The pouch, while nice, is hardly practically useful. The cable is OK, but I used balanced ones.
So TRI Through was a natural match for a cable (please feel your imaginary accolades how great the match was in accentuating what was needed to accentuate evoking the full power of imagination; or succinctly stating "transparency" of the cable for pragmatically minded).
Now, what is most important to emphasize is that in addition to a good source power, the synergy with the source rendering can be important to get the most of I3, in my experience.
Given I3 warmer, mid- and bass-oriented signature, resolving and crisp sources with unrolled treble worked the best for me, such as Fiio BTR5 and Shanling UA2 DAC with the phone - Sabre implementation ("veiled" velvet AK sound happens to be much less to my liking/preference).
My older Pioneer X30 has a warmer and somewhat treble-smoothened rendering of Sabre that matches well with my all-BA IEMs (naturally, it was the other way around) but does not match as well with TRI I3 for my listening preferences of predominantly classical music that is rarely overwhelming in treble.
Overall, I am really happy with TRI I3 (4.5-5 stars) as a really greatly complementary IEM in my simple collection that will be a part of my primary rotation for its great soundstange and seductive fluent mids.
P. S. Thanks to @ChrisOc & @baskingshark for their competent guidance to select I3
I have purchased TRI I3 entirely with my own money, so really my own opinion, not a "quasy-nonbiased" one.
The purchase price was ~$120 ($150 Cad) on AE, without any extra coupons, while the price as low as $103-$105 was reported here - a really great deal for I3 given its overall capabilities, in my opinion.
Box/accesories: nothing impressive or very useful for me. The tips were tossed away, I use wide bores. The pouch, while nice, is hardly practically useful. The cable is OK, but I used balanced ones.
So TRI Through was a natural match for a cable (please feel your imaginary accolades how great the match was in accentuating what was needed to accentuate evoking the full power of imagination; or succinctly stating "transparency" of the cable for pragmatically minded).
Now, what is most important to emphasize is that in addition to a good source power, the synergy with the source rendering can be important to get the most of I3, in my experience.
Given I3 warmer, mid- and bass-oriented signature, resolving and crisp sources with unrolled treble worked the best for me, such as Fiio BTR5 and Shanling UA2 DAC with the phone - Sabre implementation ("veiled" velvet AK sound happens to be much less to my liking/preference).
My older Pioneer X30 has a warmer and somewhat treble-smoothened rendering of Sabre that matches well with my all-BA IEMs (naturally, it was the other way around) but does not match as well with TRI I3 for my listening preferences of predominantly classical music that is rarely overwhelming in treble.
Overall, I am really happy with TRI I3 (4.5-5 stars) as a really greatly complementary IEM in my simple collection that will be a part of my primary rotation for its great soundstange and seductive fluent mids.
P. S. Thanks to @ChrisOc & @baskingshark for their competent guidance to select I3
ChrisOc
Short and sweet review nonetheless informative.
Delightful review!
Delightful review!
shampoosuicide
So great to see the i3 still receiving love.
NX7 pro captivated me sufficiently to spend some time to put together this review.
I bought NX7 pro for ~$95 (2.5 balanced) and offer my unsolicited & unbiased subjective opinion.
My universe of IEMs is under $150 (and at the moment, instead of "moving up", rapidly improving ChiFi moves my way).
My current quest was for more treble-rich IEMs, given treble limitations of C16 and AS12 and looking for more than C12.
Packaging/accessories
A very nice black box with all the colours of prints and images. It conveniently opens on a side and locks neatly by rare earth magnets (environment aside...). A very competent detailed description on the back (blowing blobs out of Blons) including some features, as the material of the shell, which is an environmentally friendly polycarbonate, a step above more common acrylic resin.
Nice zippered case. A set of three sound filters useful for those in a quest for their preferred sound signature or some acceptable solution right out of the box. A set of interchangeable face plates and a screwdriver (a nice touch and a good leverage to convince the family - acquiring some good tools for future home improvements). Attachment of the face plates by three tiny screws going into a plastic shell is a bit of over-engineering, in my opinion. Snap-in plates would be much simpler to hold them in place and safer from screwing mishaps (even harder polycarbonate will not withstand multiple changes given the tiny thread).
Supplied tips include standard three pairs and additional double-flange and spinfit-like(?) pairs. None of them actually worked for me, since I usually use larger 13.5-14 mm tips. To include such a pair would be very useful to make sure of the universal fit for everyone without anything extra - that seems to be a worthy goal of this set.
A 16-core cable with a choice of connectors is a nice option, while charging noticeably more for balanced options may be a bit pinchy. Compared to similar 16-core cables, I could not perceive any sonic difference with this copper-coloured one. Aesthetically, multicoloured blue cables feel sounding better to me Anyhow, since I would not choose a copper-coloured cable myself, it happened to be a nice complimentary addition to my cable collection.
Build and Design.
Very nice, top implementation (I first wrote top "ChiFi", but then it is just the top, as in recent KZ and CCA). No visible gaps, neatly organized internals. I like aluminum the most as a plate material compared to stainless steel and zinc alloys - it is light, takes nice finish, remains unstained.
Fit.
Light compact shells in a shape similar to KZ ZS10 pro and CCA 12, while feeling a bit smaller.
The fit is very nice for me, just had to use larger tips than supplied
Being smaller and lighter, NX7 feels a bit less securely held in place in a short run, but easier in a long run compared to C12.
Possibly the best fit that I've experienced so far.
Equipment used
Pioneer XDP-30R with a 2.5 balanced connection, which is a fairly neutral source. I used large-bore generic tips similar to spiral dots. I strongly feel that the large tip opening does not restrict sound in any way, which work the best in a long run, at least for me.
Burn-in
50+ hours. I was checking periodically while conditioning the drivers with the very best of Bach and Beethoven. It actually happened to be the longest time when I could perceive some noticeable difference between 10 and 20 hours, (I have a mixed opinion about burn-in, but I am not writing a PhD thesis to prove or disprove anything) so I gave 50+ hrs recommended in the instructions. Actually, most of my impressions after 75 hours.
Filters used
At first, I've naturally tried silver stock filters and found them reasonably OK but somewhat congested, restricting the sound, I switched to the red one, which finally fulfilled my treble quest (!!!). I found the sound signature, which is a bit too much in the treble, (with very decent lows and OK-ish mids). In some music that is not treble-intense it feels perfectly OK. For more treble-rich (e.g. percussion, violins) music, I can listen from few minutes to half an hour. My optimum filters may be ~2/3 of the way from silver to red, I will be happy to explore this with some foam in the red filters, as advised by HeadFi gurus. So for the owners of the original NX7 - foam modding behind the mesh may be all you need. I did not have any temptation to try the blue ones. I will likely convert them to empty shells to use with some foam down the road.
Sound
Starting on a high note (or notes), the treble is very rich and sparkly given the mighty efforts of seven piezo layers and four tiny BAs. Finally, I had a chance to experience the 10-20 kHz (or closer to 8-16 kHz) range. It is about air, sparkles, presence, very nice. At the same time, it does not add a whole world of difference, especially with the most of classical music, so I am still OK to enjoy my AS10
Happily, I did not find much of overtone distortion (as some reviewers of NX7 tried to allude). A lot of violin music is sensitive to it, and using some "prominent" IEMs, like TRN X6 in particularly, feel quite unnatural.
No spacial incoherence, as in ****, to my ears either. (In contrast to X6, I do love **** in all its pecularities).
The treble definitely feel the best, most prominent part of the NX7 design.
Lows feature a very nice extension to sub-bass. Recordings of organ music that should reach 16 Hz feel very rumbly (not that I claim that this range fully reproduced and perceived, but some heavy impression is there).
In addition to the range, I really like the dynamic driver is quite fast, close in some aspects to BA bass (that I seem to prefer). Plus some fluidity. Not intrusive mid-bass, that coupled to fairly recessed mids, yields quite cold analytical signature that I personally came to like in NX7 pro.
Very good competent bass overall, in my opinion.
Mids. Well, not much to say. The DD is responsible for this range, in addition to its main prominent duty with the lows. So mids feel quite recessed, definitely not to the point of any glaring deficiency, but not much to write about.
Now, my imaginary dream budget IEM would include the treble part from NX7, with the lows and low mids from C16, perhaps with the upper mids from C12
Suggestions to improve
1) Supplying a larger pair of tips (> 13 mm) would be very helpful and costing only few cents.
2) Snap-in face plates may be easier and more trouble-free.
3) (More of a wishful thinking): Adding few mid BAs can deliver a very competent IEM.
Summary
Very nice versatile package overall: functionally (choice of a good cable, sound filters) and aesthetically (face plates).
Great lows and highs. Mids feel a bit recessed. Very competent and competitive under $100, in my opinion.
Solid 4.5 (or 4.5+) stars from me.
I bought NX7 pro for ~$95 (2.5 balanced) and offer my unsolicited & unbiased subjective opinion.
My universe of IEMs is under $150 (and at the moment, instead of "moving up", rapidly improving ChiFi moves my way
).My current quest was for more treble-rich IEMs, given treble limitations of C16 and AS12 and looking for more than C12.
Packaging/accessories
A very nice black box with all the colours of prints and images. It conveniently opens on a side and locks neatly by rare earth magnets (environment aside...). A very competent detailed description on the back (blowing blobs out of Blons) including some features, as the material of the shell, which is an environmentally friendly polycarbonate, a step above more common acrylic resin.
Nice zippered case. A set of three sound filters useful for those in a quest for their preferred sound signature or some acceptable solution right out of the box. A set of interchangeable face plates and a screwdriver (a nice touch and a good leverage to convince the family - acquiring some good tools for future home improvements). Attachment of the face plates by three tiny screws going into a plastic shell is a bit of over-engineering, in my opinion. Snap-in plates would be much simpler to hold them in place and safer from screwing mishaps (even harder polycarbonate will not withstand multiple changes given the tiny thread).
Supplied tips include standard three pairs and additional double-flange and spinfit-like(?) pairs. None of them actually worked for me, since I usually use larger 13.5-14 mm tips. To include such a pair would be very useful to make sure of the universal fit for everyone without anything extra - that seems to be a worthy goal of this set.
A 16-core cable with a choice of connectors is a nice option, while charging noticeably more for balanced options may be a bit pinchy. Compared to similar 16-core cables, I could not perceive any sonic difference with this copper-coloured one. Aesthetically, multicoloured blue cables feel sounding better to me
Anyhow, since I would not choose a copper-coloured cable myself, it happened to be a nice complimentary addition to my cable collection.Build and Design.
Very nice, top implementation (I first wrote top "ChiFi", but then it is just the top, as in recent KZ and CCA). No visible gaps, neatly organized internals. I like aluminum the most as a plate material compared to stainless steel and zinc alloys - it is light, takes nice finish, remains unstained.
Fit.
Light compact shells in a shape similar to KZ ZS10 pro and CCA 12, while feeling a bit smaller.
The fit is very nice for me, just had to use larger tips than supplied
Being smaller and lighter, NX7 feels a bit less securely held in place in a short run, but easier in a long run compared to C12.
Possibly the best fit that I've experienced so far.
Equipment used
Pioneer XDP-30R with a 2.5 balanced connection, which is a fairly neutral source. I used large-bore generic tips similar to spiral dots. I strongly feel that the large tip opening does not restrict sound in any way, which work the best in a long run, at least for me.
Burn-in
50+ hours. I was checking periodically while conditioning the drivers with the very best of Bach and Beethoven. It actually happened to be the longest time when I could perceive some noticeable difference between 10 and 20 hours, (I have a mixed opinion about burn-in, but I am not writing a PhD thesis to prove or disprove anything) so I gave 50+ hrs recommended in the instructions. Actually, most of my impressions after 75 hours.
Filters used
At first, I've naturally tried silver stock filters and found them reasonably OK but somewhat congested, restricting the sound, I switched to the red one, which finally fulfilled my treble quest (!!!). I found the sound signature, which is a bit too much in the treble, (with very decent lows and OK-ish mids). In some music that is not treble-intense it feels perfectly OK. For more treble-rich (e.g. percussion, violins) music, I can listen from few minutes to half an hour. My optimum filters may be ~2/3 of the way from silver to red, I will be happy to explore this with some foam in the red filters, as advised by HeadFi gurus. So for the owners of the original NX7 - foam modding behind the mesh may be all you need. I did not have any temptation to try the blue ones. I will likely convert them to empty shells to use with some foam down the road.
Sound
Starting on a high note (or notes), the treble is very rich and sparkly given the mighty efforts of seven piezo layers and four tiny BAs. Finally, I had a chance to experience the 10-20 kHz (or closer to 8-16 kHz) range. It is about air, sparkles, presence, very nice. At the same time, it does not add a whole world of difference, especially with the most of classical music, so I am still OK to enjoy my AS10
Happily, I did not find much of overtone distortion (as some reviewers of NX7 tried to allude). A lot of violin music is sensitive to it, and using some "prominent" IEMs, like TRN X6 in particularly, feel quite unnatural.
No spacial incoherence, as in ****, to my ears either. (In contrast to X6, I do love **** in all its pecularities).
The treble definitely feel the best, most prominent part of the NX7 design.
Lows feature a very nice extension to sub-bass. Recordings of organ music that should reach 16 Hz feel very rumbly (not that I claim that this range fully reproduced and perceived, but some heavy impression is there).
In addition to the range, I really like the dynamic driver is quite fast, close in some aspects to BA bass (that I seem to prefer). Plus some fluidity. Not intrusive mid-bass, that coupled to fairly recessed mids, yields quite cold analytical signature that I personally came to like in NX7 pro.
Very good competent bass overall, in my opinion.
Mids. Well, not much to say. The DD is responsible for this range, in addition to its main prominent duty with the lows. So mids feel quite recessed, definitely not to the point of any glaring deficiency, but not much to write about.
Now, my imaginary dream budget IEM would include the treble part from NX7, with the lows and low mids from C16, perhaps with the upper mids from C12
Suggestions to improve
1) Supplying a larger pair of tips (> 13 mm) would be very helpful and costing only few cents.
2) Snap-in face plates may be easier and more trouble-free.
3) (More of a wishful thinking): Adding few mid BAs can deliver a very competent IEM.
Summary
Very nice versatile package overall: functionally (choice of a good cable, sound filters) and aesthetically (face plates).
Great lows and highs. Mids feel a bit recessed. Very competent and competitive under $100, in my opinion.
Solid 4.5 (or 4.5+) stars from me.
