[size=small]DSD is all the rage these days. Despite there not being a whole lot of music available in the format (SACDs aside), DAC makers are jumping on the feature as fast as they can. And I can't blame them - aside from our "regular" music, we all love a little ear candy to show off the capabilities of our system. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Another thing that's quite popular? The ESS Sabre DACs. These Sabre chips show up in more and more products, eclipsing the the competition from Wolfson, Cirrus, Analog Devices, and Texas Instruments in desirability and "buzz" if not sheer volume of sales. And the ES9018 is their top model. It appears in many excellent DACs including my own reference units. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] What about USB? The big thing these days is asynchronous operation, which is basically standard fare for any DAC with higher-end aspirations and is even crowding into the more affordable gear. One of the most popular implementations is based on the XMOS chipset, which is seen in many highly regarded DAC and USB to SPDIF converters. It's certainly not the only game in town but is used in enough high-end products to be considered one of the more desirable solutions.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Matrix Audio, a company which basically got their start with the $300 M-Stage headphone amp, moves upscale with the release of their new flagship X-Sabre DAC ($1099). It ticks all the boxes - DSD compatibility. ES9018 Sabre DAC. XMOS USB. Of course, none of that matters by itself - the device needs more than just buzzwords to be worthy of our consideration. Luckily the X-Sabre has more going for it.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] DESIGN[/size]
[size=small] The Matrix X-Sabre is what I'd call a "typically sized" DAC, at least in the HeadFi world. It's approximately 10" wide, 8" deep, and about 2" tall. The first thing you notice about it is the weight and construction - the unit weights 8 pounds and is CNC machined from a solid block of aluminum. You might be thinking to yourself that 8 pounds is not so much, but from a device of this size it might as well be a ton. Separate internal compartments are used for each section which supposedly helps isolate them from interference. It also isolates them from being examined in detail - the bottom panel comes off easily but the resulting view merely shows the bottom of the PCBs. I did end up removing the guts which I'll show later.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]

[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Everything on the front panel and rear panel is pretty self explanatory, so I'll just point out a few things I find noteworthy.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *There is no optical input. To be honest, I rarely use optical as a connection, and I suspect most people are with me on that. But of course there are exceptions and I imagine someone might find this to be an issue. In exchange we do get an AES/EBU input which is not always included with all DACs. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *The unit is supported by 3 "feet" in a sort of triangular configuration. I thought this might end up making it tipsy as compared to a foot on each corner, but that hasn't been a problem. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *The front panel LEDs are very well done - bright enough to be seen, even from a distance, but not overly bright like the majority of LEDs on audio gear. This may sound petty but for me it's kind of a big deal - so much gear has a blazing LED that lights up the room. I'd like to see all equipment handled like the X-Sabre. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *Balanced and single ended outputs are both active at all times. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *RCA outs are a relatively common 2.2Vrms. XLR, on the other hand, is rather high at 6.8Vrms. The norm is closer to 4Vrms - Anedio D2, Resonessence Invicta, and Schiit Gugnir are all 4V. Violectric V800 comes stock at 4.3Vrms, though it can be made to go higher via internal jumpers. This high output basically means some amps won't have as much volume adjustability when paired with the X-Sabre. I didn't have any major problems myself, but some amps already have dangerously high gain, and this combo may push them over the edge for some more sensitive headphones. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *Build quality. I just can't say enough about the fantastic look and feel of this thing. It's currently sitting in my rack next to the $4,000 Resonessence Labs Invicta, the $1,800 AURALiC Taurus, and the $4,800 Esoteric D-07. The little X-Sabre, priced considerably less than those, does not look at all like a cheaper class of equipment. In fact it's arguably among the best of the bunch. Aesthetics are subjective of course but I find its look (which I call "high-tech minimalist") to be well thought out as well as beautifully executed. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] [/size]
[size=small]
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Once the guts are removed (which is more difficult than usual but not too terrible), we can see the main components. The design breaks down to three "sections", which are almost completely isolated from each other and are connected by ribbon cable similar to what you'd find in a computer. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
 

 
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The most simple is the front panel board which houses the power and source switches as well as the LED indicators. Interestingly, the LEDs themselves don't actually shine directly through the front panel. Rather, each LED shines upwards to illuminate a translucent tube (likely plastic), which then carries that light through to the front panel. This indirect lighting is why it looks so soft and non-invasive, which I love. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Next comes the power supply board. Main components here are an array of 4 Nichicon Muse FWM 2200uf capacitors along with 2 more of the same rated at 4400uf. There are 3 LM317 linear regulators and a total of 11 ultra-fast recovery rectifiers from On Semi. Set aside in an isolated section away from the power board is a custom toroid from Noratel, which rounds out the major components of the PSU.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
 

 

 

 
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Last but not least we find the actual DAC board itself. Obvious bits that we already knew about - ESS Sabre ES9018S DAC chip running in quad-mono mode (4 DACs per channel). XMOS chip for USB supported by separate discrete clocks for 44.1kHz and 48kHz (and their multiples). Other things which I had been curious to find out about - a high quality, low phase noise HLX system clock at 100 MHZ. Winbond 25x40 flash memory and a PIC microcontroller for system operations. I didn't see an FPGA chip, so there probably isn't much chance of system updates.... not that the unit really needs upgrading since it already handles DSD and DXD. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I spotted an SMSC USB3310 USB transceiver - not something I recall seeing in my other XMOS-based DACs. I was not sure why this would be used but a quick check shows a variant of that chip being present on the XMOS reference board. It seems Matrix is actually doing things "by the book" even if others have found alternatives. I don't see any dedicated DIR so I presume Matrix uses the digital receiver functionality built-in to the ES9018 itself. That's been known to be somewhat touchy in other DACs - see Yulong D18 and Eastern Electric MiniMax for examples. Perhaps this helps explain the otherwise curious omission of a Toslink input, which is known for its higher jitter. I've been using the X-Sabre with every source available and have yet to have dropouts, but I'm apparently lucky as my Yulong D18 never gives me trouble either.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  
 

 

 

 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The analog output stage is based around 6 of the National Semiconductor LME49710 opamps. I believe it is configured as 2 per channel for XLR, and 1 each for RCA, but I could be wrong. There's also an NE5532 floating about, though it doesn't appear to be in the main signal path. Perhaps it is used for something like impedance matching as in the Violectric gear. Takamisawa relays cover both outputs, helping avoid pops during power on or off. Overall the output stage is surprisingly simple considering the resulting sound quality. But hey, if it works, it works. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  

 
 
 
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] DSD and DXD[/size]
[size=small] I'm making a special section here because this is one of the big selling points of this device. The X-Sabre supports DSD64 and DSD128. You'll need playback software capable of handling DSD - JRiver and Foobar2000 are the options I tried (Windows), though others exist: Signalyst HQPlayer and JPlay for Windows, Pure Music and Audirvana Plus for Mac. Matrix provides Windows drivers for the X-Sabre as well as detailed setup instructions - JRiver is easy but Foobar is rather involved. I got it going in about 10 minutes though and if I can do it, anybody can. I confirmed that the X-Sabre uses the latest DoP v1.1 but can also fall back to v1.0 if the playback software doesn't yet handle the latest update. Also, when using the ASIO driver with Foobar, DoP is not being used. Not that it really matters as DoP is just the container and the resulting playback is still very much "true" DSD. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] DSD is not widespread but there is some material available for purchase: scroll down for a list. Of note is2L Records which offers lots of free downloads including hi-res PCM, DSD, and DXD. Also check out DSDFile.com where Opus3 records has a few free downloads from their two DSD Showcase albums (highly recommended). [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] What about DXD? Never heard of it? It stands for digital extreme definition and is essentially a very high bitrate PCM signal at 24-bit/352.8kHz. DXD files are massive, even compared to DSD files. It's an uncompressed format (think WAV as opposed to FLAC) so that makes it even worse. For example - 2L Records has a Mozart Violin Concerto, 9 minutes and 24 seconds, available in various formats. 24/96 FLAC is 171MB. The same file in 24/192 is 338MB. The DXD version is 1GB, which is even larger than the DSD64 (274MB) and DSD128 (581MB). So DXD is nearly twice as large as the next biggest format. Yikes. An entire album (depending on the length) might not even fit on a single layer DVD. But it sounds mighty nice, and I'm always happy to take all the playback capabilities I can possibly get.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] A quick word on the state of things - DSD is a major buzzword right now. DAC makers are scrambling to update firmware, or revise designs, as needed to enable DSD support. In a way, I feel it's kind of a gimmick considering how much music is actually available for these DACs in the format (the answer being not much at all). However, at the same time I also feel it's kind of an important feature to have. Remember that the SACD format used DSD so there are quite a few albums out there already in the format. As time goes by I think we'll be seeing more and more releases become available. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] No matter what the audio mags and websites tell us, SACD was a failure in the grand scheme of things. There hasn't been a plant pressing SACDs in the USA for years, and there are hardly any dedicated SACD players being made these days. On the other hand, universal disc players are rather common, and there was something like 6,000 SACD releases in total. Even counting some of those as being mere PCM to DSD conversions, and some being multi-channel rather than stereo, that still leaves quite a few titles usable by the regular 2-channel music lover. As HDtracks and other sites look to increase sale, and notice all these new DACs with DSD playback capabilities.... it only makes sense that they will scramble to get more DSD downloads ready to go as fast as possible. People who already own the 16/44.1 version of a song might not feel the 24/96 version is worth the money to re-buy. But maybe they'll feel like DSD is a big enough improvement. I can guarantee that HDtracks is thinking that very thing. Perhaps DSD can have a second renaissance via downloads where it failed the first time around on physical media.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] So where does this leave us? Simply put, DSD is not enough on its own to justify buying a DAC. It might be more and more relevant as time goes by, but redbook playback is still the defining characteristic of any DAC. Having said that, the situation reminds me of 192kHz USB support: I've had people specifically tell me how such-and-such DAC was perfect for them but they couldn't buy it because USB topped out at 24/96. I ask them if they have any 24/192 material in their library, and they reply "no, but someday I might". [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] SERVICE[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] A quick note about service: the X-Sabre is available worldwide from the global Matrix website. Customers in the USA (and probably Canada as well) should go through the North American distributor. US distribution is handled by a fellow named Arthur who I can vouch for - we've been chatting since long before he picked up the Matrix line, and he's always been very informative and helpful. Orders through his site are drop shipped directly from China, but all service would go through him. So if you had questions about anything at all - for example, needing a walk through due to driver issues, or DSD playback, or whatever - he'd be there to help. Or in the unfortunate event of a hardware issue, the unit would be mailed to him in New Jersey rather than back to China. I know RMAs are one of the sticking points for people who prefer not to order gear from China, so a helpful local distributor is great news in my opinion. Having him be a nice guy and a native English speaker is even better.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] EQUIPMENT[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I used the following gear during my evaluation of the Matrix X-Sabre, down to the last excruciating detail because some people have asked for that:[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Source: Auraliti PK90 USB server powered by NuForce LPS-1 power supply, connected direct over USB or else routed through an Audiophilleo AP1 with PurePower, Acer laptop running Foobar2000 or JRiver Media Center, Cambridge Audio 740C[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] AMP: AURALiC Taurus, Violectric V200, Icon Audio HP8 MkII, Firestone Audio Bobby, Analog Design Labs Svetlana II, Stax SRA-12S[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Headphones: Sennheiser HD800, Stax SR-007 MKII, Audeze LCD-2.2, Beyerdynamic T1, Thunderpants, Frogbeats C4, Cosmic Ears BA4, Heir Audio 8.A, Sensaphonics 3MAX, JH Audio JH13pro FreqPhase, 1964 Ears V3[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Power conditioning: CablePro Revelation, Yulong Sabre P18[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] AC cables: CablePro Reverie, Charleston Cable Company Auric Ohno[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Interconnects: Charleston Auric Ohno, NuForce Focused Field, Signal Cable Analog Two, Pailiccs Silver Net[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Digital: NuForce Precision coax, Charleston Auric USB[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Headphone Cables: several models from Toxic Cables, Beat Audio, Charleston Cable Company, and 93 East[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 

 

 

 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] LISTENING[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I knew people were curious about my impressions, and I had been held back from doing serious listening of the X-Sabre while I finished up my review of the NuForce DAC-100. So once I was ready to focus on the Matrix unit, I didn't mess around. I launched straight into some serious listening on the best gear I have in the hope that I would quickly lock on to the character of this device. As usual, life got in the way, and it's taken longer than I had hoped.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] My first serious notes from listening to the X-Sabre can be summarized like so - clean, resolving yet slightly relaxed presentation with smooth but extended highs, great timbre, and a nice sense of coherence from top to bottom. That pretty much sums it up and you can stop reading right now if you want. Or not.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] In the school of DACs, there are a few archetypes that most people are familiar with: There's the overly slow, warm, syrupy type. There's the hyper detailed, analytical thin type. Everything else falls somewhere in between those two, with most leaning more towards one side or the other. Very few are absolutely in the middle, and those tend to be on the expensive side anyway. Not to mention most people have a hard time agreeing where exactly that middle ground lies. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The Matrix X-Sabre is not quite in the middle. To my ears it leans a bit towards the so-called "musical" side rather than the more dry, analytical side. Thankfully it avoids many of the downsides of its musical brethren - it's not slow, not rolled off in the least, doesn't have mushy bass, and doesn't impart too much coloration onto the sound. It also avoids many of the downsides of the analytical type - it's not etched and harsh on the top end, and it's certainly no lightweight on the bottom. Best of both worlds? Not completely. Some DACs have better detail retrieval, some have more textured bass, some have a more clear, transparent presentation. But overall I'm very pleased with the X-Sabre. $1100 is not cheap but in the grand scheme of things it's not a vastly high price for a DAC. Some compromise was necessarily involved, and Matrix seems to have done a good job prioritizing. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Those last few lines might just hold the key to explaining why I like the X-Sabre so much. As I survey the competing DACs in the $800-1500 range, I can generally find one that outperforms the X-Sabre in any single aspect. Yet very few of them can perform so collectively well in all areas. There are many analogies that might apply here - the well balanced athlete who might not headline a Nike commercial but nevertheless has a long and fruitful career, earning many millions of dollars in the process and being well respected by peers and fans alike. Or how about the neighborhood restaurant that you love, with a widely varied menu - they don't specialize in any one area so it is possible to find a better steak, better pasta, better fried chicken... but those come from specialty places which don't have near the selection of your favorite spot. I could go on and on but hopefully you get the point - the X-Sabre is really good across the board, if not quite the best at any particular aspect. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] A few more noteworthy things to mention:[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *Soundstage is very impressive. It's got that nice open feeling that proves elusive even for many expensive DACs. If the X-Sabre was going to stand above the pack in any one specific area, this would be the one. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *Warmth. As I'll continue to explain, the X-Sabre is slightly on the warm and smooth side. It's not a rolled-off tubey NOS sound or anything of the sort but it does help take some of the "bite" way from certain recordings - in a good way. I don't feel like I'm missing much in terms of attack on well recorded tracks, but harsh sounding mediocre recordings do get a gentle helping hand. I did notice some treble glare in the early hours of listening but this seemed to fade as I clocked more time on the unit. Perhaps it never completely went away in the grand scheme of things (as compared to my Resonessence Labs Invicta for example) but it's not something that bothers me now, after several hundred hours.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *Input differences. I mainly used USB connected to my laptop. It sounded really good that way. It took a lot of effort to improve on it with a USB to SPDIF converter - the Stello U3 sounded worse, with a slightly more edgy feeling that threw me off a little. It wasn't terrible but it did lose some of the charm as opposed to the USB input. The Resonessence Concero used as DDC is very difficult to discern from the native USB input, at least when used in the standard mode. When applying the proprietary Resonessence upsampling filters (IIR or apodizing), small changes in character are present. I particularly like the minimum phase IIR filter in this case but it's nothing so large as to justify the $599 Concero being a mandatory add-on. Finally, I went all out with the Audiophilleo AP1 with PurePower battery option. That combo did raise the bar in terms of transparency, imaging, and fluidity of the midrange and upper mids. I enjoyed it but when it came time to return to the native USB, I didn't find myself going through withdrawals or anything. Lastly, I tried my Cambridge Audio 740C as transport over coax and optical cables. X-Sabre again sounded more edgy, much like when I used the Stello U3. It wasn't bad sounding in absolute terms and if that's all I had available I'd definitely still enjoy the device... but I just enjoy it more through USB. I didn't have a chance to use my JF Digital music server which has less jitter on the SPDIF output. It might have sounded closer to the USB, but I was too lazy to move it out of my living room system. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *I don't notice any difference between the RCA and XLR outputs, aside from the higher XLR output voltage which I mentioned earlier. It's possible that some minor difference exists, but if so it's small enough to be inconsequential in my opinion.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I spent a lot of time listening to some exceptional DSD tracks. The Opus3 Records DSD Showcase albums are definitely worth buying if you want some demo material. At $12.99 for DSD128 and a mere $9.99 for DSD64, they are a definite value compared to some of the overpriced hi-res albums out there. I'd still enjoy "Where the Green Grass Grows" by Eric Bibb even if it was a low bitrate mp3 file.... but this DSD version is perhaps one of the most lifelike recordings I've heard, anywhere, ever. I spent most of my time with the DSD128 version because hey, why not? To be honest, the DSD64 version sounded similarly excellent, to the point where I'm not sure I can reliably tell them apart. But I didn't specifically try so that's a story for another day. Both of them have rich tones, lifelike airiness, pinpoint imaging - your name an audiophile cliche, and it's in this track to a very high degree. I was also exceedingly impressed by The Erik Westberg vocal ensemble & Mattias Wager – Nun kommt der Heiden Heiland, which has some killer organ that really plumbs the depths. The lows on this track will lay bare the differences between a reference caliber headphone - LCD-2, 8.A, SR-007, JH13, etc, and one that is merely "pretty good" - W1000X, HD650, DT880, etc.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Not to be outdone, DXD tracks sound very nice too. I have Quiet Winter Night by the Hoff Ensemble, which like many recent hi-res releases was originally recorded in the 24-bit/352.8kHz DXD format and later converted to DSD or various PCM options. I have a hard time believing DSD can be any better because the DXD release is already spectacular. I got this album as a promo - one of the best parts of becoming a "real" audio journalist - but I only have this one version. If I was buying, I'm not sure I'd want to pay almost double for the DXD as compared to the plain ole' 24/96 FLAC version. Then again maybe I would if the difference was noticeable. This sets off an interesting discussion about why this price discrepancy exists for download versions - but I won't get into that here.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] What about hi-res PCM, which is practically becoming yesterday's news in light of these new DSD/DXD options? It still sounds great on the X-Sabre. All of my usual reference material was highly enjoyable - Conga Kings, Traffic by CBW, Wilson Pickett, Norah Jones... if one never listened to any DSD, this DAC is still very impressive.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Then we come to "boring" Redbook quality material, which still happens to make up a huge majority of the music in our libraries. Isn't it of limited quality and difficult to listen to after all that amazing hi-res stuff? Yes and no. By its very nature, hi-res releases in all formats tend to be some of the best recordings out there. Yes, there's the occasional sneaky upsample, and some modern popular releases that make no sense to buy in hi-res due to their inherently poor dynamic range. But those are the exceptions - most hi-resolution material also sounds very good in the standard CD release. In contrast, stuff that only ever came out on CD can be rather mediocre or sometimes downright terrible. Stuff like Rush or Red Hot Chili Peppers is especially annoying when the music is enjoyable but the recording is not. Yet many counterexamples exist - try the Steve Hoffman Metallica DCC remasters, any Hiromi album, any Yo-Yo Ma album, anything from Reference Recordings, most albums by Peter Grabriel or Genesis, almost any Miles Davis or Otis Redding or Alison Krauss & Union Station or Bill Evans or.... you get the idea. Redbook material can sound downright bad but it can also be very, very good, and we should be careful not to place all the blame on the format. The X-Sabre handles the good stuff really well, and due to its slightly smooth character, is better than many when it comes to the bad stuff. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that great recordings exist in many formats and the X-Sabre can pretty much play them all. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] COMPARISONS[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Rather than going any further down this road, I want to switch gears and talk about some specific comparisons with the various DACs I have at hand. This will hopefully prove illuminating for someone trying to decide between two contenders, as well as helping flesh out the performance characteristics of the X-Sabre. I used a lot of gear for my general listening, but for these specific comparisons I used my electrostatic setup consisting of a Stax SRA-12S with the Stax SR-007mkII. The SRA-12S (recently worked over by Spritzer and given a Pro output) is an old-but-still-very-nice Class-A solid state unit which to my humble ears is superior to many of the current production models including the SRM-727II. Stax intended it to be a preamp as well which means it has plenty of inputs - perfect for comparing several DACs in the same system. Care was taken in terms of level matching (which is no fun but very necessary for proper comparison).[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] NuForce DAC-100: I just finished reviewing this DAC and it's very enjoyable overall. At $1100 it is a direct competitor for the Matrix.There are some obvious differences in terms of features - Matrix gives you DSD capability and balanced outputs while NuForce has a headphone amp and preamp capabilities. Obviously these different feature sets will each appeal to a different user.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Strictly focusing on sound quality from the DAC section - these are totally different sounding devices. The NuForce can be summarized by the words "lively", "exciting", and "dynamic", but it isn't the last word in micro-detail or gracefulness. The X-Sabre has better detail retrieval and a smoother, more relaxed presentation that flows more easily. They both have their unique moments to shine - the DAC-100 better captures the scale of The Planets by Gustav Holst, or the intensity of heavier acts such as Shai Hulud or Stretch Arm Strong. In contrast, the X-Sabre is better at revealing the quirky/brilliant nuances of music from composer Harry Partch, allowing me to better notice the interesting rhythm and (micro)tonality of his complex works like Delusion of the Fury. It also excels with technical metal - Meshuggah, In Battle, Becoming the Archetype, Opeth, Theory in Practice - while these bands are all undeniably heavy, their music is also very complex, and the X-Sabre resolves their detail better than the NuForce while at the same time maintaining a non-harsh sound (which is welcome since these bands don't always make the best recordings). It's not that the DAC-100 sounds bad with these, but the X-Sabre just does it better. Your system, music, and preferences will determine which might work best. Well recorded stuff from Norah Jones or Patricia Barber or Frank Sinatra will sound really nice on either DAC, but vocals are more penetrating and real with the X-Sabre. Both are still very enjoyable. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Which one do I like more? That's tough. The value proposition of the NuForce is hard to deny - DAC-100 plus HD800 and you've got a simple but great sounding setup. Then again, people shopping for a DAC in the $1000+ price range might already have eyes on a nice stand-alone amp, negating the benefit of that integrated amp. If we leave out build quality, looks, functionality, etc and focus purely on sound quality as a DAC, I'd say the X-Sabre takes the lead, at least in my system and with the music I prefer to listen to. If I primarily used coaxial SPDIF rather than USB, my choice would not be as clear, as the NuForce sounds the same on those while the Matrix goes down a notch compared to USB. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Resonessence Labs Concero: This little unit is probably not on the radar of most people looking for a $1K DAC. Maybe it should be. Obvious feature differences aside, the Concero comes surprisingly close to the X-Sabre. The Matrix comes out ahead in areas like treble realism, midrange openness, and soundstage depth. X-Sabre seems to be a little smoother too. Surprisingly, the Concero keeps up in the lower regions with excellent bass texture and realism - so much for the idea that beefy power supplies always equate to superior bass. But overall when using a really nice headphone like HD800, Stax, JH13, etc, the X-Sabre pays dividends in overall realism. It's just more convincing in that "last bit", audiophile sort of way. That said, if you want to spend less money and don't have a need for balanced outs or DSD playback, Concero is an excellent choice. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Musical Fidelity M1A: I don't care that this DAC won various awards in magazines - I dislike it immensely. To my ears it sounds blurry and indistinct while at the same time being harsh and splashy on the top end. I guess that's an impressive accomplishment in a way... X-Sabre is far superior to the M1A in every category. OK, the Musical Fidelity unit is $350 cheaper, but if money is an issue I recommend the Concero without hesitation. It's even cheaper and still sounds better too. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] PS Audio NuWave: I didn't really care for this one either. It certainly looks great and has a nice balance of features for the money.  I really wanted to like it. But the sound.... it just seemed a bit too bright, too plastic, too thin. I imagine some people like this sort of thing and hear it as extra detail but for my taste it was just too much. X-Sabre has a far more natural tone and still has plenty of detail - in fact it does cymbals in a significantly more realistic way. Just because they are boosted, doesn't mean they sound real, and that's where the NuWave gets it wrong. At $999 or even at the discounted $799 price I already see in certain places, there's no way I could recommend the NuWave over the X-Sabre. PS Audio might sell a ton more than Matrix due to their name brand, but my recommendation lies strictly with the X-Sabre.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Violectric V800: I love the V800 - it's got a neutral, clear sound without being sterile or harsh, and it still has enough soul to move me. It's one of my favorite DACs at any price, period, and proves to be tough competition whenever I review a new DAC. In comparison, the X-Sabre is very close in quality but with a different flavor. It's a little smoother but also bit less resolving of tiny details. That's the main difference - X-Sabre has more perceived warmth, which can make it easier on the ears with mediocre recordings, while V800 goes a little farther with reference quality material. At times I felt like the V800 made the X-Sabre seem a little "glassy" in the highs, but I could never get this to be a consistent thing. Soundstage on X-Sabre is about the same in width but has the slight advantage in perceived depth. The trade off - V800 has more accurate imaging. This soundstage/imaging difference is only really noticed when using an excellent chain of equipment though. Once again the feature differences are split down the middle, so either of these units comes highly recommended by me. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Yulong D18: The D18 has been my favorite "budget" ES9018 based DAC for a while now. From the balanced output, it's more exaggerated than the X-Sabre - smoother and warmer. From its RCA outs, it is more neutral. It's great to have both options, but the X-Sabre offers a nice middle ground presentation between the two, while being a bit more resolving than either. Bass is very slightly more extended if not quite as prominent as D18 via XLR, and top end detail is more believable, though at times the D18 would be a better match for some systems, especially for people who are extremely sensitive to any kind of treble glare. The differences are not huge though - D18 is still a very good DAC and at $699 it remains a great value. It has no USB input but a good DDC can be had for a reasonable price, allowing the combo to still be as cheap or cheaper than the X-Sabre. But overall the Matrix unit is slightly better as a whole. Should D18 owners bother to "upgrade"? If they are pleased with their unit then I'd say probably not. The X-Sabre is not really different enough to warrant a switch. The exception would be if someone had a D18 and was mostly pleased with it, but found it a little too smooth on the top end in balanced mode. I've talked to several people who felt that way but at the time had nothing else to recommend to them. Now I do. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Anedio D2: This is where the X-Sabre is finally outclassed. It's not by a massive amount, but I do feel the D2 is in another league in several areas. It's got better leading edge definition, superior low frequency texture, and more transparent midrange too. But it also costs $400 more which is around a 36% increase in price - that's substantial. And some people may actually prefer the slightly warmer X-Sabre sound depending on their system. In order to upgrade from the D1 without a major price increase, Anedio used a less costly enclosure for the D2, and it shows. It's still attractive and all, but the X-Sabre looks and definitely feels like it should be the more expensive product. And the Matrix unit is available right now for order while Anedio is constantly sold out with a potentially long wait. I'd never talk anyone out of buying one of my favorite DACs and if you can afford it (and can wait for it) by all means put the D2 on top of your list. That still doesn't minimize the quality of the X-Sabre.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Others: Without specific comparisons, I'll just say that I prefer the X-Sabre over some well known and well regarded units like Benchmark DAC-1, Bryston BDA-1, Rega DAC, Wyred 4 Sound DAC1, North Star Essensio, Grace Design M902, and Lavry DA-10. To my ears the X-Sabre sounds better than most of those, or in a few cases sounds similar but costs way less. I know this is vague but I don't have any of these on hand right this moment so I can't get down to the nitty-gritty of each one.[/size]
[size=small]  
 
 
Conclusion
Ever browse for an Android tablet and notice some of the "off" brands out there? There are plenty of them which seem to have unbelievably good specs - quad core CPU, lots of memory for both RAM and storage, SD card slot, HDMI out, large screen with great resolution, the latest Android build, replaceable high capacity battery.... essentially everything you could possibly want. And the price will tend to be significantly less than models established brands like Asus, Samsung, or Acer. Despite all the specs and features, my experience with these types has yet to pan out. There's always a catch somewhere. Maybe that screen with the great specs actually has a poor viewing angle or dull colors. And maybe their Android install is packed full of non-removable bloatware. And maybe that so-called "high capacity" battery only nets a few hours of real-world use. And maybe that 1.5 GHz quad core CPU can only comfortably manage 1.0 GHz before having heat issues. My point here? Shopping with an eye towards features per dollar is not always advantageous. 
 
Fortunately, the Matrix X-Sabre avoids that sort of thing. Yes, it does have a lot of things going for it - top level ES9018 Sabre DAC, balanced outs, impeccably built enclosure, XMOS asynchronous USB, and DSD capabilities. But at the core of the device is really good sound. Without that, features become little more than gimmicks, and the perceived value rapidly diminishes. With it, features actually become relevant, and value is added.
 
I recommend the Matrix X-Sabre for anyone who wants a well rounded DAC in the $1K price range. Is it the best DAC out there? Of course not. I can point to other DACs with better performance in various areas and by all means - if you're a detail freak or want an ultra-smooth NOS sound or have any other specific attribute that you value above all others - the X-Sabre, as a jack of all trades (but master of none as the expression goes) might not be your ideal match. Yet for overall competence I can't think of another unit to recommend more highly for the price. Add in local service and support from the new US distributor, and you've got yourself a winning package. Highly recommended. 
[/size]
 

 
 
 
[size=small]NuForce has an interesting history of success. On the one hand, they became famous on the strength of their relatively high end amps and preamps. They still sell plenty of models in their "reference" line, most of which cost at least several thousand dollars. In more recent times they seem to have focused on the opposite end of the market - the budget end - and have achieved success there as well. Products like their HDP, the various Icon compact amplifiers, their NE series of IEMs, and of course the uDac, have cemented their place as a popular maker of affordable gear. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I've often wondered what happens to sales on the higher end gear, after a company begins offering budget products. Musical Fidelity did it with their V-series, AMR is doing it through their iFi line, and I'm sure there are other examples that I'm forgetting. Does it drag down the prestige of their expensive products? I can see the awkward feeling when someone buys a $5K amp only to see that some kid down the street has a $200 headphone amp from the same brand. Or does it boost the prestige of the budget line, with the idea of trickle down technology and all that? Or maybe it's a bit of both? Ultimately the budget gear must be profitable or these companies wouldn't be bothering with it. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] But what about the middle? Gear that costs more than a few hundred dollars but less than several thousand? That's a key area where the price to performance ratio is often at its best. And at $1095, the NuForce DAC-100 fits squarely into that "in between" category - not cheap nor massively expensive. But do they have the price to performance ratio in place? Interestingly, NuForce has other "100 series" components at various prices including the DDA-100 integrated ($549) and the HAP-100 headphone amp ($595). The DAC-100 is the most expensive product in this line by a significant margin. But overall I still categorize the series as  falling somewhere in between budget gear and high-end gear (but I refuse to use the term "mid-fi" as it brings too many implications). [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] DESIGN[/size]
[size=small] The DAC-100 is nicely sized for a headphone based system - 8.5 inches wide, 9 inched deep (but deeper if we count the volume knob and RCA jacks), and about 2 inches tall. This means it will handily fit into most systems, where bigger units from Audio GD and Bryston may have trouble. Weight is about 3 pounds which reflects the enclosure being less overbuilt than some competitors. But it is made of what appears to be copper-plated metal, like an old school Pioneer Elite or Marantz component, so the overall quality seems right. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The front panel is simple: 1/4" headphone jack, volume knob which doubles as a standby switch (just press it), 4 dedicated buttons for input selection, and sample rate indicators for 44.1kHz through 192kHz. The back panel is equally straight foward: IEC power receptacle with an actual power on/off switch, voltage selection switch for worldwide compatibility, RCA outputs, and 4 inputs total: Toslink, USB, and a pair of coaxial SPDIF. The unit comes in black or silver, with the silver model still having a black "stripe" across the front panel. The top portion of the enclosure has two sections of venting - one above the headphone amp section, and one above the power supply. The unit doesn't run overly warm but the venting is still a good thing in my book - just in case.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Inside, the DAC-100 "guts" are divided into several distinct sections. The relatively large torroidal transformer gets isolated from the other components, walled off by a metal shield. The power supply section has 4 voltage regulators attached to a beefy heatsink, augmented by a rather healthy collection of 17 capacitors. Next comes the main board which handles several functions: the actual DAC section based on an AKM AK4390 32-bit DAC chip, the output stage based around dual socketed LM4562 opamps combined with discrete transistors operating in Class-A, the AKM AK4118 24/192 capable digital receiver, a Xilinx Spartan FPGA, some local voltage regulation, and a few other odds and ends. It sounds complex but the layout is actually rather simplistic - not that simple is necessarily bad. The last "section" is the USB board, which appears very similar to the USB implementation I've seen in other NuForce products like the DAC-9, but different than my NuForce DDA-100 where USB is integrated into the main board itself. USB operates in asynchronous mode and the chip itself has NuForce labeling rather than one of the usual suspects like XMOS, VIA, C-Media, or Tenor. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Other random bits worth mentioning: [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *The DAC-100 also works as a preamp. The RCA outputs are variable, being adjusted in conjunction with the headphone amp. Max output is 2 Vrms which is "redbook standard". It's generally best to keep the volume knob maxed for regular DAC use unless you have some need for more attenuation based on the amp being used.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *Volume adjustments are handled in the digital domain via 32-bit processing for a total of 100 "steps". This could be accomplished through one of two ways - by using the built in volume adjustment in the DAC chip itself, or else by the Xilinx chip seen on the PCB behind the front panel; I'm not sure what route NuForce took here. The adjustment has a somewhat "cheap" feel to it, based on both the physical knob itself (which feels like plastic to me) as well as the action which has little resistance. I've got other DACs with digital volume control that feel great, but somehow in this case the lack of resistance feels weird. It might just be that the knob has more play than I'm used to thanks to the required "push" action for standby activation. Apart from that complaint, the actual functionality of the volume control is excellent. Perfect channel balance, totally free from static or other potentiometer artifacts, and as far as I can hear, no obvious loss of resolution even at lower volumes. Nice. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *The DAC-100 ships with a small remote, which I never use. I did try it once and all worked well. It doesn't move the actual knob which means using a combo of remote and physical adjustments will make things confusing. I figure someone will either use one or the other the majority of the time - remote if you mostly use the unit as a preamp, and knob if you tend to use headphones. But my Matrix Quattro DAC, at $400 less than the DAC-100, does manage to have a motorized volume knob. Make of that what you will.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *NuForce offers drivers for Windows XP, Windows 7, Mac, and Windows 8 (currently in Beta as I type this). No Vista? Not a problem I suspect... I used 2 different computers running Windows 7 and had zero issues. I have read several complaints about static and stuttering though, and even some BSOD crashes. But USB issues can be common with a variety of DACs and I'm hesitant to blame NuForce for what could be a system issue with a few users. All I can say is that everything worked for me, just as it should have. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *The design uses oversampling but no upsampling. NuForce refers to it as "questionable data manipulation". Can't say that I agree 100% but that's fine. This means a 44.1kHz signal (for example) will be presented to the DAC chip at the native data rate rather than being upsampling to 192kHz or some other arbitrary sample rate, as done by many competitors. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *The single-ended Class A headphone amp is interesting in that it has a constant current source and as such doesn't have an easily definable output impedance. I tried measuring it and got weird results (negative numbers), which echos the findings of user Amaegis (who has also reviewed the DAC-100 by now, though I deliberately skipped reading it until mine is posted). Apparently the Class A design is to blame, in addition to a resistor on the output for protection. In any case NuForce lists the "recommended headphone impedance" as 120-600 ohm. I'll discuss the practical application of this in my listening section.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *Specs for the headphone amp  - 10.4Vpp 3.7Vrms, 500mW into loads ranging from 300 ohm to 600 ohm (NuForce doesn't list current delivery into lower impedance), 80mA constant current. See extensive measurements of the DAC-100 HERE. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *The DAC section uses some type of buffering which helps with jitter rejection. NuForce doesn't really talk about this much, but it was pointed out to me (by Armaegis) that there's a slight "delay" to the sound being processed - I verified this by connecting the same transport with dual SPDIF outs to the DAC-100 as well as some other DAC, both feeding the same amp. Switching back and forth on the fly, the DAC-100 is maybe a second or so behind. Weird. But it makes sense that they have some type of system in place for jitter reduction since they frown on ASRC. I don't know exactly what the FPGA does in this design but chances are good it plays a role in this delay. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] *The DAC chip itself is somewhat rare - the AKM AK4390. By specs it is very close to their AK4399 which is used in the Schiit Bifrost, Cary Xciter, and a few Hegel DACs. The only examples I can find using the AK4390 are the Fostex HP-A3 ($499) and the SOtM dAC-200 HD ($2199). Neither of those is very widely used around here. The AKM marketing literature really talks up their minimum-phase FIR filter but the datasheet shows the truth - default setting is a short delay filter, with minimum phase being optional. NuForce doesn't tell us which one gets used in this device. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

Toroid is by Noratel, who also supplies Benchmark for their DACs
 
 

Xilinx Spartan FPGA
 
 

USB section
 
 

AKM digital receiver towards the bottom, AKM DAC on the left (sorry for the shadow)
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

Socketed opamps
 
 

 
 
 

Front panel PCB including separate Xilinx chip
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] GEAR[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I used the following gear during my evaluation of the DAC-100, down to the last excruciating detail for those who are interested:[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Source: Cambridge Audio 840C, Acer laptop with and without an Audiophilleo AP1 with PurePower, Auraliti PK90 with NuForce LPS-1 power supply [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
 

PK90 with 2TB G-Technology drive for storage
 

LPS-1 power supply
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] AMP: Analog Design Labs Svetlana 2, Icon Audio HP8 MkII, Violectric V200, Auralic Taurus, Stax SRA-12S[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 

 

 

 

 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Headphones: Sennheiser HD800, Audeze LCD-2.2 (with C3 Auric Ohno cable), Thunderpants, HiFiMAN HE-400 (CablePro Earcandy) and HE-500 (Toxic Cables Hybrid cable), beyerdynamic T1, Heir Audio Tzar 350, Westone ES5, Sensaphonics 3MAX[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Power Conditioning: CablePro Revelation, Yulong Sabre P18[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] AC Cables: CablePro Reverie, Charlestone Cable Company Auric Ohno[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Interconnects: NuForce Focused Field, Charleston Auric Ohno[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Digital cables: NuForce Precision coax, Charleston Auric USB, NuForce Impulse USB, Signal Cable Optical Link[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] LISTENING[/size]
[size=small] I first used the DAC-100 as purely a DAC. I used my Cambridge 840C as transport, and fed the DAC-100 RCA out to an Icon Audio HP8 MkII tube amp. I recently reviewed this amp and became very familiar with its sound signature, so I was fairly confident in the contribution of the DAC versus the character of the amp. My first impression: the DAC-100 sounded clear, natural, and detailed, with just a hint of added excitement as compared to a more flat presentation. Not that it's an unbalanced sounding DAC, but compared to something like a Benchmark DAC-1 the old standby term "musical" comes out to play. This implies excitement but also a lack of "digital" feel to the sound, especially on the top end.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Dynamics are a strong suit - if you dig listening to stuff like Holst, Dvorak, Rachmaninov, or other really dynamic classical, the DAC-100 is excellent. I threw in some of my Sheffield Labs test discs, the XRCD release "Dancing With Drums", and the Reference Recordings CD release of Stravinsky: The Firebird Suite. All sounded startlingly powerful and "large". Some DACs hit all the right notes but just don't sound as lively as they should in terms of macro dynamics - not so the DAC-100.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I later tried the Reference Recordings HRx hi-res version of the same Stravinsky album, and was able to compare the two versions back to back. I could really tell the difference between them in terms of fine detail as well as openness - the 24-bit/176.4kHz HRx files just sounded better to me than the already excellent CD version. Granted this was not a fair fight - the CD was played through my Cambridge 840C as transport over Toslink, while the HRx version came from a laptop by way of the Audiophilleo converting USB to SPDIF. To be completely thorough I'd have to rip the CD version and play it back to back but honestly I'm too lazy - I already have the HRx version on my HD and I'm not really here to test format differences. In any case, I suspect the power supply is mostly responsible for making this unit sound as "punchy" as it does.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] From that point forward I played all tracks from the laptop. I switched to the Violectric V200 amp and heard the typical smooth, slightly warm presentation. It sounded very slightly more closed in as compared to when I use the Violectric V800 DAC, but the difference wasn't striking. The V200 isn't the most open sounding amp so it's not a major fault of the NuForce. But there was still a good amount of layering as I played "The Persuasions Sing U2", allowing me to pick out each member of the group as well as enjoy their collective sound. While it did sound slightly closed in compared to the V800, it also sounded more bold and energetic, so it was a trade-off. This applied universally whether I used my T1, or LCD-2, or Heir 6.A LE, or anything else. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Bass hit very nicely on "Parallax" by Electronic Noise Controller. It's one of my reference bass tracks due to the deep extension yet natural feel, unlike a lot of "bass music" which is fun but way overdone. The Heir Audio 8.A and Thunderpants were both able to dig very deep to the point where I don't think much further could be accomplished - the DAC-100 approached reference level quality in this respect, and the sound was surely more limited by the amp or headphone rather than the DAC. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Vocals were nicely done as well, though not on the same level as the bass presentation. I found Livingston Taylor to sound clean and non-sibilant, but I've heard other DACs at this price which do better in terms of realism. Switching from my (more expensive) Resonessence Labs Invicta or Anedio D2 to the DAC-100 gave less of a sense of vocal projection, like I was still in the room with the singer but off to the side - his vocals projecting mainly to the side instead of directly toward me. This is not to be confused with a sucked out midrange or anything major like that - it just didn't quite have the same purity as those other DACs. I got similar results with various singers from Nancy Bryan to Norah Jones to Aretha Franklin. It didn't stick out as being terrible on its own but in comparison to other DACs I did notice it. I'd take care in mating the DAC-100 with certain gear (stock Denon D7000 for example) where the cumulative effect would be more significant. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Aside from that, I have nothing major to criticize. The unit has very good attack and decay, a nice even tonal balance with just a hint of excitement, and an impressively accurate imaging. Soundstage is roughly medium in size (among similar priced units), with horizontal spacing average for this class but depth being more impressive. Note that when I talk about the unit sounding "exciting", I don't mean it has some added zing up top. While the highs are certainly present, they sound fairly refined and "non-digital", and don't really shout at the listener as some DACs can. Background is reasonably black though I've heard darker. Microdetails are plentiful if not top of the class - my Violectric, Anedio, and Kao Audio DACs all do better in this area for similar cash. Yet this might actually work in favor of the overall presentation - the DAC-100 has a focus on being lively and dynamic, so it makes some degree of sense that low level detail retrieval is not the focus. If it were, I think some users might find the presentation a bit overwhelming - too much of "everything" all thrown up at once, resulting in a sound that becomes fatiguing over the long term. The DAC-100 is easy on the ears for extended listening, despite the dynamic presentation.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I did go back and forth between native USB and several USB to SPDIF converters. It was lengthy, time consuming process about which I'll spare you all the boring details. But in summary: the native USB solution is very satisfying. It held its own when compared to a Stello U3 and an Izmo M1 USB to SPDIF converters, both of which are very nice units. It fell slightly behind when compared to the Resonessence Concero, and further still in relation to the reference level Audiophilleo AP1 with PurePower battery option. That set costs more than the whole DAC-100 so the comparison is not really fair, but there it is. Overall though, I'd say the DAC-100 USB is just fine by itself and doesn't really need help from an external DDC. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] AMP[/size]
[size=small] The headphone section on the DAC-100 is sort of a mixed bag for me. At times I find it brilliant, yet other times it is frustrating. Overall I'll still call it one of the better integrated amps out there and at times it goes from good to great with certain headphones. But it's definitely not without its drawbacks. I'll break it down in sections:[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The good - it's clean, rich, and dynamic, with a great sense of timing and pace. This is one of the best integrated amps I've heard when used with the right headphones - I love it with the HD800, and LCD-2 and T1 sound very nice too. There is plenty of drive for all of these models and I never had issues with running out of headroom. The presentation has a sense of ease which is helpful on models like HD800 or T1 which can be edgy on the wrong amp. Despite that, it still matches well with the somewhat laid back LCD-2, not sounding overly dull. That's impressive. The HD800 is an especially good match - in this case it's right up there with the excellent integrated amps in my Anedio D2 and Resonessence Labs Invicta DACs. Those both have advantages with certain other headphones but with HD800 the synergy is undeniable. For someone looking to build a system around the HD800 I'd say give the DAC-100 a shot - seriously, it's that good. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The mediocre - despite the bass being punchy and very clean, it doesn't really dig as deep as it could. And those mids are still a bit laid back in terms of vocalists not coming to the forefront of the mix as much as they do with other amps. I suppose this could merely be the amp section acting transparent and serving up the presentation as given to it by the DAC section... I have no way to tell since there isn't an analog input, so I can't try feeding it with a different signal. Again, this is not a major problem, but worth noting nonetheless.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The bad - noise floor. Period. It's the biggest flaw here by far. It essentially makes this device unsuitable for most sensitive headphones. The Ultrasone Signature Pro is out, as are the Denon D2000-D7000 and the Audio Technica Woodies. Grados? Not ideal. IEMs? Forget it. All this assumes the listener is like me and prefers not to hear an annoying hash sound intruding on their listening. If this was a budget unit costing maybe a few hundred dollars, it would be one thing. But with a 4 digit price tag I expect much more. Once the music plays, the noise is less obvious, but it still takes away from the presentation by clouding the dynamics and micro details. I have no clue what causes this but I wish NuForce was able to address it. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] As it stands, I certainly do enjoy the amp with the Audeze LCD-2, HiFiMAN HE-400 and HE-500, Sennheiser HD650 and HD800, Thunderpants, and Beyer T1. The low impedance of the planar models doesn't seem to be an issue, and there's just enough gain to drive even my difficult Thunderpants to high levels. I'm still perplexed by the odd output impedance but it ends up being a non-issue due to the high noise floor. Anything with low enough impedance to potentially cause interactions, is probably sensitive enough to reveal the noise problem anyway - with the exception of planars of course. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] NuForce did send me a revised part for the headphone section. Apparently it allows a bypass of the 15 ohm resistor. Amaegis has tried it in his DAC-100 and doesn't seem super impressed. I'm exceedingly pleased with the synergy with my HD800 as it stands, so didn't bother to install it right away. When I finally got around to opening the case, I found out the newer part was already in there anyway. I haven't bothered playing with the jumper at this point and I'm not sure I ever will. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The fact is not lost on me that the above description sounds like it would be absolutely terrible with the HD800. Don't ask me why it works so well - it just does. Rather than sounding lively and exciting in a sort of "on edge" way, with heightened treble peaks, it actually sounds very smooth and controlled but still extended. It doesn't roll off or turn the HD00 into an LCD-2, but it does keep the treble in line with an iron fist. Perhaps the constant current design of the amp section is more capable than the average amp when it comes driving the HD800 and its "interesting" impedance characteristics. Whatever the case, I'll take it. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] CONCLUSION[/size]
[size=small] DACs have really come a long way. In the past few years alone, I've seen the price of your average "really good sounding" DAC drop to between $1,000 and $2,000, where prior it had been several times that. Sound approaching state-of-the-art is now a lot more attainable. The only problem with this equation is the expansion of choices, which is not necessarily a bad problem to have.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] So where does the NuForce DAC-100 fit in? I'd say it is definitely worthy of the price, and competes well with models in the same bracket. I definitely prefer it to numerous competitors such as the PS Audio NuWave (too bright and digital sounding), Rega DAC (fun but not very resolving and overly dark), W4S DAC1 (too clinical), and Musical Fidelity M1 (generally unimpressive on many levels). Does it beat out every DAC in the price range? No. The Violectric V800 ($1300) and Matrix X-Sabre ($1099), both offer slightly better overall sound quality. But each has its own unique presentation and neither has a built in amp section much less a (selectively) excellent one like the DAC-100. So it's a tradeoff. And the DAC-100 might actually be better than either of those in certain cases, if the user values a more engaging, lively sound in their DAC. System synergy would definitely come in to play here.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] It's hard not to feel like the DAC market is a bit overcrowded at the moment. NuForce has a tough road ahead of them in terms of distinguishing their DAC-100 from the rest of the pack. Yet I think they deserve to succeed. It's not the perfect DAC but with an exciting, dynamic sound, and lots of functionality, this unit is truly worthy of consideration. That's not something I can say for many competitors. [/size]

 
 
[size=small]Cable upgrades - still a point of contention in audiophile circles. Some people swear by them, and some find them to be a complete waste. There are zealots on each side but many of us fall somewhere in the middle. I've written about this topic several times: once here[/size][size=small] where I was more on the skeptical side, and then later here[/size][size=small] where I was more willing to embrace the potential for improvement. Tyll Hertsens recently addressed the topic in a two part series - part 1[/size][size=small] and part 2[/size][size=small] which generated some interesting comments. My views on cables tend to line up fairly similarly to Tyll's - I don't think I can really prove that I'm hearing anything, and I'm willing to accept the idea that it's all in my head, but I still find it a worthwhile upgrade depending on the situation.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Once again, it's important to remember the perspectives of other people. The skeptic will read my statement above and picture me heading down a slippery slope that inevitably leads to a room full of Machina Dynamica "tweaks". If the only criteria is that "it sounds better to me and that's all I care about" then we aren't too far removed from Tice Clocks and Shakti Stones. I can certainly understand that line of reasoning and it's important for one to know where to draw the line with regards to what they are willing to put up with in the name of audio improvements. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] On the flip side, the reasonable cable enthusiast likely sees in their detractor an equally slippery slope. If I'm only allowed to enjoy gear that has a definitively clear, measurably obvious benefit, unequivocally proven to surpass the audible threshold for humans, then before long I'll be forced to abandon my high-end home rig in favor of an O2/ODAC combo playing 320k mp3 files. This may sound unreasonable but it's not hard to find people arguing for just this type of thing. Apparently my Sansa Clip was all I ever really needed for most headphones, and I've been wasting my time with most of this other stuff. Who knew?[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] There has to be some middle ground where these two paths converge into something more sensible. As with most things in life, moderation seems to be the key. Examples of this moderation - dismiss any potential cable upgrades costing more than the headphones they are supposed to enhance. Be willing to accept the idea that your cable might sound better purely due to placebo and confirmation bias. Realize that no amount of objective proof will likely ever come forth showing cables to be worthwhile. Be willing to allow others some extravagance even if you may find it silly (this goes for many things, from cables to watches to fountain pens). And possibly most important of all - don't upgrade a cable to fix a headphone that you don't really like in the first place! If we all adopted these types of attitudes, there would be far less contention on forums like this.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The Cable[/size]
[size=small] Where am I going with all this? Nowhere in particular. It's just a setup for the introduction of the 93PC IEM cable ($189) from 93East, which is the in-house cable division of custom IEM maker Stage93. I linked earlier to my review of their excellent 93SPEC cable which is made from UP-OCC silver and sells for $230. I don't quite know what the 93SPEC is named for, but the "PC" in 93PC stands for Premium Copper. Apparently Stage93 began developing this cable at the same time as its silver counterpart. This copper cable is more complex and ended up taking longer to complete. It uses 105 strands of OCC cryo treated copper arranged in a 4-way braid, with a proprietary treatment that should help avoid oxidation. The treatment involves enamel coating and is unique to this cable - it supposedly has zero drawbacks in terms of sound quality but should keep the cable looking new for a long time. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The 93PC comes in a standard 50" length with and Oyaide Gold plug and the ubiquitous wooden choker for a cinch. The initial run uses their "overfreeze" plugs which are compatible with what I call the "standard" custom IEM socket - Westone, Heir, JH, older UE, 1964 Ears, Unique Melody, Cosmic Ears, Aurisonics, and most other brands of customs should work, regardless of whether they have flush or recessed sockets. Those customers with a relatively non-standard connection such as LiveWires should email 93East and they should be able to accommodate the request. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The general "feel" of the cable is that of very high quality. It seems mostly identical in build to the pricier 93SPEC model, with the obvious exception of color. There are minor differences though - the braid is done slightly differently, and the copper model seems very slightly thicker than the silver version. They don't list the gauge of the wire so it very well could be thicker, or it could just have to do with the clear jacket being thicker. My 93SPEC has an angled Oyaide Gold plug while my 93PC uses the straight version - you choose when you order, and both are very nice.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 

 
 
 

 

 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The Sound[/size]
[size=small] So..... how does it sound? Well, that's kind of a loaded question. Since you don't listen to an actual cable itself, but rather the IEM attached to it as well as the source and amplifier, I don't think it's fair to say a cable has a strict sound. But I did notice the difference as compared to stock cables - a very small difference in some cases, and a more noticeable difference in others. As I always say: do not add this $189 cable to a $399 CIEM and expect it to perform like a $999 product. It just won't happen. In many cases the money is better spent moving up to the next higher model of headphone. But once you have settled on a headphone or IEM that you love, a cable can sometimes help you get the most out of it.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Having set this up with all those qualifiers and stipulations, I do think that the 93PC cable does some good things for the sound. Where the pure silver 93SPEC cable is more focused on clarity and refinement - a sort of "Hi-Fi" experience - the copper 93PC is what I'd call more of a "musical" experience. It seems to firm up the bass to a noticeable degree, offering greater texture and refinement but also more slam compared to the stock cable. It's a subtle thing though - I'm not talking about a huge change, which would be considered a coloration and could actually be a negative thing. It's more the case of the 93PC letting the IEM perform to its fullest potential. Depending on the model being used, this potential might already be tapped using the stock cable. But with something like a UM Merlin that has exceptional bass capabilities, the improvement with this cable is surprisingly noticeable to my ears. Could I pick it out in a blind test? Maybe. I'd like to think so. But such a test is highly impractical with custom IEMs, so there's no point in speculating. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Aside from the low frequency improvement, the 93PC just sounds more rich and full to my ears. It's got a bit of smoothness to it - not omitting detail, but just presenting it in a more fluid way. This part was more obvious with higher end IEMs, generally the flagship models. My dual and even triple driver models didn't really benefit as much in this area as they tend to be less revealing than their higher driver-count siblings. Again, this supports my theory that it's best to spring for the best IEM you can afford right from the start, and add a cable later if you feel the desire. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I used the 93PC with a variety of custom IEMs and found it to consistently offer the same sonic fingerprint - it was more obvious in some situations than others, but never went in a completely different direction. I got the most pleasing benefit with my JH13 FreqPhase, Lear LCM-5, Heir Audio 6.A LE, Westone ES5, and Unique Melody Merlin. Those are all very high resolution CIEMs and they responded happily to the added clarity as well as the extra kick. My Merlin is a prototype unit with less bass than the production model, and I suspect that's why it works so well. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] My Heir Audio 8.A and 1964 Ears V3 did not fare as well. Not that they sounded bad with the 93PC, because they didn't. It's just that neither of those CIEMs really needs any added body. They already have a thickness of note that is just perfect on its own, so the 93PC actually makes them seem slightly unbalanced in comparison. Perhaps if I had acquired the cable and either of those CIEMs at the same time, and never heard them with the stock cable, I might find the 93PC more appealing. As it stands, I have an expectation of how I "know" the 8.A and V3 should sound, so the upgraded cable throws me off a little. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Others that do work very well: Frogbeats C4, Heir Audio 4.A, and LiveWires Trips (reshelled by Heir Audio) all sound marginally better with the 93PC. It's a welcome improvement but not quite as significant as it is with the higher end models. Still, if I was a happy owner of one of these and wanted to eke the last bit of performance out of them, I'd definitely consider the 93PC. And here's where my earlier comment about buying the best IEM you can afford sort of falls apart a little: In the case of the Heir 4.A and Frogbeats C4, going higher in the line changes the sound to a more bass heavy signature. Yes, the Heir 8.A and Frogbeats C5 are considered "flagship" models, but each has a more fun, bass heavy presentation. If that's not really your thing, and you want to stick with a neutral IEM, the C4 or the 4.A are the highest models in that genre. So buying one of those plus an upgraded cable actually does make some sense if that sound signature is more to your liking. The 93PC will warm things up just a tad, without creating a major difference in terms of balance. Both models remain very neutral and transparent, yet seem to reach slightly deeper and have more fleshed out bass response. It's a welcome addition in my opinion.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Compared to its pure silver 93SPEC counterpart, the copper 93PC seems focused on warmth and smoothness as opposed to absolute clarity and transparency. In some cases I actually prefer the 93PC over the more expensive 93SPEC - the aforementioned Heir 4.A and Frogbeats C4 are prime examples. There were times when I preferred the Lear LCM-5 with the 93PC as well, though not always. It depends on mood and the choice of music being played. Overall they are both very nice cables and the choices comes down to character preference.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Keep in mind that all this listening was done on what I consider nice to very nice gear. I wouldn't bother with cables at all if I was using my Sansa Clip+ or some other simple configuration. But using the $860HiFi ET MA9 in a portable situation, or some high end unit at home like the $4k Resonessence Labs Invicta - that's where the difference is more likely to be noticed.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Conclusion[/size]
[size=small] With the 93PC, 93 East becomes a more established cable maker who offers something of a "lineup" as opposed to just a single cable. I doubt they will ever compete with dedicated companies such as Toxic Cables in terms of variety, but 2 cables is a good start. Everything about this model is impressive: from the ultra-high strand count to the unique enamel coating for supreme durability, nothing on this design was left to chance. Yet at less than $200 it remains sensibly priced considering the attention to detail. Highly recommended. My next step is to investigate the Stage93 custom IEMs - if they build cables this well, I'd love to hear what they can accomplish in their original market. [/size]

 
 
[size=small]The Audinst HUD-mx1 compact DAC/headphone amp was a great little unit. It also happened to be one of the very first reviews that I did at HeadFi. In the subsequent years I've gone on to review dozens of other products from amps to DACs to headphones and more, and I also went on to become something of a "real" reviewer at InnerFidelity. Through all that, I've never stopped recommending the Audinst mx1 as a cheap, reliable unit that sounds good and doesn't take up much space.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Audinst later went on to release a portable amp (the AMP-HP) and another DAC/amp unit (the HUD-mini). Both of these were strong competitors in their respective categories and the HUD-mini came dangerously close to being superior to the mx1, despite being a bit cheaper. Now Audinst launches a refreshed version called the HUD-mx2. It looks nearly identical to the mx1 but adds several important features and upgrades a lot of other things too. With a price increase to $248, a roughly $70 increase over the original, is the mx2 a worthy successor?[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] DESIGN[/size]
[size=small] The mx2 looks almost exactly like the mx1. The case is slightly larger but for the most part they look very close. Both have the same silver faceplate with a slight curve to it. Both have the same black chassis. Both use the same dual headphone jacks (1/4" and 1/8"), the same RCA jacks, etc. Aside from added features, the only thing that is really changed is the volume knob. Gone is the rubbery, slightly tapered knob of the mx1, replaced with a larger aluminum knob that looks and feels superior. I never had issues with the original but I can see how this new design allows for more precise volume tracking due to the larger circumference.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Despite their similar looks, those familiar with the mx1 will notice a few new things. A Toslink input joins the Toslink output, meaning this is now a dual source DAC. A front panel switch allows the user to choose from Toslink or USB connections. The output still works the same as it did with the mx1, essentially making the unit act as a USB to SPDIF converter in addition to the DAC and headphone amp capabilities. It also keeps the same Dolby Digital pass through function for those using surround sound receivers.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The rest of the changes reside on the interior of the unit. And those changes are numerous. The DAC has been switched from a Wolfson WM8740 to a theoretically superior TI PCM1796. The USB receiver, formerly the Tenor TE7022L, is now a VIA Envy VT1728 which means the unit now supports all sample rates up to 96kHz, including 88.2kHz (which the mx1 did not). The mx2 uses dual LME49860 opamps for I/V conversion instead of just one like the original. Following the I/V stage is a differential amplifier based around an OPA2227. From there the signal passes to the line-out stage which appears very similar to the mx1 and uses the same OPA2134 opamp. The OPA2227 and OPA2134 are socketed and can be swapped. The LME49860 opamps can not. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The headphone amp section is changed as well - where the mx1 had an AD8397 opamp handling all amp duties, the mx2 uses a TPA6120A2 driver chip. This allows for significantly more powerful output. The specs on the mx2:[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] 1.5W at 32 ohm, 5Vrms[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] 300mW at 300 ohm, 7Vrms[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] 160mW at 600 ohm, 7Vrms[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Those are some high numbers. The TPA6120 is certainly capable of that much output (and even more according to the datasheet) but the problem is heat: it gets very warm, and requires a thermal pad underneath to help with dissipation. That's why it can be difficult to implement in a DIY design. That probably also explains the venting holes on the rear of the mx2 which were not present on the mx1. I'm doubtful these are the actual measurements, especially on USB power, but are probably more of a "best case scenario" type of deal. Either way, there's no shortage of juice here.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Output impedance is a mere 2 ohms, down from 5 on the mx1. This means very little chance of impedance related interactions even with the crazy impedance swings of multi-driver balanced armature IEMs. It also means sufficient power for difficult planar headphones. The mx1 was released before planars became prominent, and could only deliver a few hundred mW into low impedance loads. That was plenty for most dynamic designs but headphones like the LCD-2 and HE-500 thrive on high current and the mx2 is far better suited in that area. I'm not sure how many people will be using expensive LCD-2s and HE-500s with this budget DAC/amp unit, but it's nice to know they can if they want to. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] As some astute readers may already know, the TI TPA6120 datasheet specifies a 10 ohm output impedance for stability. And we normally see this followed, in designs ranging from the budget Fiio E9 to the high end Kao Audio UD2C. But there are ways around it. For example, NwAvGuy shows one method HERE  where he drops output impedance below 1 ohm by adding some SMD ferrites into the circuit, on top of the 10 ohm resistors. Looking at the mx2, I believe Audinst used a similar method - but it's difficult to tell for sure with these tiny SMD parts. NwAvGuy noted a penalty paid in terms of measurable distortion but it was arguably below the audible threshold and overall a worthwhile trade-off for the superior output impedance. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Like the original model, the mx2 has an internal jumper to adjust gain. In this case it has 2 jumpers but the function remains the same - output impedance doesn't change but the gain factor does. Audinst recommends the "normal" gain setting for loads up to and including 300 ohms, and the high gain setting for 300 ohm through 600 ohm loads. In practice, I ended up leaving my unit on low gain all the time. High gain may be useful for certain 600 ohm headphones like the AKG K240DF but I no longer own anything like that. 300 ohm Sennheisers work fine on normal gain so I see no reason to switch for most users.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The last feature has to do with functionality. The USB input is now able to interface with devices such as the iPad through the Camera Connection Kit, or Android phones such as the Samsung Galaxy S3 through an OTG cable. For some, this feature won't mean much, but I think it's a good thing based on the target market for a device like this. I can totally see a person using it at work, for example, where an increasing amount of companies lock down their computers for any external peripherals. That means adding the mx2 as a USB DAC is not an option, and likely neither is adding an external hard drive or SD card full of music. But the mx2 could still work by using a phone or iPad as the transport. Same situation in a college dorm, a bedside setup, or many other scenarios. Bottom line is that the added functionality is very welcome.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  
 

 
 

 

 
 
There is slightly more free space here compared to the mx1, due to the widening of the board,
required to fit that extra front panel switch to select USB or Toslink:
 

 

 
 
 
 
The new headphone section:

 
The new differential amplifier for the DAC section:

 
The actual DAC chip:

 
The AKM receiver, TXCO clock, and VIA USB chip

[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] LISTENING[/size]
[size=small] The HUD-mx2 builds on the Audinst "house sound" originally established by the HUD-mx1 and continued with the HUD-mini. It's a relatively neutral sound, not overly dry or boring, and it works with a variety of equipment. I started by using the unit as a USB DAC with my desktop PC, also acting as a preamp to feed my powered Serene Audio Talisman speakers. The mx2 does a good job of controlling volume - balance is essentially perfect across the range and there's no static or undesirable noise during adjustment. I normally use a more expensive Audiotrak DR DAC 2 DX Muses Edition in this setup, which is actually very similar to the HUD-mx2. But more on that later. I played some of my favorites tracks from Marta Gomez, Livingston Taylor, and Eric Clapton, and all sounded excellent. The detail level seems noticeably improved over the original mx1 model - it isn't a complete night and day difference, but enough to move the mx2 one step higher on the food chain. I also played my 24-bit/88.2kHz version of Classic Brubeck and appreciated the native 88.2 support which was not present on the original model.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Next I tried a dedicated headphone amp, using the mx2 as a DAC. I plugged in my Violectric V200, which is an amp I know very well, and listened to the Audeze LCD-2.2 with various hi-res test tracks. Again I noticed a neutral and fairly transparent sound, with very little character of its own. Bass had nice depth and realism, and timbre was accurate. Soundstage was nicely sized too, with believable imaging. This combo sounded pretty darn good. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I normally use the matching V800 DAC with my V200, which is far more expensive than the little mx2. The Audinst sounded more closed in, with less of a clear window into the performance. It had less extension on both ends but particularly in the lowest lows - which is exactly what I'd expect given the price discrepancy. Yet taken on its own, the mx2 was a capable performer and didn't represent a massive bottleneck. Sure, one could spend more and get more, but nothing about the mx2 is completely objectionable. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I tried the Toslink output from my motherboard and got a sound which was very similar to USB. I thought perhaps USB was more "crisp" and had more defined leading edges, while optical was ever so slightly more relaxed. But this could reflect the optical signal from my motherboard just as much as the Audinst itself. In a computer situation I'd choose USB just out of convenience anyway but Toslink is nice to have around since it opens up new possibilities. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Next, I got rid of the V200 amp and started using the headphone jacks on the mx2 directly. This is where I noticed the single largest difference as compared to the original model. The mx2 simply does soundstage, drive, clarity, and pretty much everything else, better than the mx1. The sonic signature shifts a little bit from slightly forgiving to bold and energetic. Vocals sound especially good - from sultry singers like Jacintha, to the powerful and soulful Beverly Knight, to Annetet Olzon (formerly) of symphonic metal band Nightwish, vocals seem more present and up front. More "believable" for lack of a better word. Not that the mx1 was bad in this area but the mx2 just goes farther. The only potential drawback is with brighter headphones with peaky highs. If someone found a set of Grados barely tolerable on the mx1, the mx2 might push them over the edge. That's not really the fault of the Audinst though - it's just giving you more of a true representation of what the headphone is all about. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I really like the LCD-2.2 straight from the headphone jack. Again, it isn't as good as the dedicated and far more expensive Violectric unit, but it does a very credible job. It also sounds great with my HE-500, HE-400, and Thunderpants planars. I don't care how efficient HiFiMAN makes them, planar magnetic headphones seem to love high current, so the redesigned amp is very welcome here. All of these models should be seeing 1W or more from the mx2 and it really works well, especially compared to the original model which wasn't very satisfying with those models. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I also tried some more affordable headphones which are far more likely to be paired with the mx2 by regular users. The NuForce HP-800 and the VMODA M80 both sounded very nice. Both have a somewhat darker presentation, the former more so than the latter, and both benefit from the slightly energetic Audinst. It's not enough to turn them into a K701, but it helps even things out a little compared to a completely neutral amp. I can't decide which one I like more - the HP-800 has thunderous bass that sounds very good for the price, but the M80 has sweeter and more engaging midrange. Either way, this would make a great starter system for someone just getting into the hobby and not wanting to spend a ton of cash. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Next I switched to IEMs which can be a good test as they can reveal issues with the noise floor in a lot of amps. The Audinst is thankfully very quiet, with no buzz or hiss or anything like that. It's a small thing, but I appreciate having a dedicated 1/8" jack on the front panel. Not that using an adapter is a big deal, but the dedicated jack just feels better. I really enjoyed it with the Heir Audio 8.A and particularly the 1964 Ears V3, which is a relatively affordable CIEM that is more likely to be used with the mx2 as compared to the more expensive 8.A. The V3/mx2 combo produced a detailed sound that remained smooth and grain free, with excellent dynamics and deep bass extension. I'm spoiled by my high-end gear but even I am impressed with this simple and reasonably priced combination. The only thing to watch for is with brighter IEMs - I'm not sure I love the mx2 with my Lear LCM-5 or even with my JH13 FreqPhase. It seems to accent the upper mids and highs just a little too much, making them seem overly aggressive. It's listenable but not ideal. This would probably apply similarly to other universal IEMs like the DBA-02. Interestingly, I didn't have a problem with the HiFiMAN RE-400 at all. It sounded clear and present but not overly so. So I guess it's worth trying everything to see what works best. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] All of the above comparisons were done straight from USB power. In that case the device runs at 5V internally. Adding the bundled external power supply brings operating voltage up to 12V. The benefit in terms of DAC sound quality is limited - I sometimes thought it sounded slightly better, but it might be my imagination, and I really doubt I could reliably tell them apart in an A/B comparison. The downside is when running from the external PSU - the enclosure of the mx2 gets fairly warm, which doesn't happen with regular USB power. It's not a huge concern of mine but I figured I'd mention it. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] It is worth mentioning that this higher operating voltage determines which opamps are suitable for use. So opamp rollers need to take note. Something like a Muses01 needs at least 9V which wouldn't be satisfied when running in USB mode, but would be fine with the external PSU. Not that Audinst users will likely be lining up to try that particular opamp which is around $50 a pop, but you get the idea.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] For headphone use, I do notice a difference when using external power, depending on the headphones being used. It does seem to help with clarity and drive on the HE-500 and to a lesser extent the LCD-2. With most dynamic headphones I notice less of a difference if any difference at all. I'd say that 90% of the time or more the external power is not necessary, but it's sure nice to have the option. I do have a NuForce LPS-1 linear power supply which should theoretically work with the mx2 - I need to give that a try one of these days and see how it does.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Comparisons[/size]
[size=small] The main comparison that came up for me was with the Audiotrak DR DAC 2 DX Muses Edition. The Audiotrak sold for $329 (but was often available for less) and has many similarities to the Audinst in terms of features and appearance. Unfortunately it appears that Audiotrak has upgraded yet again to what they call the "Top Edition" which uses Muses 8920 opamps in place of the 8820 in my unit, as well as some upgraded capacitors and other parts. The new TE sells for $329 and I can't find it any cheaper. So the comparison I'm doing might not be all that relevant at this stage but here it is anyway.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The Audinst is nearly a match for the more expensive Audiotrak unit in almost every way. The key difference is the sound signature of the headphone output - while Audiotrak is slightly warm and smooth, the mx2 is more energetic. It has more sparkle, and thus creates a more lively feel. The result is dependent on headphone pairing - mx2 sounds better with LCD-2 and Audiotrak works better with bright headphones like K701.  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] As a DAC both units are very similar. Audiotrak has a slightly more laid back, relaxed midrange, while Audinst is more forward and "snappy". But the differences are small. Overall the mx2 is impressive here - it competes with the $329 Audiotrak which is a nice unit in its own right. And subjectively I like the mx2 appearance much better.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The Grant Fidelity TubeDAC-11 ($350) is very stiff competition, and the Audinst doesn't quite beat it. The TubeDAC-11 is more resolving, and more natural, though the margin is not huge. Audinst has some functionality that the TubeDAC doesn't - Dolby Digital passthrough via optical out, USB to SPDIF conversion, support for 88.2kHz sample rates, a dedicated 1/8" headphone jack. In return, the TubeDAC has some unique options of its own - more inputs, a tube headphone output (by way of an adapter), and multiple options for DAC output (tube, SS variable, SS fixed). It has a more robust power supply and looks like a more "serious" audio component if that matters to you. Obviously the Audinst is far better suited to be used as a transportable solution, so each unit has its place. For ultimate fidelity the TubeDAC is king, but the Audinst is not completely blown away and has some advantages, including its low price.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] In a surprise comeback, the Matrix Audio Cube DAC has dropped from $299 to $199. That's a great price for a quality unit, and it becomes serious competition to the Audinst HUD-mx2. Ultimately I believe the mx2 is the better sounding option, with more refined highs and superior transparency. The Cube is a compelling buy for the price though. Companies are competing heavily for this market segment, and there's no way the Audinst would walk away with the category without some tough competition. The current version of the Cube has swappable opamps (mine doesn't) and could possibly be tweaked to extract further performance. But the same applies for Audinst.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Conclusion[/size]
[size=small] Audinst has shown itself to be an established audio company by consistently releasing one good design after another. The HUD-mx2 is the best of the bunch so far - it takes the established Audinst "house sound" which first debuted in the original HUD-mx1, and turns it up a notch or two. In this rapidly progressing field, where many good options exist, and there's simply no way the mx2 could be a "giant killer" or anything of the sort. It lies squarely in an area where spending more can certainly get you more - unlike high end multi-thousand dollar DACs where spending more often nets a "change" but not necessarily an improvement. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] But don't let this dissuade you - the HUD-mx2 is one of the best values currently available. For a lot of users it will surpass the "good enough" mark where more spending will simply not be necessary. With its powerful and refined headphone stage, it makes a good argument for throwing the bulk of your cash at the best headphone you can afford. The HiFiMAN HE-400 makes a particularly good combo, though others also work well. IEMs are also fair game thanks to the low noise, low output impedance, and improved volume control. All in all the Audinst HUD-mx2 just "works" and I can easily recommend it. [/size]
 
 

 

 

 
[size=small]I've had some surprisingly good experiences with NuForce products lately. Their DDA-100 (review pending) is a spectacular all in one integrated. Their Cube compact speaker, which seemed like a toy when I first saw it, is actually rather enjoyable and proves very useful in a number of situations. Their LPS-1 power supply feeds an Auraliti PK90 music server in my reference system and offers a noticeable step up from the stock wall wart. That's 3 for 3 so far - a good record. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] When they offered to send me a review sample of their new HP-800 full size headphone, I feared the streak was about to end. Don't get me wrong - NuForce knows a thing or two about IEMs, as proven by their well regarded NE-700 series from a few years back, and more recently the affordable NE-600  models. But a full size headphone? At $150? That seemed like kind of a stretch, especially considering the competition in that price range. Companies like Sennheiser have been working that market for decades, and NuForce - primarily specializing in digital products like amps and DACs - expects to beat them at their own game? Sounds far fetched. Then again, HiFiMAN and Audeze both arrived onto the scene virtually out of nowhere with killer first offerings, so I figured it was at least possible.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] DESIGN AND BUILD[/size]
[size=small] The HP-800 is a full sized sealed headphone. It uses 40mm dynamic drivers with neodymium magnets. The cups are made from aluminum and the pads are memory foam covered by a reasonably nice pleather. It features a detachable single-entry cable system that connects with a standard 1/8" plug similar to the VMODA M80. Bundled cables include a shorter version in the typical "headphone rubber" and a longer, fabric clad cable. Both options terminate in a 1/8" jack with the longer cable coming attached with a gold plated 1/4" adapter. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The frame is plastic and uses a self-adjusting headpad system which I find very comfortable - it's similar to an AKG K701 (minus the bumps), and even more similar to the Kenwood K1000 for the few people who have used that model. Overall I find the HP-800 to be well built, with the partial-metal construction seeming more classy and substantial than the typical plastic found in this price range. And the gold "NU" on each cup adds a bit of flare to the otherwise low-key design. I also like the red lining inside the cups - another unexpected splash of color. Reading this description, it sounds kind of garish, but in real life it just works.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] In terms of comfort, my only complaint is the pads being smaller than they appear from the outside, and touching my ears a bit more than I'd like. I should mention that my ears are on the larger side and this problem is more common to me than most other people. It's still very comfy though and the many angles of adjustment mean almost everyone should be able to get a good fit. Despite the "substantial" feel I mentioned, the HP-800 is not very heavy - your ears will get sweaty long before your neck gets tired from the weight. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Isolation is about average for a closed headphone. It does far better than the supra-aural VMODA M80, and better than the Denon D7000 as well (which isn't saying a whole lot). It's about the same as the Audio Technica W1000X and the Kenwood K1000, and trails behind the Thunderpants TP1 and Ultrasone Signature Pro. The bottom line is that sound leakage is not a problem, and outside noise is attenuated to a moderate degree. I can still make out the sound of someone talking nearby, but it's pretty muffled. With music playing the outside world is almost completely drowned out save for the loudest leaf blower or passing motorcycle. In my view, it's definitely "good enough" as closed headphones go.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] GEAR[/size]
[size=small] I burned in the HP-800 for a few hundred hours prior to listening (I was busy). I then used it in two different systems, each on very different ends of the spectrum. The smaller system begins and ends with the Meizu MX 4-Core Android phone. The Meizu is quite good sounding, easily superior to most other phones I've used and only a bit lacking compared to the better dedicated "audiophile" DAPs on the market.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] On the other end of the scale, I used my main system which is just slightly more expensive than what I'd picture being used with the HP-800 in most cases. This system consists of an Auraliti PK90 music server being powered by a NuForce LPS-1 power supply, feeding an Izmo M1 USB to SPDIF converter via a NuForce Impulse USB cable. The M1 sends the SPDIF signal through a NuForce Precision coaxial cable which connects it to a Resonessence Labs Invicta DAC. From there, NuForce Focused Field interconnects take the signal out to a Violectric V200 for amplification. Overkill? Absolutely. At least we know the HP-800 won't be the weak link.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] LISTENING[/size]
[size=small] The HP-800 took me a while to get used to. Coming from my JH13 FreqPhase, Lawton LA7000, Heir Audio 6.A LE, Audeze LCD-2.2, Beyer T1, and other high end models, the HP-800 sounded.... well, let's just say it sounded like a $150 headphone among $1,000 headphones. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not exciting either. As usual, spending time with it and refraining from switching to a higher end model in between, my brain adjusted and I started really digging the sound. A reference, neutral studio monitor these ain't. But for what they are, they do a good job, and in some ways perform at a higher level than the price would indicate.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The overall signature is definitely bass oriented. The bass hits hard, deep, and is the most attention grabbing aspect of the headphone. If you simply cannot abide a fairly significant bass boost, then stop right now: this is not the headphone for you. If you fancy yourself a "basshead" keep reading because the HP-800 should be right up your alley. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Not only is the bass loud and low, but it has surprisingly capable texture and definition. Far from the typical "one-note" sound plaguing many popular bass-heavy models, the HP-800 is among the better bass presentations I've heard and could fit right in on a more expensive headphone. Like the HiFiMAN HE-400, it's almost unbelievable that such performance would come from a "lower tier" headphone. A lot of younger listeners or people new to the headphone world hold bass performance as job number 1, far surpassing all other considerations. For those people, the HP-800 is particularly well suited. Once I got used to the HP-800 bass presentation I actually started re-evaluating my other headphones in light of it. If this $150 model from NuForce can nail the slam of a bass drum, or the almost pain-inducing low notes of a pipe organ, or the authority of Anthony Lacen's tuba - why should I give a free pass to a Grado RS-1 or an Audio Technica W1000X or an AKG K701, all of which cost far more yet fall short in this area? I'm not saying the HP-800 is superior as a whole but it does set the bar rather high in terms of low frequency performance.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The only downside is that the bass doesn't quite maintain composure at ridiculous levels. The HE-400 (which, even as a "budget" model, still costs more than double compared to the NuForce) goes to "11" without breaking a sweat, while the HP-800 is only comfortable at moderately loud levels. In fact I'd say the entire presentation sounds best at medium volume. This wasn't a problem for me since I like my hearing and want to keep it for a while but some folks could find this to be a limiting factor. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The transition from lows to mids is handled fairly well - bass stays where it should without intruding and thus smearing the mids. Using frequency sweeps I hear a fairly large dip centered at 400Hz or so. It doesn't spread very far in either direction though. Once the response comes back from "the dip" it still seems a bit recessed but not drastically so. The results of this dip and somewhat recessed mids are mixed - sibilance in that area is kept in check (but isn't completely gone - see next section about the highs). Poorly mastered pop music is a little less terrible. Everything is pretty easy going and smooth - in a rather enjoyable way. Downsides? My chief complaint is with percussion instruments, such as congas, not having enough "slap" or "bite" to them. On the 24/96 release of "The Conga Kings" I didn't connect with the rhythm as much as I normally do. The Sennheiser HD598 (still $100 more expensive than the HP-800) is the king of budget headphones when it comes to midrange detail and they do much better in this area. But again, a 60+% price increase is significant, and they don't do bass nearly as deep or hard hitting as the HP-800. But realistically the HP-800 and HD598 don't compete with one another - an open headphone with a midrange emphasis versus a closed, bass heavy model is a battle that really comes down to listener preference rather than direct comparison. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Upper mids and highs on the HP-800 are mostly enjoyable. I say mostly because they do have a bit of minor peaky-ness in a few spots. There's a hint of sibilance which is weird because you never know where it will pop up - out of 10 different recordings of singers, maybe 2 of them will sound a bit hot at times. It's never a dealbreaker for me though and when it does pop up I simply think of the $150 price tag. Aside from that things are fairly smooth and even relaxed - vocals are set back in the mix but not so far as to be overly recessed, and things like snare drums have adequate snap without being piercing. I wouldn't mind cymbals having a bit less "energy" to them - perhaps this is due to those peaks I mentioned, but sometimes cymbals stand out too much and not in a realistic, "hey check out this awesome Zildjian" type of way. But again, this isn't a fatal flaw and at $150 I can live with it.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Soundstage and imaging are reasonably good if not class-leading - this is of course an area where the open HD598 will have a significant edge. Closed headphones of any type have a handicap already and it takes a high-end design to (mostly) overcome this limitation. Still, the HP-800 never feels completely 2 dimensional, and I'd say it competes well with most sub-$200 headphones. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] As far as equipment - the HP-800 sounds decent enough powered by the Meizu Android phone, but really comes to life using an amp. It doesn't have to be a ridiculously mismatched system like I used - a simple budget portable amp or desktop amp should suffice. With its relatively forgiving nature, almost any amp will do, and I did have good results when I briefly used budget gear like the Audinst HUD-mini, Shonyun 306, and TCG T-Box. So the HP-800 is very appropriate for an entry level setup.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] CONCLUSION[/size]
[size=small] The HP-800 is a great first attempt by NuForce. It's got a fun, bass heavy signature that I find very enjoyable when taken in the right context - that context being fun, not reference listening. This confuses me because the NuForce marketing material goes on and on about the HP-800 being a studio monitor, being used in mastering sessions and such. BS. There's no way this headphone would be suitable for that purpose. The interesting thing is that I do feel the sound is very appropriate for the mainstream headphone audience - IE, it would be a great choice for someone who would otherwise end up with Beats or some other terrible marketing-driven headphone. Somewhere along the line NuForce got mixed up in the marketing and went in the wrong direction. Maybe they felt the need to address the more "serious" audiophile market instead of catering to the already over-saturated fashion headphone crowd. I can see the thinking behind that but I feel it's more important to present the HP-800 for what it is and let the quality speak for itself. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] If it sounds like I'm being too harsh on the HP-800, then I apologize - that's not what I mean to convey. It's actually because I like it, and hear so much potential in it, that I can avoid the major complaints and focus on the more nit-picky stuff. Overall it's a rather enjoyable headphone that I can see being a good upgrade for the first time HeadFier, or even as a second "fun" headphone for a person who normally uses a more neutral higher end model but wants to rock out once in a while. If you fit either of those categories, I recommend you give the HP-800 some serious consideration. Well done, NuForce. [/size]
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
[size=small]HiFiMAN needs no introduction around here, so I'll simply share my opinion briefly. In my mind, not only are they one of the premier manufacturers of headphones and related gear, but - and this is possibly more important - they deserve a lot of credit for helping advance the headphone industry in general. Of course, they aren't alone in this category. Plenty of others have done amazing things over the last few years. But I can't think of anyone who even approaches the broad portfolio of HiFiMAN. They have gear competing for best-in-class in a variety of categories - their HE series of planar magnetic headphones, their RE series of IEMs, their EF series desktop amps, their HM series of portable players... all that remains is a dedicated DAC or two to completely cover the full range of HeadFi hear. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I've reviewed the HE-400 headphones and loved them. I also use the HE-500 and those are great too. But this is my first time actually having a HiFiMAN IEM of my own. I've heard some of the older models like the classic RE-0 and RE-ZERO, as well as the more recent RE-262, but never got to know them well enough to really form a solid opinion other than "they seem good". HiFiMAN contacted me and asked if I'd like to review their newRE-400 Waterline IEM ($99). Since I write for InnerFidelity as well and have plenty of reviews on deck, I wasn't sure if I would have time for this one. But I decided to work it in and boy am I glad I did. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] DESIGN[/size]
[size=small] Like all the prior RE models, RE-400 uses a dynamic driver. In this case HiFiMAN uses an advanced 8.5mm unit with a titanium driver. Impedance is rated at 32 ohm, sensitivity 102dB/1mW, max power 30mW. So don't try running this on HiFiMAN's powerful EF6 amp as it probably won't be ideal....[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The cable is made from OFC copper and has a cloth sleeve leading from the 3.5mm, semi-angled plug to the Y split. From there it uses a soft rubber material leading to the earpieces themselves. I speculate this section was left "unsleeved" to minimize microphonics. It feels kind of flimsy but also strong at the same time and very flexible which is a good thing. Having been in the IEM game for a few years now, I'm sure HiFiMAN knows what they are doing with respect to making sure cables are appropriately durable. Bonus points are awarded for the slider which appears to match the silver shells of the IEMs. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The IEM body itself is made from a metallic substance (aluminum?) and feels durable yet lightweight. There's a very small port on the bottom of each earpiece which is fairly common for dynamic based designs. Isolation doesn't seem to suffer - while these are no Etymotic ER4s, they do have moderate isolation as could be expected from a design like this that seems designed for medium insertion. I can get them to go in rather deep if forced but the sound gets worse - I don't think they were intended to be used in that way. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Looking at the pictures, or even seeing them in person, these don't seem like tiny IEMs. The Ultimate Ears UE700 or the Jays Q-jays are the two smallest models I can think of, and the RE-400 doesn't strike me as being in the same category with regards to size. Even so, it's definitely on the small side, and real life shows them to be smaller than I had expected. Even with medium insertion the shell nearly disappears into my ear and is hardly visible from the outside. This makes the RE-400 one of the few IEMs to be suitable for listening while laying down. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The RE-400 comes with a rather nice assortment of tips - think quality over quantity. I got good results with the typical medium sized single flange tip. But I got even better results from the medium biflange tips. I don't normally get along very well when it comes to dual or triple flange tips so I was surprised at this. These tips have each "layer" closer together than most biflages, and the insertion is barely deeper than the basic single flange tip, so perhaps that's why it works so well for me. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
 

 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] GEAR[/size]
[size=small] I listened to the RE-400 on a variety of equipment including:[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Sansa Clip+[/size]
[size=small] Meizu MX 4-Core[/size]
[size=small] iHiFi 960[/size]
[size=small] HiFi E.T. MA9[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I also used my big home setup based around an Auraliti PK90 player and a Resonessence Labs Invicta DAC/amp. The RE-400 hits the "sweet spot" of usability - it doesn't sound terrible on a basic player, but does scale reasonably well as your source and amplification improves. I appreciate this as some of my IEMs sound miserable on a basic DAP, and others top off too quickly. The RE-400 seems to have something for everyone. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 

 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] LISTENING[/size]
[size=small] The first thing that struck me about the RE-400 was the clarity. It's got a very clean, accurate presentation which defies any attempt to stereotype IEMs based on a "dynamic driver sound". If I believed the stereotypes, I would probably think this was an armature design but that just isn't the case. If you think all dynamic IEMs have thumping bass and somewhat slow or muffled highs, you obviously haven't heard enough of them to know better (and specifically, you haven't heard anything in the RE-series).[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The overall sound falls slightly onto the analytical side. It doesn't go as far as something like an Etymotic, but it does tend towards neutrality and precision rather than relaxed fun. Bass doesn't thunder but what's there is tight and accurate. I find that most of the time it is plenty satisfying for me - any type of rock or jazz, or practically any music using real drums, sounds very nice. Only when trying some hip-hop and electronic music where exaggerated bass is the focus, does the RE-400 seem occasionally lacking. What's there is great - there just sometimes isn't enough of it to rattle your ears in the way you might want. Again, this is a tuning choice rather than a deficiency, and the RE-400 joins the Sennheiser HD800, AKG K701, and many other models with deliberately non-bass-heavy sound signatures. But I don't want to make it sound too bass light - the RE-400 is plenty satisfying for me in all but a few cases. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Mids on the RE-400 are really the star of the whole show. Open, clear, and very transparent, they carry the listener further into the music than any $99 headphone has a right to. Vocals sound clear and lifelike. Snare drums have appropriate snap. Everything sounds "real" for lack of a better word. It's quite intoxicating, and forces me to cast an accusatory glace at some of my other (more expensive) IEMs like the $399 Westone AC2. The AC2 has some great bass but could definitely learn a thing or two from the RE-400 in terms of midrange transparency. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Because of this excellent midrange, the RE-400 works well with "audiophile" grade recordings. I had a great time listening to Marta Gomez - Cantos De Agua Dulce, Livingston Taylor - Ink, Oscar Peterson Trio - Night Train, and a boatload of classical works from a variety of labels. I even tried some DSD tracks through my Resonessence Labs Invicta and they sounded stunning. I can't think of a better $99 headphone or IEM with which to listen to great recordings. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The top end of the RE-400 is extended and clear, but not overly sparkly. For some people this will be very welcome - hot treble is something that really bothers certain people, and can kill an otherwise great listening experience. The RE-400 is nicely balanced - fairly clean and extended without being harsh or overly emphasized. The downside is that some people might find it a little boring. I personally don't hear it this way but I can see how someone else might. If your preference is geared towards the super-exciting, you may find the RE-400 a tad bland. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The good part about the highs being the way they are - this is not a completely unforgiving IEM. Sure, it sounds better with quality equipment and recordings. But it rarely becomes completely unlistenable. That's not the case with some of my high-end custom IEMs which practically demand a good source. I recently listened to a flagship custom (which shall remain nameless) on a Sansa Fuze - playing Mastodon's Crack The Skye, I could only handle a few tracks before I had to turn it off. It just sounded like a blurry, harsh mess. I'm very familiar with that album on my home setup and while it isn't exactly a Steve Hoffman masterpiece, it normally sounds far less strained. So I switched to the RE-400 and bingo! I could actually enjoy the music once more. There's a headline in there somewhere: "Extra! Extra! HiFiMAN RE-400 superior to $1,000+ 6 driver CIEM! Read all about it!" This is deceiving of course, because switch to a better source and that flagship custom completely dominates the RE-400 - as it should for the price. But what I'm getting at is this: the RE-400 is not overly analytical and actually does a great job with average quality sources. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 

 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] CONCLUSION[/size]
[size=small] I'll keep this fairly simple - the RE-400 is not a massive deviation from the earlier RE-series models. I'd call it more of an evolution than a revolution. It hasn't turned into a bass monster, nor has it gone completely ER-4S all over the place. Still, in some ways it does seem to have developed a more "universal" sound. I suspect the even response and clean sound will work for more people, though a few who previously loved the RE-0 might find RE-400 too homogenized for their taste.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] As far as I'm concerned, the RE-400 is about as good as it gets for $99, and then some. That includes IEMs and full sized headphones too. I can think of nothing else in the price range that has such smooth, transparent sound, and still remains engaging. Add in the quality build, excellent fit, and well-proven history of customer support, and it seems like an easy recommendation. HiFiMAN does it again![/size]

 
[size=small]iHiFi 960[/size]
 
 

 
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]I wrote at length about a quirky DAP from China called the iHiFi812v2 in THIS[/size][size=small] review. It's a great sounding unit with a few quirks that I can easily live with considering the positives it has. My biggest complaint - by far - has to do with the digital output, or more specifically the lack of digital ouput. I'm used to my QLS QA350 (another relatively obscure Chinese DAP) with coaxial and optical SPDIF outputs. Since the 812v2 looks very similar to the QA350, my brain just expects at least one digital out to be there, and gets disappointed when it isn't the case. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]iHiFi quickly followed up the release of their 812 with a higher end model called the 960 ($430) [/size][size=small]. The 812 is still available so the 960 is intended to sell concurrently as a higher model in the lineup. It's got a lot of similarities but also some differences with its cheaper sibling, so I'll list the significant changes here:[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]*Better enclosure - 30% smaller, better built, and subjectively better looking too, though a bit heavier[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]*Glass covering the screen - I never found the exposed LCD of the 812 to be a problem but now that I see the 960 it is a welcome change[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]*Digital outputs - we get coaxial and optical outs this time around![/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]*More storage - the 960 comes standard with 16GB of onboard storage rather than 8GB for the 812, though both have a micro-SD slot meaning expansion is cheap and easy[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]*Improved internals - the 960 features a superior low phase noise TCXO system clock. It also uses a National Semiconductor LME49720 for low-pass filtering rather than the Analog Devices AD8672 in the 812, which is not a clear improvement based on specs alone but must have some benefit in the circuit for them to have made the change. The 960 is rated at 109dB SNR while the 812 was somewhere around 100dB SNR (which I remember but can't find a reference for at the moment)[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]*Superior packaging - the 960 arrives in a fancy leather storage box, and comes with a premium looking optical cable as well as a 1/8" to RCA adapter which facilitates both the line-out and the coaxial digital out ports[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]*The high/low gain adjustment from the 812 is not present on the 960[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]Aside from that it's the same device - same AD1896 ASRC chip for upconversion to 24/192, same Wolfson WM8740 DAC, same AD8397 output stage for the headphone section, same Rockchip RK2705A-B CPU. The user interface is identical which means it's fairly solid as a basic player but lacks extras such as a useful EQ or playlist management. Since many things are similar, this review will focus on the differences - please be sure to read my 812v2 review to get the proper background so you know where I'm coming from.[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]Finished with that? Good. Now back to what I was saying. The 960 simply looks and feels more like a polished consumer electronics device. The 812 is well built but comes across like more like a headphone amp than a DAP, which brings it that much farther removed from the experience I am used to with an iPad or other consumer electronics device. Little details make the difference - the feel of the aluminum, the tactile feedback of the buttons, and especially the volume knob - the 960 is recessed and deliberately harder to turn, meaning it is less likely to get accidentally cranked full blast while the unit is in a pocket. The knob is also larger in diameter meaning precise adjustment is easier. Again, nothing wrong with the 812, but the 960 looks and feels superior. Finally, I feel like the screen is better, though it could simply be an artifact of the glass covering. I felt like the 812 looked kind of cheesy for lack of a better term, and that could have simply been my reaction to seeing an exposed LCD which is not very common these days. It's proven surprisingly tough, but of course the 960 should be tougher with the added layer of protection.[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]I also notice a difference in terms of sound - not just sound quality, but operational noise. The 812, while having no issues with background noise or hiss, did have a "thump" when powering off and even when skipping tracks. It wasn't terrible but did serve as a small reminder that I wasn't using a really high end DAP. The 960 seems to reduce this issue to some extent, though not completely. Turn off thump is still present but less abrupt, and the noise between tracks is now minimal. I'd still like this to be completely eliminated but I'm satisfied with the improvement here.  [/size]
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]USE[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]The most important new feature, in my opinion, is the pair of digital outputs. That makes the device useful as a transport in a home system rather than solely a portable player. Apparently there was no room for actual coaxial and Toslink jacks so iHiFi instead uses a series of 1/8" jacks all in a row. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]The jack on the right side is for headphones - simple enough. As expected, the volume control applies to this output (and only this output). When connecting headphones, make absolutely sure you don't use the wrong jack. That could be disastrous for your headphones and possibly your ears.[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]The middle jack is coaxial output and requires use of a 1/8" to RCA adapter. Normally those types of adapters lead to stereo red and white RCA connectors and such is the case with the bundled piece. Either red or white RCA jack can be used and both seem to pass the same digital signal. If I end up using this unit as a transport on a regular basis I'll probably get something like THIS[/size][size=small] instead because if not the spare RCA jack flopping around would drive me crazy. Worth noting is that the device uses a Pulse transformer for galvanic isolation of the coaxial output. Nice. Optical output by its very nature is already isolated and thus doesn't need any further hardware. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]The left jack is a combination line and optical output. To use as a line-out, simply insert the included 1/8" to RCA adapter, then connect it to an external amp using an interconnect of your choice. This gives a 2 Vrms line out which is not subject to volume control by the 960. To tap optical output, use the bundled (and very fancy looking) 1/8" to optical cable and feed it into an external DAC. This cable is thick and several feet long so it works great at home but obviously isn't good for "on the go" situations. Since a lot of portable amp/DAC units exist on the market today, a short cable may be necessary for portable users.Sys Concept[/size][size=small] is a good source for that sort of thing, and prices start around $50 for an ultra-short cable. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]Prior to receiving the 960, I had wondered what it would do for a digital output - would it be a native signal at 16-bit/44.1kHz or 16-bit/48kHz which is the limit of what the device will play? Or would the signal be sent after ASRC processing meaning it would be a 24/192 signal being sent to the external DAC? It actually turns out to be neither of those. As confirmed with multiple DACs I have handy that display bit depth and sample rate, the 960 puts out a 24-bit signal at the native sample rate of 44.1 or 48kHz depending on the recording. So for some reason it is padding the word lengths but not touching the sample rate. I have no clue why this would be happening based on what I understand of the hardware design. But I'm also not too concerned about it since the conversion from 16-bit to 24-bit simply involves padding with extra zeros and should not change the sound whatsoever - the DAC on the receiving end was probably going to add those zeros anyway.[/size]
 
 
 

Compared to the 812 - thinner...
 
 

...and shorter from front to back...
 
 

...and less wide, all by a small amount
[size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]SOUND[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]I already discussed the sound signature of the 812 and the same general character applies to the 960 as well. The whole thing is relatively neutral yet slightly smooth up top, great bass extension, plenty of drive for most headphones (no HE-6 please!), and a nice black background. None of that has really changed much in the 960. Which is good because all of that was already on a high enough level to satisfy. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]Where the 960 improves upon the 812 is in a few key areas: low end texture, micro-detail, and soundstage. I'll break these down piece by piece for further explanation.[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]First, low end texture. The 960 doesn't necessarily present lows as being any more prominent or impactful than the 812, nor does it extend lower. Which as I said is not really a problem - the 812 does those rather well already. What the 960 does do is increase the clarity of what's already there. I feel like I hear deeper into Gary Karr's "Amati" on the XCRD24 release of Super Double Bass, or for that matter the unknown (to me) bassist on Rahshaan Patterson's cover of the song Street Life, a track originally performed by The Crusaders (side note - the cover version is from the 1997 film Hoodlum - a mediocre film at best but a surprisingly good soundtrack if you like hip-hop and R&B - I found it for $.99 at a thrift store). It's not a huge difference but when listening with a headphone capable of great low-frequency accuracy, such as LCD-2 or Heir 6.A LE, I notice the improvement over the 812. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]Next, micro-detail. Both iHiFi devices do a good job of portraying things like triangles or snare drums as having an initial strike followed by a vibration, which varies in tone and sustain from one instrument to the next. Better sources have the ability to clearly render the initial strike, as well as the resulting vibration, as two distinct events. At the same time, they can't sound completely disconnected - hard to explain, but it's one of those "I know it when I hear it" type of situations. This is not merely a percussion related phenomenon but carries over to every type of instrument you can think of, each having its own variation based on its physical design. Micro-detail also encompasses background events - a metronome ticking away, a singer licking their lips prior to making their vocal entrance, or the classic "guy quietly coughing a few rows back at a live performance". The 960 does a better job of maintaining the integrity of these details, portraying them in a more convincing manner. Again - the 812 is not bad at all, it just isn't as good as the 960. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]Lastly, we come to soundstage. The 960 is a bit more spacious and open sounding, helping it more clearly recreate the performance space (either real or simulated in the studio). This assumes that type of information even exists in the recording which is increasingly rare in new recordings. This was most obvious when using the 960 via line out to one of my higher end amps - the built in amp is just resolving enough to give a small glimpse of this improvement, but my various high end amps show it more clearly. It became even more noticeable when listening through a speaker based system - whether using a desktop system like the Emotiva Airmotiv5 or Serene Audio Talisman, or using a living room setup like the Salk WOW1 or Sjofn Hifi (the clue) monitors, this spaciousness was easy to get used to. Going back to the 812 made things comparably flat and more closed in. But only briefly, until I got used to it again, at which point it became enjoyable once more.[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]I tend attribute all three of these improvements to the superior system clock on board. It's a similar improvement I hear when moving from the Yulong D100 to the D100 MKII, where the key change was an upgraded system clock. In that design, some other parts were tweaked to give it a slightly warmer tone. That isn't the case with the iHiFi units but the rest of it lines up pretty well as far as what the differences are.[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]These three aspects are not huge in the grand scheme of things. They all point to a sort of nebulous "more realistic" type of improvement that is easy to miss if one doesn't listen carefully for it on good associated gear. For that reason I would hesitate to call the 960 a big improvement over the 812. Honestly - for portable use (meaning less critical listening), based purely on the sound quality, I might not bother if that was the only difference. But of course there are other differences that shouldn't be overlooked.[/size]
 
 

As transport feeding the new Unique Melody Platform Pure 6 active CIEMs
 
 

Bundled Toslink cable - very nice but not good for portable use
 

 
[size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]TRANSPORT[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]I used the 960 as a transport with various DACs from higher priced to lower - Yulong Sabre D18, Matrix Cube, Anedio D2, Violectric V800, Resonessence Labs Concero, Audiotrak DR DAC2 DX, and probably a few more that I'm forgetting. I didn't notice any difference between the optical and coaxial outputs. I thought perhaps toslink would be inferior based on potentially higher jitter but I'm not hearing anything of the sort. The 960 makes a fantastic transport - easily as good as any of the $500-600 CD players I've heard, and honestly just a small distance behind my far more expensive Cambridge 840C. And why wouldn't it be? Battery power? Check. Galvanic isolation for the output? Yep. Low jitter, high accuracy TCXO clock? Affirmative. When you take away the spinning disc and associated hardware, things get a lot smaller without losing any quality. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]I would happily recommend this unit for someone who does a lot of their listening at home - start by using it as an all-in-one device. It sounds great and can power most headphones with ease. Next, add a desktop amp, using the line-out which sounds like a good entry-level DAC. That would last a long time and possibly be all you would ever need. Down the road, if even further refinement was desired, upgrade to an external DAC and feed it with the 960 being used as transport. The device grows with you and I'm always a big fan of that sort of thing.[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]DOWNSIDES[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]The 960 does pretty much everything the 812 does - either on par or possibly even better. I could be imagining things, but I feel like I'm getting slightly increased battery life - up from 10-12 hours to around 13 or 14 hours. But that can obviously change based on type of files being played, volume levels, and the type of connection being used. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]The one thing missing from the 960 is the adjustable gain, which the 812 does have. As I mentioned in that review, the high gain option isn't necessary most of the time. I only use it with a few headphones - HD650, Thunderpants, and Beyer T1. But even those models sound perfectly fine with the 960 - most of the time. I did have a few instances of listening to some quietly done audiophile recording (usually classical or really old jazz) where I could have used a bit more gain. But on 90% of my music, this was not an issues. And with a large majority of my full sized headphones, the 960 has plenty of juice both in terms of drive and volume. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]Just like the 812, the 960 is limited to recordings at 16-bit/48kHz or less. This was less of an issue with the 812 but I find it more annoying when using the 960. Since the device can send a digital signal out to an external DAC which then does the heavy lifting, it would be far more convenient to have at least 24/96 capabilities. I suspect this limitation comes from the Rockchip RK2705 SoC which looks to be an older and more basic unit than the current models. They don't list a datasheet on their website but I'm fairly certain this chip doesn't have enough power to handle hi-res material. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]I also suspect the older Rockchip is to blame for the user interface being necessarily simplistic. It actually wouldn't bother me one bit if it remained simplistic but had a few minor tweaks. My biggest complaint has to do with the choice of "repeat" modes. We get the option for repeating a single track over and over. We get an option for playing a single track and then stopping. And then we get two options: "all" and "all repeat". I assumed "all" would play the files in the current folder and then stop, while "all repeat" would continuously play the entire list over and over. Actually they both repeat continually. There is no option that plays the album and then stops when finished. This is a minor annoyance but it bothers me because sometimes I like to fall asleep to music. There is an option to power down after a length of inactivity, but that won't help if the music continues to repeat indefinitely. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] While I'm at it, the lack of metadata support for FLAC files is somewhat annoying. I didn't complain as much with the 812, even though it had the same issue, since it was a lower priced unit. But at over $400 I have higher expectations. MP3 files show the artist and album info just fine so I'm not sure why it would be an issue with FLAC. Since the 960 has twice the storage available, you end up with more files and therefore more confusion. I started relabeling my folders just to make it easier, which worked fine, but I'd rather not have to do it in the first place.

I have to clarify a bit - the UI here is very workable. It does what I need it to do for the most part, with just minor annoyances like the ones mentioned above. It's just that the hardware is so good, the software has become the limiting factor. I'd kill for a Rockbox port but the chances of that happening are practically non-existent.


CONCLUSION
Overall, the iHiFi960 is a very nice unit. I liked the 812 a lot but I love the 960. It sounds excellent, feels good in the hand, and is versatile enough to be used any number of ways. The question probably on your mind - is it worth the extra $130 over the 812? In my view it absolutely is.

The added 8GB of storage isn't worth a whole lot (maybe $10 these days via microSD card), but the digital outputs are invaluable in my opinion. There are very few portable players with digital outputs - which is odd considering how many portable amp/DAC units have popped up over the past few years. The thing about the 960 is that it sounds so good via the onboard DAC and amp, that I don't really feel the need to add anything else. My Leckerton UHA-6S MKII is still offers a slight improvement but not big enough to notice for the kind of listening I do on the go. Still, it's great to have the option to pair with a high end DAC at home. 

Add in all the other little upgrades and I believe the 960 easily justifies the extra cost. I tend to be more picky with gear as the price increases but I'm happy to see a unit like this priced well under $500 rather than joining Colorfly, iBasso, and HiFiMAN in the "approaching $1,000" arena. I'm not saying the 960 necessarily matches those competitors (it might, I'd have to compare them directly), nor am I saying we don't have room on the market for a reference level DAP with a high price tag. But the 960 does offer a conceptually similar product for a lot less money. That's a success in my opinion. [/size]

 
 
[size=small]Not to pat myself on the back too much, but I was one of the very first people to review the Invicta DAC from Resonessence Labs[/size][size=small] ($3999). I found it to be exceptionally good - competing with and even surpassing several of my other DACs which cost significantly more. The Invicta system went on to become a very successful product, well reviewed by numerous other publications and (more importantly) highly enjoyed by lots of users. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]One complaint, if we can call it that, about the Invicta was that it offered more than some people needed. This was tricky because the very reason that some people loved it - the all-in-one aspect with integrated headphone amp and SD card audio playback - was seen by other users as superfluous. I love the feature set Invicta has to offer but I can understand someone who already owns a top-level transport and headphone amp not wanting to pay more for those added features. There seemed to be a vocal group of folks asking for a similar release from Resonessence with "just the basics". Enter the Concero.... sort of.[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]I'll just say this now to get it out of the way: At $599, Concero is [/size][size=small]not [/size][size=small]a stripped down Invicta with all the same parts minus a few goodies. That product may still be on the Resonessence drawing board but this ain't it, and if that ever does launch it will most likely still cost several thousand dollars. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] So, what the heck is this Concero thing then, if not a cheaper Invicta? For starters, Ressonesence does mention that Concero uses the same processing engine as Invicta. That's not to be conflated as using the same DAC chip - it doesn't. The engine in question lives inside a Xilinx Spartan-6 FPGA running proprietary Resonessence code. This allows Concero to feature two user selectable upsampling filters, reportedly two of the most highly regarded choices out of the multiple filters offered by Invicta. Technically, Concero approaches this filtering differently than Invicta, relying on the FPGA engine to do the legwork while Invicta instead utilizes the highly-configurable filters in the ESS Sabre DAC chips themselves. I'm not exactly sure why this difference exists - perhaps the ES9023 DAC used in the Concero doesn't have the same configurability as the flagship ES9018 use by Invicta. Whatever the case, the end result should be the same regardless of how it was achieved. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  
 

 
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] DESIGN[/size]
[size=small] At this point I'm going to do something I rarely do and refer the reader to another review site for details. This review at 6moons has a lot of good info in terms of the design choices made by the Resonessence team, and includes some commentary by Resonessence head honcho Mark Mallinson. I can't say that I agree with author Srajan Ebaen's conclusions all the time but he certainly does a good job covering the technical bits, and I have no desire to pester Mr. Mallinson with questions that have already been asked and answered in depth. Even if you dislike 6moons for whatever reason, I still recommend reading the first few pages for all the design info. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] For those still not interested in reading that article, I'll give a brief synopsis of the Concero design highlights: ES9023 DAC chip, Xilinx FPGA, high-quality discrete clocks for 44.1kHz and 48kHz (and their multiples), galvanically isolated asynchronous USB input from Cypress Semiconductor handling up to 24-bit/192kHz streams, coaxial SPDIF input which can double as a transformer-coupled SPDIF output effectively turning the unit into a very competent Digital to Digital Converter (DDC): all this in a very compact but high quality enclosure. The front panel of the enclosure has a lighted "R" logo which changes colors based on the filter being used.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] PACKAGE[/size]
[size=small] A quick word about the bundled accessories: Resonessence handily includes an Apple remote control which is used to select upsampling filters and LED brightness, and provides simple transport controls for iTunes or other media players. The package also includes a USB cable and Apple wall charger - required to feed power to Concero when using the SPDIF input. Aftermarket power supplies, including battery units, could potentially provide some improvement here. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] EQUIPMENT[/size]
[size=small] The Concero had some compatibility issues with my Auraliti PK90 music server connected over USB. It worked just fine playing 88.2kHz and 96kHz tracks. 44.1kHz and 48kHz files appeared to be playing but produced no sound at all, while 176.4kHz and 192kHz songs played with a terrible distortion. Mark Mallinson told me he'd look into it but it was likely an Auraliti issue rather than a Concero issue. The PK90 runs a version of MPD Linux but I don't have another Linux box handy to test - Resonessence makes no claims about Linux compatibility, so this application was a stretch anyway. All of the other USB sources I tried were running Windows 7 and all worked flawlessly at every sample rate. So this should not be a problem for the majority of users. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Aside from that, here is the list of gear used during this evaluation:[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Transport: Lenovo Thinkpad X1 Carbon, Acer Aspire One, Cambridge Audio 840C, JF Digital HDM-03S music server[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] AMP: Violectric V200, Analog Design Labs Svetlana 2, Icon Audio HP8 mkII, Opera Consonance M-10S, NuForce DDA-100[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Headphones: Audeze LCD-2 (with Charleston Cable Company Auric Ohno), HiFiMAN HE-400 (with CablePro Earcandy), Beyerdynamic T1, Ultrasone Signature Pro, Heir Audio 8.A (with 93spec pure silver cable), JH13pro (new FreqPhase version, with Beat Audio Cronus cable), Lear LCM5 (with Heir Audio Magnus cable)[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Speakers: Salk Wow1 or Sjofn HiFi (the clue) monitors on Sanus NF30 stands, powered by the above mentioned NuForce or Consonance integrated units[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Power: CablePro Revelation [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Cables: NuForce Precision SPDIF, CablePro Reverie AC cables, and a bunch of Auric and Auric Ohno cables from Charleston Cable Company - speaker, interconnect, USB, and AC[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I also spent a lot of time with the Woo Audio WEE electrostatic transformer, fed by the Consonance integrated and driving a pair of Stax SR-404LE earspeakers.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] As always I gave the device being reviewed a substantial amount of burn in (roughly 200 hours, maybe more) before listening. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] LISTENING[/size]
[size=small] Some DACs cause your jaw to drop at first listen, while others can initially seem kind of bland until you really get a feel for their character. The Concero seemed delicately balanced between those two - it immediately struck me as sounding clear and lifelike but didn't go overboard with detail retrieval. This is actually a good sign, as gear which initially stands out as being ultra-detailed will often later turn out to be fatiguing. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I started by playing some very nicely done hi-res material - Marta Gomez Cantos De Agua Dulce, Joel Fan West of the Sun, George "Wild Child" Butler Sho' Nuff, etc. I was really impressed with the tonal balance and immersive soundstage, and I didn't hear any of the "digital glare" that many DACs in this price range are prone to suffer from. In general, a $600 DAC will provide a smooth "musical" sound that isn't all that accurate sounding, or else a nicely detailed sound that can be cold and uninvolving. It's rare to find both aspects represented in such a balanced fashion - at any price, much less $599. Concero simply stuns me with its coherency. At no point when using it did I feel that I was merely putting up with a budget DAC. That's not to say it competes on the same level as my pricier reference units - rather, it misses the mark in a very graceful way, that was not so easy to notice until I did direct A/B comparisons with the reference. This really is a great accomplishment on the part of Resonessence Labs. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Just be be fair, I followed up those squeaky clean audiophile albums with some real word music that I enjoy despite any sonic limitations - Sufjan Stevens, Matumbi, Kings X, Sister Sparrow and the Dirty Birds, Radar Bros., Pedro the Lion, Copeland, and of course the recently released Wait for the Siren by Project 86. The Concero is definitely not the type of DAC to sugar coat a bad recording. It won't take the edge off, but neither will it shine an extreme spotlight on those sonic imperfections. So while I didn't necessarily enjoy these albums as much in terms of pure SQ, I was still able to connect with them on a musical level. In other words - the Concero didn't try to fix them but also didn't distract me so much as to make them unlistenable which is something that plenty of other DACs can do. With these albums I tend to prefer a smoother DAC like my Yulong D18 but the Concero with apodizing filter will do the job (which I'll discuss more in depth later). Note that if we are talking about actual poor recordings, and/or low bitrate MP3 files, the Concero will do those no favors whatsoever. In those cases I do find it more on the "unlistenable" side and would much rather use some other design that is less resolving of artifacts. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] With regards to system matching, I found that the Concero worked well with a variety of transports. The USB input always sounded great but I felt a slight improvement when using my ultra-clean Auraliti USB signal (with 88.2kHz and 96kHz material only, as mentioned prior). SPDIF sounded almost as good - both my HDM-03S music server and my Cambridge 840C did excellent jobs on transport duty. If I use a very highly resolving amp and headphones, I think I could perceive a slight lack of focus as compared to the USB input, but this difference was not huge. If my system only used SPDIF I would be completely happy with the Concero's performance despite it mostly being touted as a USB DAC. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The Concero was revealing enough to expose flaws in downstream components. Not that it was a poor match with any specific amps or headphones - a neutral DAC works with most anything. But it did show me the added resolution of my better amps, and it  did allow higher-end headphones to shine better than mid-range models. I really don't think the Concero would be an obvious weak link until you assemble a very high performance system. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I tried to get my hands on an outboard power supply but have not yet been successful. My Auraliti PK90 uses a SOtM tX-USB card which bypasses PCI power and sips directly from my external NuForce LPS-1. That probably explains why Concero sounded best when using it. Once connected as a USB device, Concero gives priority to USB over SPDIF, so I was not able to use the PK90 as a make-shift power supply along with SPDIF signals. I had an idea to deliberately crash the system so it loses the data connection but still supplies power - but so far I haven't been able to achieve that goal. I'll see if I can get my hands on an iFi iUSB power supply and update if I notice any difference. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] FILTERS[/size]
[size=small] A key feature of the Concero is the selectable filter options. The included Apple remote is used to cycle through - initial setting is no upsampling, followed by a minimum-phase IIR filter, and then a linear-phase apodizing filter. More info about these filters HERE Both filters upsample by a factor of 4 - so 44.1kHz material goes up to 176.4, and 48kHz material goes to 192kHz. Note that actual hi-res material at 88.2kHz or higher is processed at the native rate with no additional upsampling applied. The front panel glows based on what filter is selected, somewhat along the same lines as the Audioquest Dragonfly. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I tended to prefer the sound of filters compared to pass-through mode. The sound was more lifelike and palpable with upsampling engaged. Especially when I used a speaker setup, but also when using headphones, I heard both filters as having a more three-dimensional presentation. Standard pass-through mode was fine by itself but to my ears lost a little of the magic as compared with the other options.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The differences between filters was pretty small but at times stood out like so: IIR filter seemed sharper, quicker, more precise, with better transient response (probably due to the lack of pre-ringing). It would be my first choice for playing exceptional recordings. The linear phase apodizing filter seemed a little smoother, more natural, more relaxed, but still plenty accurate. Resonessence lists this option as being a favorite among many of their beta-testers and I can absolutely see why. It's a better all around fit for a variety of music, amps, and headphones, and other folks who heard my Concero tended to prefer it the most. I remain undecided about which is my favorite and I'm glad they are both available.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] DDA[/size]
[size=small] It's important to note that while the little Concero may be lacking a wide array of optical and AES/EBU inputs, it makes great use of the coaxial SPDIF port that it does have by allowing it to transform into an output. USB signals at all resolutions can be converted to SPDIF and transmitted to the DAC of your choice, with the benefit of extremely low jitter. Something unique to the Concero, that I have yet to find in another DDC, is the fact that it applies the optional filtering prior to output... so in effect this unit becomes an inline digital filter in addition to being a USB to SPDIF converter. Cool stuff.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I evaluated the unit as DDC by comparing it to the well-regarded Stello U3 as well as the multi-function Izmo M1. Long story short, all three units sounded nearly identical in most cases. The Izmo fell behind by a small amount in a few cases due to lack of galvanic isolation on the SPDIF output. With most DACs this wasn't an issue and I would not feel confident trying to pick which one was being used. This may come as a surprise to HeadFiers who are used to reading about massive differences between each DDC device... but this is the way I heard it. All three units are very competent and operate on a very high level. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I did notice what I felt to be a worthwhile improvement by using the Resonessence filter options. Remember, these only apply to 44.1kHz and 48kHz streams, but they seem to enhance clarity and spaciousness to the point where redbook CD material doesn't seem like the wet blanket that it sometimes is made out to be. I'm only kidding here of course - so-called "standard resolution" recordings can be fantastic when done right. It's not that the Concero is adding anything to them via digital trickery; rather, it's just allowing the DAC to squeeze the absolute best from them. Keep in mind that this feature is optional and can be bypassed if the user feels it harms - rather than helps - the sound. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] COMPARISONS[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Rather than talking endlessly about how the Concero sounds, I figure it might be more illuminating to move on to some comparisons. Hopefully I'll have a comparison DAC on my list that you may have heard. Most comparison was done using the Consonance M-10S integrated, feeding the Woo WEE electrostatic transformer, then out to the Stax SR-404LE. It's a highly resolving system with multiple inputs for easy back and forth switching. The Concero has a lower output voltage than most others so level matching was important in order to compensate.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Musical Fidelity M1DAC[/size]
[size=small] The M1DAC sounds better than the original M1 did (with the adaptive USB solution), but it still doesn't keep up with the Concero. The Resonessence unit simply does more of everything - deeper bass extension, more accurate timbre, a wider and deeper soundstage. This was one of the comparisons that seemed obvious to me, as if most anyone hearing the comparison would agree. The M1DAC does have more features like XLR outs and AES/EBU in, but in my opinion all the options in the world don't make up for a difference in sound quality this large.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Matrix Quattro DAC[/size]
[size=small] This was more of the same, but to a lesser extent. I'd rank the Matrix unit above the Musical Fidelity but lower than the Concero. I dig the all-in-one approach that Matrix brings, with a pretty good headphone amp, pre-amp functionality, tons of inputs, remote control... but again - the sound quality difference is significant. The Quattro has a sense of hardness on the top end, almost seeming "glassy" at times, in contrast to the wonderfully smooth and open sound of the Concero. The Matrix unit sounds fine by itself most of the time - only A/B comparison brings out the flaws. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Music Hall DAC 25.3 [/size]
[size=small] This was a modified unit, with fairly extensive upgrades. I have never heard a stock 25.3 but this thing sounded bad to my ears. The slow, syrupy presentation sounded like it was overcompensating for a lack of ability by overly smoothing the sound to the point of mushiness. It had squashed dynamics and very little detail to speak of. So this comparison was not very good. Frankly, I've heard decent things about the stock unit, and I suspect the owner actually paid money to have some aftermarket company "upgrade" his device which actually degraded the sound. At least I hope that's true because there's no way the stock unit could sound any worse...[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Yulong D100 MKII[/size]
[size=small] This is my reference DAC in the sub-$1000 range. It's an improvement on the original which could come across as being somewhat analytical in certain situations. The MKII addresses that with some minor component tweaks plus a higher quality system clock resulting in a more balanced sound which is also more articulate. Before I get into the comparison, I'll repeat for the record - I love this DAC and continue to recommend it for many situations.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] After much listening, I've come to the conclusion that the Resonessence Concero sounds appreciably better than the D100. It's not a massive night and day difference, but it is there and it is significant. I especially notice it with high quality material from Reference Recordings, Mapleshade, Chesky, etc. The Concero just presents a more open, transparent window into the music, with a more realistic sense of space and a more fleshed out tone to individual instruments. The collective presentation is also more dynamic - which is surprising considering the discrepancy in physical size. I figured the beefier PSU of the Yulong would give it an advantage in this area but the Concero ends up having the edge. Speaking of edges - the Concero renders leading edges with more bite, and the overall sense of realism benefits. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] So is the D100 MKII off the list in terms of recommendations in the sub-$1K category? No way! It's still a great performer for the price: plenty of inputs, an LCD display, balanced outputs, and a respectable headphone amp with a selectable filter for taming overly bright cans. For an all-in-one solution or just as a feature packed DAC in general, the D100 is still very highly recommended.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Yulong D18[/size]
[size=small] The D18 is an exceptional DAC and a great value - it's a step up from the D100 MKII but remains reasonably priced at $699. I believe it's the cheapest unit on the market with the ESS Sabre ES9018 DAC on board. It has a burly power supply, a very high quality custom made low phase noise clock, and some clever design choices such as an SMA interface to carry the signal from input stage to DAC chip with minimal interference. In case it isn't obvious, I really enjoy this device.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The D18 and the Concero couldn't be more different. Physically, the compact Concero is centered around its USB input, while the larger Yulong has every type of input but USB. Soundwise, they also veer very far from one another. Yulong has an ultra-smooth, spacious, warm, relaxing presentation that tends to make everything sound as good as possible. It's the DAC equivalent of a high-quality, forgiving tube amp which isn't overly syrupy but does add its own sonic fingerprint to the system. In contrast, the Concero  is more neutral, more snappy, more energetic and lively, without wandering too far into brittle, harsh territory. I prefer the Concero paired with my reference single-ended triode tube amp and a highly resolving (but not overly analytical) headphone like the beyerdynamic T1 for a clear, transparent window into the music. I like the D18 paired with the matching Yulong Sabre A18 amplifier driving the latest Audeze LCD-2 for a warm, smooth, musical presentation. Different setups for different music/moods, both of which I enjoy very much.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] If a person had the Yulong D100 MKII and wanted to upgrade but keep the sound signature within the same family rather than the warmer and smoother D18 sound, the Concero would actually be the logical choice.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Peachtree DAC*iT[/size]
[size=small] I had never heard this unit before, and I ended up being really impressed by it. It does a lot of things right and considering the $459 price, I have zero complaints about it. I didn't compare the two directly so I can't be positive, but the Peachtree reminds me very much of the Yulong D100 MKII in terms of overall character. This is definitely a DAC I could live with happily.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] As with the D100, the Concero came out ahead by a reasonable margin. I was surprised to learn that the DAC*iT uses an "inferior" adaptive USB implementation because it sounds very good over USB, equal or better than the SPDIF inputs. Still, it doesn't have the same level of insight as the Resonessence, with a decline in low-level detail retrieval being the most obvious difference. The Concero also seemed more dynamic and "live" for lack of a better term, where the DAC*iT sounded more like a good reproduction of a past event. I've heard anecdotal stories of the Peachtree unit responding well to aftermarket power supplies but I didn't have a compatible unit available to try. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Audio GD Reference 5[/size]
[size=small] The Reference 5 sounds to me like an extreme version of the Yulong D18 - and I don't necessarily mean that in a good way. It has its charm, but the focus on density and weightiness seems to take precedence over transparency, and the overall result suffers. Interestingly, the Ref 5 manages a nice sense of spaciousness despite being somewhat too dark for my taste. The Concero doesn't quite rival the Ref 5 in depth or heft, but is clearly more resolving and accurate, and not in the annoyingly "lit-up" way you might be picturing. As I've mentioned, Concero is neutral and well controlled, rarely fatiguing unless the source material calls for it. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Overall these are two very different DACs. I prefer the Concero by a good margin but I could see how the Audio GD could be a better fit for some systems or some ears. The Reference 5 is discontinued and I'd probably recommend the Yulong D18 for lovers of this type of tonal presentation. Audio GD may have a corresponding current unit but I'm not familiar with their latest models. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Bryston BDA-1[/size]
[size=small] The Bryston, at its best, is very similar sounding to the Concero. The catch is that it takes very careful transport matching to get to that level - when using a mediocre source, it sounds merely good but not great. My Cambridge 840C is a prime example - using it as a transport, the BDA-1 doesn't really sound much better than the Cambridge's internal DAC. Different, yes, but not decisively better. Using my JF Digital HDM-03S music server brings things up several notches and shows the Bryston as having some real potential. The absolute best I've heard from it? Being fed by the Concero as DDC using the apodizing filter. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] In a direct DAC to DAC comparison both models sound clean, detailed, open, and mostly neutral. The Bryston has a slight bit more "information" in the upper registers - call it brighter and more grating, or call it exciting and more detailed, depending on your point of view. Again I find myself surprised to hear the little Concero hold its own in terms of depth and bass impact, despite the Bryston having a more robust power supply section.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Considering the extreme price disparity and the inferiority of Bryston's USB input (soon to be addressed in the upcoming BDA-2), I can't really find a reason to recommend the BDA-1 over the Concero, unless the user had a need for a broad array of inputs and balanced outputs. I find the Bryston to be a great sounding DAC and it is therefore very impressive that the Concero keeps up with it so well. Depending on the associated equipment, I actually find the Concero to be superior in some cases, despite the BDA-1 selling for over 3 times as much. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] CONCLUSION[/size]
[size=small] It's important to point out exactly what the Resonessence Labs Concero is and what it isn't. It won't replace your pre-amp. It doesn't have a plethora of inputs and outputs. And it doesn't have an integrated headphone amp. Those are things that people have often come to expect from a modern DAC, and to that end Concero might disappoint. It certainly isn't competition for its larger sibling the Invicta. Yet looking at it within the context of what it really sets out to do - this compact, focused little device is able to rival some far costlier models when it comes to pure sound quality. I'd go so far as to call it a giant killer, in terms of physical size as well as performance. Not only is it a great DAC, but it also excels as a USB to SPDIF converter, giving it that much more value.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] In summary, I'm immensely pleased with Resonessence Labs and their accomplishment here. This is truly a standout DAC in a field of great competition. With a lone exception, I really enjoy all the units listed in the comparison section above. Yet all of them fall short of the Concero in some area - performance, cost, size, or all three of those in some cases. This is a DAC that I'm happy to recommend without hesitation. Don't be fooled by its diminutive stature or price tag - the Concero is absolutely worth hearing. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
[/size]
 

 

 
 
 
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] In my review of the Shonyun 301 Pro desktop amplifier, I gave it high marks for sound quality but noted some issues in terms of build quality. I also felt that the price was somewhat ambitious considering that Shonyun is a newcomer to the HeadFi scene. Still, it's a rather enjoyable amp that I continue to use and appreciate on a regular basis. It sounds especially good with the latest LCD-2 which I recently acquired. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Shonyun doesn't merely offer one amp but rather has three different models. The 301 is their desktop offering, and the other two are portable units - the 303 and the larger 306. The 306 sells for around $170 and is the focus of this review.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] EXTERNAL[/size]
[size=small] When I say larger, I don't just mean "relative to the 303 model". This amp is large by any standard and for me approaches the upper limit in terms of what I'm willing to carry around. Including the volume knob, the 306 measures over 5 inches long, nearly 3 inches wide, and about an inch thick. That may not sound like much but check out some of my comparison pictures to see how it looks next to other portable amps. The weight is significant too - at 260g it weighs approximately twice as much as the Audinst AMP-HP, and the Audinst isn't even what I'd consider an ultra-compact amp. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The build quality of the 306 is far more in line with its price class as compared to the Shonyun 301. It won't necassarily win any beauty contests but neither is it what I'd call ugly, and my unit is free from any issues like channel imbalance. Overall I'd say this is a well made amp and seems tough enough to withstand the inevitable abuse a portable amp would be subjected to.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The design is simple: front panel 1/8" input and output. Volume knob which "clicks" when turned all the way off, thus doubling as a power switch. Rear panel charging port for the included wall wart. Nothing really new and exciting here. The only potential issue I can see is the way both 1/8" jacks are recessed somewhat too deeply into the face. This causes some issues when using certain cables - I had several instances where I thought I had a snug connection, only to note distortion one one channel while listening. Turns out my connection was not quite in deep enough due to the recessed socket. I really don't know why they would have bothered to make it this way, knowing the issues it would cause. Perhaps the designer thought it looked good and didn't test it against a wide enough range of headphone cables. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
Larger than the average portable
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] INTERNAL[/size]
[size=small] The 306 is based around a pair of Analog Devices AD8397ARDZ opamps. These twin 2-channel opamps are stacked in a gain+buffer configuration and biased into class A. Shonyun never really specifies the amount of bias but judging from the battery life (roughly 10 hours in my experience) we are pretty far into class A. The other clue indicating class A operation is the build up of heat - this thing gets fairly warm to the touch just 15 minutes of use. It's not too hot to hold but I don't know how comfortable it would be in a pocket. Not that the size of this amp lends itself to pocket use... but you get the idea. I'd say that the weight, size, and heat all conspire to make this somewhat more of a transportable setup than a true portable.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I tried my best to get a good internal picture of the unit but, as with the 301, Shonyun made it difficult. The full thing just wouldn't come apart without some potential damage. They also cover most the output section with some blue material, so it isn't visible. I can't imagine what purpose that serves other than to stop some other company from stealing their design - as unlikely as that sounds. I suppose could have sliced off the blue stuff and had a look but I got lazy. So no internal pics on this one, sorry.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] In terms of output, Shonyun lists the 306 as delivering up to 455mW at 16 ohm and 120mW at 300 ohm. They don't list the other increments but if things behave in a linear fashion we can assume roughly 300mW (give or take) for most IEMs and low impedance headphones such as Grado, Audio Technica, and Denon. That's fairly powerful. I notice that Shonyun claims these as measured results rather than merely published numbers. A lot of companies just list the specs from the opamp used in the output stage and call it a day. When measured, the results are often rather different. For example - my iHiFi812V2 uses the same AD8397 in the headphone stage, and measures similarly with low impedance loads. Yet it drops down to 50mW at 300 ohms - less than half what the Shonyun can provide. I'm not necessarily saying one unit sounds better than the other, merely pointing out that a lot of specs listed for these types of items are misleading, and I appreciate when companies like Shonyun and iHiFi post accurate numbers based on real world measurements.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] GEAR[/size]
[size=small] I used the Shonyun 306 in both portable and home situations. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] On the go, I mostly fed it with the previously mentioned iHiFi812V2. I also made occasional use of my iPad with a CablePro Freedom series line out dock. On the go listening was done with the Heir Audio 8.A and 6.A LE, as well as the JH13pro FreqPhase, Lear LCM5, Earproof Atom, 1964 V3, Aurisonics AS-1b, and V-MODA M80. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] At home, I mostly used the same iHiFi source (for consistency) but this time around used the 306 to drive some full sized headphones: Audio Technica AD2000 and W1000X, Lawton LA7000, HiFiMAN HE400, Sennheiser HD650, Ultrasone Signature Pro, Beyer T1, Audeze LCD-2, and Smeggy Thunderpants. A 1/4" to 1/8" adapter, again from the CablePro Freedom series, was used to connect these headphones to the 1/8" jack of the 306. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] LISTENING[/size]
[size=small] The Shonyun 306 has some similarities to the desktop 301pro model in that they both have a somewhat-more-lively-than-neutral sound. But I wouldn't call it a clearly defined Shonyun "house-sound" as they each take their own path towards liveliness. The desktop model is a bit on the warm side with a fair amount of excitement and sparkle (but not too much). The portable 306 isn't quite like that, but it's still pretty good in its own right.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The key difference is in terms of bass response. The 306 unit seems to have fairly tame low end response. It's not rolled off - on the contrary it extends nice and deep. It's just somewhat mellow in the mix compared to my other portable amps. This means somewhat less engaging results at times: this is not my favorite amp for music like metal or trance. On the other hand, it does quite well with most rock, jazz, and classical. The bass that is there is clean and punchy with a nice sense of realism. It's very well controlled too, and helps even out the response of some overly bass-heavy mixes. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The 306 is quite happy in the midrange section. It's got a very involving presentation that reminds me of various tube amps I've owned - specifically my old DarkVoice 337SE. Not that it is exactly on the same level but they both portray a sense of ease and liquidity that is rather hard to find from other amps. If you love vocals, this amp is definitely a good match. It also excels at capturing the snap of a snare drum and is actually very dynamic if we disregard the slightly soft bass. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Highs are an area where I sense the most similarity to the desktop 301 unit. Both have just the slightest bit of added sparkle which can be very exciting at times but also fatiguing with some recordings or headphones. To my ears this is definitely not a Grado amp. Yet I did enjoy it with the Audio Technica W1000X and AD2000, both of which can at times be considered bright. So I guess it's a case by case situation. I have heard portable amps with better extension up top but they tend to cost significantly more than the 306. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] One thing I didn't care for was the background hiss, which could be unacceptable with certain headphones or IEMs. I ended up not using the JH13pro at all because the hiss was too distracting. Same for the Ultrasone Signature Pro, which was otherwise a very good match in terms of sound signature. The Lear LCM5 hissed a lot by itself but sounded very clean using the Monitor Tuned Adapter (which raises impedance up to around 180 ohms). That was an enjoyable combination - very slightly on the bright side, but incredibly fast and very detailed, almost like a Stax setup. The Earproof Atom (70 ohms) sounded very crisp and clean and also managed a nice black background. The 1964 Ears V3 had some hiss but was still tolerable, as was the Heir Audio 8.A and 6.A LE. The Aurisonics AS-1b was a spectacular match due to the dark sound signature, but it had a bit more hiss than I'd like. If not for the hiss the 306 would be my favorite amp for the AS-1b.  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] All is not lost though, as the 306 plays very well with full size cans. Remember that whole bit about being class A and having fairly high output? That means it drives most big headphones with the level of authority usually reserved for home units. The HE400 and LCD-2 sound about as good as I've heard for under $200 worth of amping. Have I heard them sound better? Of course. But never from an amp this small and inexpensive. The slightly subdued low frequency performance is offset by the mighty impact of these planar models, and the overall result is very pleasing. I also liked this amp with the Lawton LA7000, where it gave clarity to the mids and yet didn't overdo the highs. The Beyer T1 is not an ideal match though, sounding somewhat on the thin side and making vocals come off as overly nasal. The HD650 is a respectable match, as is the Smeggy Thunderpants. Overall I'd say keep away from brighter headphones and it will typically sound great.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] CONCLUSION[/size]
[size=small] Again, Shonyun impressed me in some ways and leaves me scratching my head at the same time. The size of this amp is bordering on too large for my taste, but I know others who wouldn't mind. Yet it's the heat that really makes me question its utility in a portable situation. I just don't think people would like carrying an amp this warm while commuting. The hiss makes it less than ideal with a good number of armature based IEMs, and that recessed front panel just baffles me. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Still, despite all that, the amp sounds really great with most of my full size headphones. I'd say it is better than most portable amps I've heard, and in my collection is only beaten by my favorite amp, the Leckerton UHA-6S. If someone was in the market for a transportable unit that could pair well with some of their more difficult headphones, I'd say the Shonyun 306 is worth a look. Hopefully Shonyun continues to refine their designs - they have the sound thing down but seem to struggle with other aspects of their designs. If they focus on usability and build quality, their next round of products could be something to look out for. [/size]

 
93spec pure silver CIEM cable
 

 
 
[size=small]Premium cables - probably the single most controversial category in audio, unless we count some of the more dubious "tweaks" out there like magic rocks and green CD pens. But only a very small contingency of folks actually believe in those types of things - upgraded cables are far more mainstream. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] It's easy to write people off who rabidly believe - or disbelieve - in cables making an audible difference. Some of these people bring it on themselves, practically becoming caricatures in the process. "I can only stand to use solid silver cables with 4 figure price tags in my system. Nothing else will do!" says the cable extremist. "I get all my cables at Home Depot for as cheap as possible. Anything more is for suckers!" replies his counterpart on the other side, probably not realizing that his "enthusiasm" for debating the topic is equally annoying. Meanwhile the average audio enthusiast falls somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I myself have wavered back and forth on this topic over the years. There was a time when my entire system was cabled by expensive brands like Shunyata. Then came the realization that they didn't make the improvement I assumed (and had been assured) that they did. So I switched to basic stuff - stock power cables, cheap interconnects and digital cables, basically anything slightly above the level of a free patch cable that comes with a new DVD player (I actually would have no problem using those if not for the extremely high failure rate I've encountered with them). Before long I was wiring my fairly expensive system with $40 worth of cables. As I did more and more reviews, folks sometimes pointed out to me that they perceived me as less credible due to my cable choices. I wrestled with the matter for a while and have since made some new conclusions.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] First, I have re-confirmed my earlier findings about the lack of any real scientific proof that cables make a difference. It would be convenient for me if I could find some reliable data that explains why better cables should sound better. But I simply can't. There are some wild theories floating around, and then some more reasonable ones that are fairly interesting, but nothing definitive that helps the cause.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Second, I've discovered that there actually are numerous well-respected and highly-intelligent people in the audio industry who do have some level of belief in audible cable differences. Really smart guys like Gordin Rankin (WaveLength Audio), Steve Nugent (Empirical Audio), Demien Martin (Auraliti, Constellation Audio, Rockport, NuForce) and Jim Thiel (speaker legend) among others, give some degree of credence to the idea that cables can make a difference, despite possibly not having an exact explanation for it. And none of these gentleman is currently in the business of selling their own cables so we can't explain away their opinions as mere greed. There are also plenty of folks around here who I respect such as Kunlun, Staal, and of course Average Joe, who have all taken a moderately affirmative stance with regards to cables. It's easy to dismiss people you might see posting crazy night/day type hyperbole on some forum, but it's quite another thing when a reliable and reasonable person, with whom you tend to agree about most things, says they can perceive a difference, however small. Ultimately nobody can decide this issue for you but no matter which side you fall on you can be sure you'll find yourself in good company (along with some more annoying people of course.... that's unavoidable). [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] For myself, I've come to the conclusion that I enjoy having reasonably priced aftermarket cables in my system. No top level Nordost with a 5 figure price tag or anything of that sort - in fact I tend to shy away from the bigger cable brands altogether, in favor of small companies - often of the "one man show" variety. So my system now features AC cables, interconnects, digital cables, and headphone cables from companies like CablePro, Toxic Cables, Beat Audio, NuForce, and Charleston Cable Company. My definition of "reasonably priced" may differ from yours, but generally speaking I think the cost of cables should always be less than that of the component they connect to, and should probably be one of the last upgrades you do once you have all the other components where you'd like them to be. I find that I appreciate the system with decent cables more than I did before, and usually get an improvement in ergonomics and appearance too. Do I actually "hear" a difference? Most times I feel like I do, though sometimes it isn't clear. And I'm still not convinced that the improvement I perceive necessarily has anything to do with the sound actually changing. I am convinced that the knowledge of a more expensive cable combined with a far nicer appearance can be enough. Like comparing two similarly excellent DACs, the differences in character between cables can be very difficult to put into words. But the again most people don't call you crazy when you do compare two good DACs and find them slightly different.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The changes I "hear" when using a good cable reminds me of how the right picture frame can really add to the enjoyment of a piece of art hanging in a room, despite not actually changing the piece in any way. The right frame can make the colors of a picture or painting seem to "pop". How does it do that without altering the picture itself? About a year and a half ago I wrote more about my theory HERE, though in retrospect I think I've moved a little farther out into subjectivist territory in my conclusions since then. But scroll down towards the bottom to read how my impressions of the cables tended to line up with their physical appearance. A more (physically) colorful and vibrant cable tended to sound more exciting. A (physically) sophisticated, thick, sturdy cable, black in color, sounded thicker, warmer, smoother, more polished and refined. The sound fit with the appearance. Coincidence? Maybe. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] There are plenty of good examples we can think of where appearance factors in to perceived sound - would you pay $1000+ for a headphone that sounded like an HD800 or LCD-2 but looked and felt like an SR60 or Portapro? Would you be able to enjoy it? Because I probably wouldn't. Should high-end firms like Pass Labs, Krell, Audio Research, Accuphase, etc. start selling versions of their amps in plain black enclosures, complete with cheap binding posts, for a lot less money? A few of us might go for that but the reality is that the target market for an amplifier with a 5 figure price tag demands a certain level of aesthetics, and wouldn't sacrifice that even for a substantial savings. But at this point it becomes something of a philosophical discussion - like discussing politics, religion, or your favorite band, there's usually no point in trying to convince someone to think differently than they already do. At least not on a forum like this.  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] So - having said all that, will I ever get to the point? Is this a review thread or a think piece? And will I still manage to make some people angry despite everything I've said? Probably. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The Cable[/size]
[size=small] The main focus here, aside from the tirade above, is the new 93spec custom IEM cable from Stage93. The Singapore based company has been making custom IEMs for a while, and has also acted as regional distributor for other brands including Dunu, EXS, and Audinst. They also sell aftermarket IEM cables from popular brands such as Whiplash and Moon Audio. Being a growing company, they decided to venture out and build their own quality cable to sell alongside their 3, 4, and 6 driver custom IEM models. A logical choice.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The 93spec is sold under their 93 East imprint which I assume will eventually grow to feature several different models. As is usual with custom IEM cables, my 93spec will work with most customs from Westone, JH Audio, Unique Melody, Heir Audio, 1964 Ears, etc. The exceptions are few - more recent Ultimate Ears models with the redone cable, and then the far less commonly used LiveWires and Sleek Audio customs. Apparently Stage93 offers various options so if you wanted to upgrade your Sennheiser IE80 or Shure SE535 or newer style Ultimate Ears customs, they should be able to accommodate. The checkout system appears down at the moment but Stage93 is very responsive to emails and can get everything set up for whatever your specific needs are. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The cable itself is a quad-braid, 26AWG, pure OCC silver design. Stage93 did extensive research and prototyping before arriving at their final configuration which they feel is the best available at the price ($230 USD, plus shipping). This says a lot about the confidence Stage93 has in their cable, as it competes with the Moon Audio Silver Dragon and Whiplash TWcu cables they also sell, and actually costs a bit more than those models. The 93spec uses a proprietary stranded configuration which attempts to emulate a solid core wire in order to provide the maximum amount of conductive material possible while maintaining a flexible feel that doesn't hinder portable use. It's a pure silver cable rather than copper like the TWcu or copper/silver mix like the Silver Dragon. My contact told me that while they appreciate the warmish or balanced sound that copper can bring, using pure silver gave them the more detailed signature that they were looking for. I have yet to hear any of the Stage93 custom IEMs but it's certainly likely that they designed their cable around the sound of their IEMs. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Another important aspect of the 93spec cable is something they call the "overfreeze" connection system. In the early days of aftermarket CIEM cables, the connectors (the parts that plug in to the IEM itself) were mostly just soldered on and covered with heat shrink. Later we got "overmolded" designs where there was an actual plastic covering to protect this relatively delicate connection point. Stage93 tells me they initially started out with a standard epoxy covering and regular pins, much like a stock or overmolded cable would use, but discovered that they were not always perfectly exact in terms of sizing. When dealing with an expensive CIEM, the last thing you need is to have the socket "stretched out" by a cable that has slightly out of spec pin size or spacing. So they came up with their own pins and covering which has a tighter tolerance in terms of size. The overfreeze design is small enough to fit into a recessed socket but works just fine in a flush socket as well. And from trying it out with numerous custom IEMs, I do think it is one of the best fitting cables I've experienced. Just check out the pictures - you can see the detail and quality of the pins, making other cables look shabby in comparison. Another consideration is repairs: apparently when a typical overmolded cable is somehow damaged in the connector area, it needs to be sent back to the manufacturer for repair, which is a somewhat difficult process. And when you get it back it may have a slight variation in pin size. The overfreeze system is apparently easy to swap out for a new one should your pins ever somehow get bent or otherwise damaged, and the replacements will be as exact as they were the first time around. That means Stage93 can better stand behind their product in the unlikely event that a cable needs repair. So even if the overfeeze thing sounds questionable to you (honestly I've only ever had one of my CIEM cables fail, out of about 20 or so that I've owned) it's still nice to see a company go out of their way to be able to better service their customers. On that note, 93 East cables come with a 1 year limited warranty against defects. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Look and Feel[/size]
[size=small] My cable arrived in the standard 50" length, terminated with what appears to be an Oyaide 3.5mm right angle plug. I'm sure either of these could be negotiated if someone needed a longer cable or preferred a straight plug. The cable cinch is done in wood which has become something of a standard among aftermarket CIEM cables. Of particular note to some users is the lack of any type of memory wire - just wrap the thing around your ear and after a few uses it becomes fairly well shaped to your ear. But it's not a permanent thing and if you sold the cable I believe the next user could easily get it to conform to their ears just as well. This design worked well for me though it was a bit tricky on the very first couple of uses. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The braid of the 93spec and the general feel of the cable just ooze quality. There's simply no comparing it to a stock cable. Even my pricier Beat Audio Cronus cable looks somewhat bland compared to this design. As for flexibility and ease of use, the 93spec is excellent. A $230 cable will likely never become my go-to choice for jogging, but it probably could if I really wanted - it's that good. I own two CIEM cables from Toxic Cables - a 24AWG SPC Viper and a 26AWG Silver Poison. The Viper is very nice but not as flexible as the 93spec, which makes sense due to the thicker cable gauge. I actually haven't seen my Silver Poison yet - I had Toxic Cables ship it out to someone else prior so we'll see how it compares down the road. But so far I think the 93spec cable is on par with Toxic - which in my opinion is one of the premier brands on the market. So that's good company to be in. The only aftermarket cable I've seen that can surpass the feel and ease of use of the 93spec is my Heir Audio Magnus 1 cable. But that cables goes for a while different user base, and thus is not really a good comparison.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Sound[/size]
[size=small] Now for the controversial part of this review: how does the cable sound? I used a variety of reference grade equipment during this evaluation and I do think the experience is superior when using this cable rather than a stock one. Again, whether this is something I'm really hearing or just something in my head, I don't know. I perceive an increase in clarity throughout the whole range, especially on the top end, with none of the dynamics-crushing reduction in bass that some have reported from silver cables. It's not bright, not harsh, and certainly doesn't do anything negative to the presentation. There's no trade off involved - simply good sound. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Stage93 told me that the cable pairs best with warmer IEMs, helping coax more detail out of them and bringing things like vocals more up front. But they found that it also improved IEMs that were already bright, giving them a more expansive soundstage and superior detail retrieval. While I do agree that the cable seems to best match with a warmer IEM, I had absolutely no problem in using it with a brighter model like the sparkly Lear LCM-5. In the end I went with their suggestion though and paired it most often with the Heir Audio 8.A, which is definitely on the warmer side (and one of my favorites in the entire headphone realm). When you consider that the 8.A costs $1299, the extra $230 for a cable upgrade doesn't seem all that disproportionate. Same goes for the Heir 6.A LE ($1099 but no longer available), Lear LCM-5 (~$900), and Unique Melody Merlin ($800). I did use it to good effect with lower priced models like my 1964 Ears V3 ($425) and Aurisonics AS-1b ($599). Both models saw some benefit in added clarity, especially on the top end which was very appreciated on the AS-1b - but I don't know that I would recommend a $230 cable for cases like those. That extra money would allow you to move up to an entirely higher model from the same manufacturer - the 1964 Ears V6 or the Aurisonics AS-2 respectively - which would most surely provide a larger and more meaningful upgrade. Then after that, a cable might be a worthwhile option as a next step.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] On that note, I found that the cable difference (such as it was) was more evident on a higher end system. Using a quick and easy portable setup like the Meizu MX 4-core, or the iHiFi812 V2, or either of those paired with a Leckerton UHA-6S mkII, I didn't perceive much more than just a slight difference. That could be due to my portable use where I'm paying attention to other things and not digging too deeply into the music. Perhaps if I focused more or used those setups at home it would become more clear. But for me, the most obvious improvements came when using my large setup - Auraliti PK90 music server with NuForce linear power supply, Resonessence Concero converting USB to SPDIF, Anedio D2 DAC, Violectric V200 amp, CablePro Revelation power conditioner, and a good selection of reasonably nice cables throughout. I don't like to think about how much this system costs but it's easily north of $6K not including the CIEM being used. Interestingly, this system is far less expensive than the one I used to run, yet far superior at the same time. It is very resolving and should be capable of revealing differences, however small they might be. This is where I notice the most improvement. It could also be the "weak link" syndrome at play: I am aware that everything else is of a higher caliber, so maybe that calls more attention to the potential weakness of the stock cable; getting rid of it solves that perceived weakness. Whatever the case - I wouldn't necessarily recommend this cable for someone using a $120 DAC and $200 amp with an entry level CIEM. But for those who have covered all their other bases so to speak, the 93spec could just be the final piece of the puzzle. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Conclusion[/size]
[size=small] I have to reiterate my feelings on the cable issue one last time, just to be sure everyone is clear. I don't mind a bit if someone has a strong opinion about cables - either for or against. I just don't like it with those people actively pursue arguments about it. Look: if someone asks for a recommendation for a top-tier headphone, don't be a jerk and tell them the HD650 is all they should ever need. You may have a valid point about the ever-climbing prices of flagship headphones, and their relative value against the former top models. But still - you know what the person means, so don't hijack their thread for to use as your own soapbox. Likewise, if someone wants to know about entry-level custom IEMs, don't try to sell them on the JH16. It's just not helpful, and frankly, it's kind of annoying. That's how we should look at cable related inquiries - if someone clearly isn't interested in anything better than stock cables, then don't pester them about it. Move on. But if they are looking for an upgrade, however confused you may think they are on the matter, just let it go. If we all acted like that, this forum would be much better off. And remember: while you may dismiss someone who claims to hear small differences between cables, someone else may just as easily dismiss something you believe in, such as any amp sounding better than the O2, or any DAC performing better than the Benchmark DAC 1. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Still, I'm sure I've probably lost a few fans by writing this. So be it. People deserve to be given honest opinions, and that's exactly what I'm doing, so I'm not worried about it.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] In the end, the 93spec cable from Stage93 is a very capable product, with a price that actually seems low for what you get. I like the looks, the feel, and the sound, better than my $299 Beat Audio Cronus. It pairs well with pretty much every CIEM I tried, enhancing clarity and articulation without any drawbacks. The Stage 93 folks have also been very pleasant and helpful to deal with, answering my numerous detailed (and probably annoying) questions. What more could you ask for in an aftermarket cable company? [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] And now, some pictures, as a reward for sticking with me on that long ramble.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
Violectric V800 and V200 with 93spec and 1964 Ears V3
 
 

Oyaide connector
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

Wood cinch at the Y split
 
 
 

Overfreeze connector - look at the quality of the pins
 
 
 

 
 
 

With Lear LCM-5
 
 
 

With LCM-5 and Monitor Sound Adapter, paired with Icon Audio HP8 mkII tube amp
 
 
 

With Heir Audio 6.A LE and iHiFi812 v2
 
 
 

With Heir Audio 8.A (guest appearance by Stax SR-404LE)
 
 
 

Comparison to stock cable
 
 
 

Stock pins versus overfreeze pins 
 
 
 

With LiveWires triple driver as reshelled featuring Heir Audio Timbre upgrade
 
 
 

With Aurisonics AS-1b
 
 
 

with 1964 Ears V3
 
 
 

New V3 and 93spec compared to 1964-T with Beat Audio Cronus
 
 
 

With Izmo M1 and 1964 V3
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]

 

 
 
 
[size=small]The Shonyun 301 - this amp was sent to me for review along with the 306 portable amp. Like most readers I had never heard of the brand Shonyun. The packaging looked professional though, and the person sending it gave it a high recommendation, so I figured I'd give it a try without bringing any pre-conceived ideas into it. This was hard to do based on the outward appearance of the unit, which didn't seem to fit the sound it produced. But I'm getting ahead of myself - allow me to start from the beginning.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] DESIGN[/size]
[size=small] Shonyun is a relatively new company based out of Shenzhen China. The lead designer is named ChengShan Deng who is notable for placing very highly in the annual design competition held by National Semiconductor. He also dabbled in speaker design and won some acclaim there as well. This brings to mind Kingwa of Audio GD fame, who received notoriety by taking first place in the same competition. Shonyun offers two portable units and a single desktop model. The desktop unit is called the 301 Pro and sells for $450. There was an original 301 (non-pro) with wood side panels which may or may not still be available. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The 301 Pro is a very compact unit with a separate outboard power supply. Theoretically both parts could be stacked a la HiFiMAN EF5 - I suspect the PSU is a perfect match for the original model with wood sides, but the fins protrude a bit more making it just slightly wider. Still, it could be a good looking stack. Unfortunately the design of the power supply has the AC cable entering one side and the "umbilical" connector on the other. So there's no clean way to use the power supply unit without having a cable visibly intruding. This relegates it to being hidden down on the floor or somewhere else where it won't be obvious. The other bad thing about the power supply is the bright LED indicator which constantly cycles from color to color. I disabled mine immediately, to the disappointment of my 3 year old daughter who loved staring at it in a darkened room. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The main amplifier portion has an interesting look to it. It's very small - smaller than the pictures would have you believe. Fins on the left and right side act as heat sinks which helps the Class A design dissipate heat. The front panel has a pair of 1/8th inch jacks - one for input from an iPod or other portable device, and one for the headphone output. This seems to be an interesting choice. Why not swap one for a 1/4 inch version? Is there really a need for a 1/8 inch input on a desktop amp selling for $450? In any case, the side fins plus the small jacks made the unit seem larger in the pictures; I probably assumed the jacks were 1/4 inch and made a mental adjustment for the rest of the enclosure. The top panel is dominated by a largish low profile volume knob. The rear is a simple affair with a single set of RCA inputs and a port for the power umbilical. Simple and easy. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Internally - the 34V regulated power supply unit is almost entirely filled by the large toroidal transformer. There are a few caps here and there for smoothing but I'd say the huge majority of the enclosure is taken by the transformer: The amp section itself is designed around a combination of TI OPA627 opamps with a discrete buffer comprised of MJE15030 and MJE15031 transistors from ON Semiconductor. As mentioned prior the design is supposedly pure Class A. Maximum output reaches 800mW though we aren't told at what load that happens. We also aren't given a good breakdown of power into different loads - I find it ideal when a company lists their output into 32 ohm, 50 ohm, 150 ohm, 300 ohm, and 600 ohm loads. But even just 32 and 300 is a good start to work with, so I'm a bit disappointed that Shonyun doesn't at least give that. I did find some info on the older 301 version (non pro) which listed 550mW at 16 ohms, 160mW at 300 ohms, and 85mW at 600 ohms. Apparently the 301 pro with heatsinks allowed for a higher output due to the better heat dispersion which is why it goes all the way to 800 mW - we can assume that comes at 16 ohms, and the other loads show a corresponding increase of roughly 50% as well, compared to the non-pro version. But that's just an assumption so don't hold me to it. All in all a reasonably powerful amp if not quite a blockbuster like some of the recent major releases from HiFiMAN, Burson, etc. But for the price and especially for the size, this is fairly robust. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 

 

 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] BUILD[/size]
[size=small] The 301 Pro is a mixed bag for me. On the one hand it's decently well put together - fit and finish is what I'd call average at best, but I see no significant problems with it. On the other hand, it doesn't really impress either. The graphic work on the device is a matter of personal taste but for me it seems a little gaudy. It's worth noting that for $250 the Schiit Asgard looks far more polished and pleasing to the eye than this unit does, as do any number of other amps in the sub-$500 class. And then there's the issue of the volume control...[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] On my unit, the volume control seems to be tensioned too tightly. When turned, it feels like metal scraping against metal for at least half of its range. And due to the output transistors being permanently fixed to the heatsinks, I can't fully disassemble the unit to fix it. Or at least I'm not confident that I could get it all back together properly once I did. It's still workable but doesn't have the feel I expect from a $450 amp. I'm recalling the Ortofon HD-Q7 which was somewhat cheaper than the 301 at around $380: it had a similar design with the top being dominated by a large volume knob. But it had a great feel to it, with a smooth but firm action that oozed quality. In contrast, the Shonyun unit is a drag to use, reminding me every time I use it that something isn't perfect with the amp. Perhaps mine is just faulty though.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 

 

 

 

 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] EQUIPMENT[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] This is the gear I used for this evaluation:[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] SOURCE: Auraliti PK90 Music Server with NuForce LPS-1 power supply, Cambridge Audio 840C[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] DAC: Anedio D2, Yulong D100 mkII, Matrix Quattro DAC, Grant Fidelity TubeDAC-11[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Headphones: Audio Technica W1000x, Sennheiser HD650, Westone AC2, Heir Audio 6.A LE, Heir Audio 8.A, Lear LCM-5, Lawton LA7000, Thunderpants TP1, HiFiMAN HE400, Ultrasone Signature Pro, Unique Melody Merlin, Cosmic Ears Flex twin[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] As always, power was handled by a CablePro Revelation power conditioner and CablePro Reverie AC cables. In this case the Shonyun has its own power connection so the Reverie cables were only used with other equipment in the chain. Interconnects were the Auric Ohno from Charleston Cable Company, digital connections from NuForce. Since the 301 only has 1/8" outputs I used a CablePro Freedom series adapter to get a 1/4" connection for my bigger headphones. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] LISTENING[/size]
[size=small] Given the above comments on design and build, I was not entirely confident that the 301 would sound like much. So when I first plugged in my HE400 and gave it a listen, I was pleasantly surprised at what I heard. Good extension on both ends, a nice tonal balance, no specific problem areas that I could notice.... this thing sure sounded better than it looked. I switched to the HD650 to see if it could sustain this level of performance with a higher impedance load - and it did. I then tried the more difficult to drive Thunderpants and sure enough, it drove them with authority. Lastly I tried something that I felt would most certainly cause the 301 to stumble - a sensitive IEM in the form of the Heir Audio 6.A LE. Surely a unit such as this, operating in Class A and not having the highest perceived build quality, would show some bothersome hiss with these IEMs. Not so - the unit was about as quiet as they come; quieter than my Yulong Sabre A18 which sells for twice as much. Impressive - I attribute this black background to the separate power supply which serves to isolate noise from the main amplification section. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] As I spent more and more time listening over the next few weeks, the Shonyun 301 started showing its character. In general terms, the unit has a somewhat exciting sound, calling extra attention to itself in the upper midrange region. Aside from that "liveliness" it is mostly neutral, with perhaps a very slight warm tilt on the lower end. It's got a good grip of the basics with nice resolution, transparency, and an overall sense of ease. Despite being a little on the "exciting" side, it isn't annoying or bright, which is what you might be thinking of when I use that term. It's just a bit more lively than pure neutral but not extremely so. Soundstage presentation is nice too, with a good amount of width and some depth to go along with it. Image specificity is what I'd call average for the price meaning good but not spectacular - you certainly can't have it all without paying more. Overall it's a pleasing sound that works well with most every headphone if not being an ideal match for some - I already find Grados to be somewhat harsh and difficult to listen to for long periods, so a more exciting amp certainly doesn't make that any better. But for nearly all other headphones the 301 is a pleasing partner.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The overall sound is reminescent of what I'd call the classic Ray Samuels Audio sound. I'm not really current on his newer stuff, but older models like the Hornet and original SR71 had a fairly distinctive tone to them - bold, exciting, somewhat aggressive but not wildly colored overall, they made listening fun despite not being completely neutral. That's the same description I use for the Shonyun 301. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The dead silent background combined with the generous bass and lively upper midrange helps create an atmosphere of dynamic sound, where the user doesn't have to crank the volume to get emotion out of the amp. For lovers of classical music and jazz, this works out very well. For people who tend to only listen to newer recordings this may not matter so much.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I did pair the amp with some higher end sources - I ran it straight from my Cambridge 840C or through my Anedio D2 DAC. But those aren't necessarily realistic as they each cost several times what the 301 sells for. In the end I mostly paired it with the Yulong D100 mkII and the Grant Fidelity TubeDAC-11. At $480 and $350 respectively, those are the types of units more likely to be paired with the Shonyun 301. In both cases I felt that the 301 was an improvement over the built in amplification. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The TubeDAC-11 has a nice headphone section utilizing dual ADA4075-2 opamps from Analog Devices, driving a discrete transistor diamond buffer. It's far better than what I expected in a multi-function $350 device. The Shonyun doesn't blow it away but does offer a reasonably noticeable improvement. It seems to dig slightly deeper as well as offer a bit more bloom in the lower regions. It also has a more engaging midrange/upper mid presentation, making the TubeDAC amp section seem a little dull in comparison. The differences were bigger when using planar headphones or higher impedance models, but even with a 25 ohm Lawton LA7000 I noticed a small improvement.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] While the TubeDAC has the word "tube" right there in the name, listening through the headphone jack is strictly a solid state affair. The tube comes into play when using the tube output, which I preferred over the solid state options when pairing with the Shonyun. It offered a nice mix of warmth and neutrality without being overly colored. This is a nice setup that I could be quite happy with for a long time.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The Yulong D100 mkII has an improved headphone out over what the original mode, which I already considered a nice sounding amp. The mkII has a warmer and smoother sound, making the original sound lean in comparison. The design is similar to the TubeDAC-11 which makes sense as it is made by the same designer. But the D100 uses improved parts, especially in the power supply section. Even though this multi-purpose DAC/amp device is only $480, I've always maintained that it would take a significant investment in amplification to improve it by any meaningful amount. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The Shonyun 301 does manage to better the D100 integrated amp, but not by a huge margin. I notice a bit more clarity and also a better sense of soundstage realism. It also seems more comfortable with complex passages - when the D100 can feel slightly congested at times, the 301 maintains its composure and openness to a greater degree. But this was not a night and day difference - I wouldn't fault someone for completely missing the differences altogether. Because of the improvement being relatively small compared to the investment required, I'm not sure this is something I would recommend across the board. Again, more difficult loads like the Thunderpants are better able to showcase the improvement.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] COMPARISONS[/size]
[size=small] I started with my go-to amp in the sub-$500 price range - the Yulong A100 ($360). Featuring a similar configuration as the Shonyun - OPA627 opamps for voltage amplification followed by a discrete transistor section for Class A output. It also has a quality power supply, though it doesn't get a separate enclosure like the Shonyun. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Soundwise, these two are in the same league in quality but different in focus. The A100 is neutral to a fault - it will absolutely shred a low quality recording. The Shonyun is more forgiving in a euphonic way, though not overly so. Because of their different personalities, I reach for one amp or the other depending on associated equipment. I much prefer the A100 paired with the Lawton LA7000 and sourced by the TubeDAC-11. Then again, when I use the Yulong D100 mkII I prefer the Shonyun driving the HE400. So it really depends. I will say that the Shonyun has less fatigue when listening long term, a rather surprising thing given the exciting sound. I attribute this to the fact that I tend to listen to it at lower levels, while at times the A100 requires a boost in volume to give a satisfying impact.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The Matrix Quattro amp ($399) is a solid state design which basically throws a pair of their M-Stage amps into a single enclosure for balanced operation. When used in single-ended mode, the Quattro is not all that different from the basic M-Stage. With the stock OPA2604 on board the Quattro has a fairly even tone which is somewhere in between the analytical A100 and the exciting Shonyun. It's a little on the darker side which makes it more forgiving - best paired with a Grado, Audio Technica, or similar sounding headphone that has some bite to it. The Quattro has a tad more grain to the upper mids which somewhat cancels out the forgiving aspect of it - it's hard to explain. Once again the Shonyun is in the same league, not significantly better nor appreciably worse. These two appeal to different users based on flavor but neither really pulls ahead in terms of sound quality.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] One benefit the Shonyun does have over both amps is the noise floor - while the Yulong and Quattro are both very quiet, the Shonyun is essentially silent. For users of sensitive IEMs this means the Shonyun has the advantage. It's worth noting that this is among the most quiet amps I've ever experienced at any price. Unfortunately the volume knob is not the greatest for low level listening, so it somewhat takes away from this achievement. Both the Quattro and A100 look and feel like nicer/more expensive products compared to the Shonyun. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] CONCLUSION[/size]
[size=small] As you can tell, I have mixed feelings about this amp. The most important part is that it sounds really nice - it has a pleasing and somewhat unique sound that differentiates it from its peers in the same price class. Unfortunately that high sound quality is accompanied by a mediocre build quality and a subjectively unimpressive appearance. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Is it enough to release an amp that competes well with, but doesn't really exceed, the existing amps on the market in its price range? That's the question that keeps me from fully recommending this amp. As a new company on the market I would expect some heavily discounted prices to differentiate themselves from the crowd. It doesn't seem as if Shonyun is on board with that idea. I'll summarize it like so - for $450, the Shonyun 301 is enjoyable enough and recommended for certain people whose tastes line up with its sound signature. If it was priced more aggressively at say $350 it would seem far more competitive and thus an easier and more universal recommendation. Still, a good start for this fledgling company, and combined with the portable 306 amp (review coming soon) it shows that Shonyun can at least be competitive in its class. That's more than I can say for some others. If they just give a bit more attention to the aesthetics and build quality moving forward, they will definitely be a brand to watch for. [/size]
 

 
1964 Ears V3
 
 

 
 
 
 
[size=small]It seems like only yesterday that 1964 Ears came on the scene as one of several new startup companies in the field of custom IEMs. Sure, there were some established players on the market such as Ultimate Ears and Westone, but 1964 Ears (along with Unique Melody) was part of a new wave of players that really started driving down prices and making the use of custom ear-monitors more widespread. Many other new companies have arrived in the several years that 1964 has been on the market, and we hadn't seen anything new from 1964 beyond the original lineup of 2, 3, and 4 driver models. Not to say 1964 didn't have their share of fans though - their somewhat unique laid back presentation remained well respected, but it was time for something new. Enter the V-series.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The V3 is the first of what will likely become a complete overhaul of the entire line. Rather than slotting along side the existing triple driver 1964-T, it actually replaces it. And 1964 has just announced a new V6 model with - as the name implies - 6 drivers total. That model will be the new flagship for the company, while the quad driver 1964-Q will remain for the moment (perhaps eventually replaced by a V4 model? I'm just guessing). [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The V3 sells for $425 which is roughly the same price as the 1964-T which it supersedes. I say "roughly" because that model changed in price several times during its life span from the $350 intro price to the $450 regular price, with a stop at $400 along the way. So the V3 is just about the same price assuming this is not a temporary discount (1964 Ears has said nothing about this being a limited time price so I assume it is finalized).[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] DESIGN[/size]
[size=small] The V3 is a triple driver IEM with a 3-way crossover design. That means there is a dedicated driver for lows, another for mids, and another for highs. This is distinct from the 1964-T which used a 2-way crossover - dual larger drivers for lows and a single smaller driver for highs, with a crossover point somewhere in the middle. The canal remains the same with dual bores exiting into the ear. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I ordered my V3 in a solid black. They look great, but obviously don't allow me to see the drivers inside. So I can't say what drivers are being used or how they differ from the 1964-T.
 [/size]
[size=small] In my experience, the main advantage to a 3-way driver design is in soundstage performance. I'm not exactly sure what causes this - and maybe I'm just imagining it. But of all the customs I own, the 3-way models always have a more spacious presentation than the 2-way models, regardless of what the rest of their sound signature is like. With the frequency response divided into 3 sections, the designer has more freedom in tuning an even response with less peaks and valleys. Not only does this usually lead to a more coherent sound with better extension on both ends, but it also makes the soundstage more open. I'll discuss this more in the listening section. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The V3 specs are as follows:[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Impedance: 16 ohms at 1kHz[/size]
[size=small] Sensitivity: 119 dB spl/mW at 1kHz[/size]
[size=small] Frequency Response: 12Hz to 17kHz[/size]
[size=small] Isolation: -26dB[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The isolation figure is a stock number used by many custom IEM makers. In reality, isolation depends on fit, and most acrylic customs should isolate equally well given the same fit. The frequency response figure is also largely useless because it doesn't tell us what the numbers mean. Are those the -3dB points? -10dB points? I don't know. To be fair, most companies do the same thing with their quoted figures so 1964 isn't out of the ordinary here. The sensitivity on the V3 is on the higher side for IEMs in general but not by a significant factor. It is within a few dB of the other models in the 1964 lineup. Finally, the impedance is somewhat low but again we don't know what the curve is so that number isn't extremely useful. It could be 50 ohms through all other frequencies but dip down to 16 ohms at 1kHz. Or it could be 8 ohms everywhere else and rise to 16 ohms at 1kHz. Those would be very different loads for an amp to drive, yet they could both be called "16 ohms at 1kHz". [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 

BUILD 
As mentioned, I got my V3 in solid black with brushed aluminum faceplates and black 1964 Ears logos in the small "modern" font.  The fancy faceplate is a $75 option and the logo is an optional freebie (there are several styles to choose from). I think they look spectacular but check out my pictures and judge for yourself. Solid shells don't allow for a view of the "guts" so I can't comment on the existence of bubbles or internal flaws. But from the outside they look mighty nice. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I do notice that the cable is slightly different from any custom IEM cable I've come across. Nothing to get excited about, and it is still very similar to the traditional Westone/JH/1964/UM/Heir/etc stock cable. But as you can see in the pics, this one has a different look to the plug - it's more rounded compared to the typical blocky style connector. Because of this it has a slightly lower profile to it. Does this matter? Not for me, but maybe someone else would care. Some portable amps are really cramped for space at the input/output ports, so perhaps this would come in handy. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Aside from the V3s themselves, and the cable, the package also includes the engraved hard-shell Pelican storage case, a soft pouch, a cleaning tool, a shirt clip, and an adapter to connect to larger 1/4" headphone jacks. It's a competent bundle - about par for the segment, though the custom engraving on the case is a nice touch that most don't offer, and the 1/4" adapter is always welcome - one can never have too many of those laying around.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
Pardon the lighting - it's hard to capture these faceplates properly!
 
 

 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] EQUIPMENT[/size]
[size=small] For home use, I've primarily been using the following equipment:[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Source - Auraliti PK90 music server with Nuforce LPS-1 power supply, Cambridge Audio 840C, JF Digital HDM-03S music server[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] DAC - Anedio D2, Violectric V800, Yulong D18, Yulong D100 mkII, KAO Audio UD2C-HP, Matrix Quattro DAC[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Amp - Violectric V200, Yulong A100, Shonyun 301 Pro, Matrix Quattro amp[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Power comes from a CablePro Revelation power conditioner and CablePro Reverie AC cables. Interconnects are a mix of Signal Cable Analog Two and Nuforce Focused Field. Digital cables also from Signal and Nuforce. I used the stock 1964 Ears cable as well as the Heir Audio Magnus 1 and Beat Audio Cronus IEM cables. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] For portable listening, I used the following:[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Players: iHiFi812, QLS QA350, Sansa Clip+, Meizu MX 4-core, iPod Touch 3G[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Portable amps: Leckerton UHA-6S mkII, Shonyun 306, TCG Tbox[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
RoCoo D Power Edition
 

Meizu MX 4-core (an exception match with the V3)
 

iHiFi 812 V2
 

iHiFi plus Leckerton UHA-6S mkII
 

Cambridge 840C upsampling to 24-bit/384kHz
 

Auraliti PK90 music server
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] LISTENING[/size]
[size=small] The V3 is a great sounding IEM. I always enjoyed the 1964-T so I figured I knew what to expect - more or less. But I was surprised to hear the V3 when if finally arrived - the sound signature is rather different than the 1964-T. It still retains the 1964 Ears house sound to some degree, yet also redefines it. I know that doesn't make a lot of sense so I will attempt to explain.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The first major deviation I noticed was in the low frequencies. The V3 can really pound when called upon to do so. It has excellent extension into the sub-bass region, which I always appreciate. It makes for great impact and satisfying realism without having to overdo it on the volume. In terms of quantity, the V3 is moderately north of neutral. I don't think they will replace the quad driver 1964-Q in terms of sheer output but they lean somewhat more in that direction compared to the 1964-T. The T was boosted by what felt like roughly 2-3 dB, and that boost was centered around 60Hz. It started rolling off somewhat in the low 30Hz range and had usable output to 20Hz, but it wasn't really all that loud down there. The V3 seems to dig deeper and remain more composed in the lowest lows. I can't really put an exact number on the boost - maybe another 2dB or so? Or maybe it's not really much of an increase at all, but just feels that way due to the extended sub bass impact. All I know is that playing Angelique Kidjo's version of Voodoo Chile, I feel the deep, rhythmic bassline in a remarkably tangible way, more so than with the 1964-T.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Throughout the whole spectrum of 20Hz to about 200Hz, the V3 sounds clean and very much at ease. The fact that it has but a single driver handling lows makes one think it might not be as good as the dual driver setup in the previous model. But keep in mind that the 1964-T had dual drivers handling a more broad spectrum of bass and mids; the 3-way crossover of the V3 helps free up that bass driver to focus on a more well defined area, and thus lets 1964 Ears tune that driver to its maximum potential. As a result, kick drums have a convincingly deep thump to them. In fact, all of the instruments that can actually plumb those depths sound wonderful on the V3 - pipe organ is the usual suspect here but also tuba, contrabassoon, double bass, and even the occasional low note on a harp - all have very nice extension on the low end.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The thing about the revised tuning - it seems a bit more bass heavy in general, but it isn't always bass heavy to the point of annoyance. Some tracks call for thundering bass but others call for more finesse, and the V3 is a capable performer in that area as well. It's not just brute force at work here. I enjoyed my usual torture test albums for bass - the newish soundtrack from Tron by Daft Punk, Khmer by Nils Petter Molvaer, Super Double Bass by Gary Karr on the XRCD format, Stravinsky: Firebird Suite from the Reference Recordings HRx hi-res album, Dancing With Drums XRCD24 release, and on and on. All of these feature powerful, dynamic low frequency material, and all were well reproduced by the V3. I was also happy with less bass-oriented material such as Be My Thrill by the Weepies, Herbie Hancock's River: The Joni Letters, or Asante by McCoy Tyner. This really isn't the type of IEM that pigeon holes itself into only working with a specific genre. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Moving on to the mids - 1964 Ears calls them "more engaging" and I have to say I agree. The mids were probably the biggest strength of V3's predecessor and 1964 hasn't fundamentally changed them. They are somewhat on the forward yet smooth side, but not overly so, keeping in mind 1964's original focus on stage monitors. Compared to the 1964-T I find the V3 to have higher levels of detail retrieval. Vocals sound that much more lifelike - not that they sounded lacking on the old model. But those little details like a singer pursing their lips will come through more audibly with the V3. Still, this is not an analytical sounding IEM overall - those who listen to a live outdoor concert and expect to hear a leaf drop from the treeline 40 yards away will be disappointed. Overall this is more of a rich, creamy, Audeze LCD-2 type of sound than a Sennheiser HD800 type detail monster. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Highs once again draw a parallel with the Audeze LCD-2 - they are smooth and controlled, with good extension but overall somewhat of a darker tonal palette. The first impression would be to write them off as "dark" and call it a day. But that's not exactly accurate. Like the LCD-2, the V3 is certainly shelved down in the top octaves, and compared to some headphones it comes off as undeniably less sparkly. But "dark" implies a veiled sound, where details are either hidden or missing altogether due to rolled-off highs. I don't get the impression that I'm really missing any information with the V3, but rather that it is being presented in a softer light. Of course, some people prefer a more spotlit sound on the highs, and to them the V3 will sound a little dull. There's nothing wrong with that - horses for courses. In any case I do think that the V3 has better treble extension than the 1964-T did. The V3 seems to have more airiness to it; like going from a Sennheiser HD650 with the original drivers to the more recent revision. Again, this is not a detail monster type of IEM but at the same time it does provide an excellent level of micro-detail. It just doesn't shove them in your face. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Another strength of the V3 is in terms of dynamics - these things can really play LOUD when called upon to do so, without losing any composure. The smooth top end means you can play most recordings louder than you otherwise would, and not worry about treble peaks grating on your brain. I consider myself just average when it comes to listening volume, and realistically I played the V3 at medium volumes more often than not. But there were times where I couldn't help but goose the volume a bit to really feel the music. That doesn't always happen with every IEM. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Probably the biggest improvement of all over the former model comes in terms of soundstage. The 1964-T was only moderately sized, and as ljokerl pointed out in his review, that presentation fit well with the overall sound signature. Imaging was accurate and the whole thing just worked - it wasn't the largest, nor the smallest, and it was convincing for what it did. With this new design, the soundstage is significantly more expansive. I especially notice an increase in depth which is something that the old model only did to a minimum degree. Yet due to the increased bass impact and depth, and the higher degree of detail retrieval, I don't think the stage comes across as overdone in any way. It's a really enjoyable presentation, one that I find superior to many of my other custom IEMs with the exception of a few much more expensive models.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Ultimately, as much as I enjoyed the 1964-T, I now realize that it was somewhat average with respect to technical ability (within its price class of course). Yet it was able to transcend that and become one of my favorite IEMs by virtue of its pleasingly tuned sound signature. This is the opposite of some IEMs or headphones which are full of technical ability, yet not very fun to listen to. The V3 seems to retain the crowd-pleasing tonality of the 1964-T, while further refining and tweaking it, but also adding a higher level of technical prowess. Well done![/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] SYNERGY[/size]
[size=small] The V3 pairs well with most sources and amps due to its forgiving nature. This is a great IEM to just plug in to your Sansa Clip+ or iPhone and enjoy. It also responds rather well to source and amp upgrades. It will put up with a bright headphone amp without blinking, yet isn't so smooth where it becomes a poor match with darker amps. It is clear and spacious enough to show the differences between sources. So I can start out with something on the budget end of things such as an Audinst HUD-mini ($129), and then hear a difference when moving up to the Matrix Cube ($270), then another step up to the Yulong D100 mkII ($480), on and on through the Anedio D2 ($1500) and the Violectric V800/V200 combo ($2300). [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The improvement seems to reach a climax around the Yulong D100 mkII level, to where I'd say the extra $1000 jump to the Anedio probably isn't worth it if this was your only IEM. More revealing customs definitely show the improvement more clearly and perhaps the recently unveiled V6 model from 1964 Ears would do the trick for that.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I appreciate that the V3 doesn't have an ultra-demanding load. It doesn't hiss with any of my players save for the HiSound RoCoo D Power Edition (which hisses with most of my IEMs). And it seems to to behave well even when using an amp with slightly high output impedance. I tried a few with 5 ohm output impedance, which should lead to impedance interactions with the V3, but didn't notice anything too objectionable. Perhaps a slightly recessed midrange, but nowhere near as obvious of a change compared to many of my other low impedance IEMs. So the impedance curve must be relatively even, or else the forgiving nature of the sound signature is at play here helping to mask the differences.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
Anedio D2 - overkill...
 
 

Violectric V800 and V200 - major overkill! 
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] COMPARISONS[/size]
[size=small] To be fair, comparisons have to be made with similarly priced competition. In my lineup that translates to the Westone AC2, Lear LCM-2b, and Heir Audio 4.A (sort of, I'll explain later). [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The Westone AC2 has a similar bass presentation to the V3 but perhaps a little more "in your face". The V3 digs deeper into the sub bass region though. V3 is also more engaging in the mids and far smoother in the highs. This is a good thing. At this point we go beyond mere style preferences - the V3 seems clearly the better IEM on a technical level. To be fair, the AC2 is a dual driver model, and so it makes sense that it wouldn't be able to keep up.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The Lear LCM-2b is also a dual driver model but sells for the same low $400 range so comparisons still seem appropriate. The Lear has a really satisfying U-shaped signature, with more crispness and snap in the highs compared to the V3. The flip side of that is that it can be edgy at times depending on the music. But overall the V3 has superior bass reproduction and more emotive midrange, so again it wins against the dual driver competition. I still enjoy the LCM-2b quite a bit, but I admit that the V3 makes it sound kind of poor in comparison. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The Heir Audio 4.A is a quad driver design which at one time was priced within $25 of the V3. That introductory pricing has expired and they are back to the normal price of $699. So in reality this is a skewed comparison, but I realize that a lot of people may be curious about it. These are two very different sounding IEMs. The 4.A is neutral to a fault and can be brutally revealing. The V3 is forgiving and makes almost everything sound good. After much listening, I've concluded that the V3 is tuned in a more pleasing way but the 4.A is the more honest and technically superior IEM. If I was planning on listening to some mediocre recordings on a Sansa Clip+ or iPad, I would reach for the V3 every time. If I wanted to play some high quality recordings and was using moderately good equipment, the 4.A would usually be my first choice. This is an important distinction because no matter how good your IEM is, it can be wrong for you if it doesn't cater to the type of music you most often listen to. The same thing goes for full size headphones and speakers; the difference being that those can more be easily sold or traded. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Heir and 1964 are two of my favorite companies and both have their own unique presentation - I see them as complimentary rather than strictly competitive. That said, if someone desired the spacious, warm, smooth presentation of the flagship 8.A but couldn't front the $1299, the V3 goes a long way towards achieving that for a low price. It doesn't have near the same technicalities, and frankly the 8.A is just magical in a way that no other IEM I've heard can quite match. But the V3 offers a really compelling impersonation for $425. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Owners of the 1964-T face a tough decision: the T is still a fantastic sounding monitor, yet the V3 is superior by a not-insignificant margin. Is it worth shelling out another $400+ to upgrade? I'd say yes and no... if you find yourself wishing for a more spacious presentation, better micro-detail, and just a higher technical ability in general, the V3 should satisfy those needs. But if you expect a completely different sound, you should look elsewhere, as the V3 is more evolutionary than revolutionary. But it is a rather large evolution. As I said, tough call. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] CONCLUSION[/size]
[size=small] 1964 Ears has been very successful in the past few years. Their quad driver 1964-Q was a big hit, and the triple driver 1964-T also seemed well received. And don't forget reshells - 1964 has carved a name for themselves by offering quality USA-based reshelling services at reasonable prices. And yet, despite all this, the industry is ever evolving, and updates are always welcome. A good design doesn't last forever, and 1964 seems to be making the right move by refreshing their line with the V-series.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] As for the V3 in particular - It is a fantastic custom monitor with a very pleasing sound signature. It surpasses the prior triple driver model in nearly every significant metric, while maintaining the same 1964 Ears "house sound" that folks have come to know and love. If you are in the market for a relatively affordable custom IEM and prefer a smooth, warm, engaging sound, the V3 should be high on your list. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
 

 
[size=small] iHiFi 812 V2[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  
[/size]
[size=small] [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]The market for high-quality portable DAP units is steadily growing. Go back a few years and most people around here were running an iPod with a line-out dock to a portable amp, or something similar. Since then we've seen the release of various HiFiMAN units, the Colorfly C4, various Studio and RoCoo models from HiSound, and now the iBasso DX100. We've also seen the relatively unknown QLS QA350 come out of nowhere and offer features that few could match (but also some significant trade-offs) at a really low price. All of these units promise better-than-iPod sound quality, including the ability to play FLAC and other formats as well as drive full size headphones properly. That sounds great but there are also downsides - high prices, larger size, shorter battery life, and of course a UI that can't hope to match that of an iDevice. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I've resisted the DX100 for now, opting to wait until it becomes more mature. My tolerance for bugs and even minor annoyances is far higher on a $900 unit than it is for something like the QA350 - which itself has plenty of drawbacks yet costs far less. I've got high hopes for the new HiFiMAN HM901 but that's still a ways off. So I picked up this mystery device to satisfy my curiosity for a while. Turns out it is actually rather nice in a simplistic sort of way. It seems to me that it appeals to the same target market as the QLS QA350 so I'll be comparing the two models quite often - even though they are technically unrelated as far as I can tell.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] DESIGN[/size]
[size=small] The iHiFi 812 is an audiophile DAP from an unknown (to me) company called XueLin Electronics based in Shenzhen China. It sells for around $299 on eBay from the established sellers - it can be had for a bit less from some others, but I'd stick with someone well known like wsz0304. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Simple rundown of the external specs: a relatively chunky design measuring roughly 5" x 3" x 1", a 2.4" color LCD, 5 button control scheme, hardware on/off switch on the side, headphone out and line out, 8GB internal storage expandable via micro-SD cards, 7.4V lithium ion battery, high and low gain settings via DIP switch for each channel. The unit handles playback of FLAC, WAV, MP3, AAC, OGG, and WMA, with sample rate being limited to 48kHz (so no hi-res tracks unfortunately). It does have cue support but no gapless playback. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] To examine highlights of the above info - the unit is smaller than the QA350, and roughly the same size and weight as an iPod Classic paried with a mid-sized portable amp. The screen is far larger than the QA350, and therefore it is easier to navigate and find your music. Battery life ranges from 10 to 15 hours depending on what type of files are played. This is about double the QA350. Battery is charged through a standard wall wart plug with a typical connection, which is far improved over the awkward charging system used by QLS. Where the QA350 required music to be loaded on the SD card manually, the 812 has a mini-USB jack so the internal memory or inserted microSD card is more easily accessed. Overall these are welcome improvements. It's not all good news though - the 812 doesn't have the remote control option, and more importantly it doesn't have a digital output. That's a major feature that I liked about the QA350 so I'm sad to not see it included here.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

Size comparison with QA350
 

They are the same height/width, though this pic makes the 812 look thicker
 

 
 

RoCoo D Power Edition is way smaller
 

Leckerton UHA-6S mkII
 

Meizu MX 4-core 
 

Clearly the Meizu or any similar smartphone has a lower profile
 

Add an amp to the mix and things are actually rather close
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Moving on the the guts of the device: there appears to be an original 812 which packed a Cirrus CS4398 DAC chip. I still see those listed on eBay. The version I have is the iHiFi812V2, and it swaps the Cirrus DAC for a Wolfson model. It also seems to use some upgraded capacitors and other parts. I don't know if anyone even stocks the first model any longer or if the V2 is all that's available. You might double check when ordering if it matters to you. The original version had an odd connector for sending an I2S signal to an external DAC, which apparently was intended for the DIY crowd. It must not have been very popular because the V2 got rid of it.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] In any case, the design is as follows: Rockchip RK2705A-B cpu, unknown amount of onboard memory from EtronTech, 8GB Micron branded NAND memory, Wolfson WM8740 DAC, Analog Devices AD1896 asynchronous sample rate converter, AD8672 opamp for low-pass conversion, AD8397ARDZ opamp for amplification, caps from Nichicon's Muse series, Panasonic, Sanyo, and Philips, and an Alps pot for volume. It's a competent mix of quality parts that seems well laid out, if a little difficult to access - the design is separated into two boards "sandwiched" together, and I could not get them apart. Perhaps some stray glue ended up where it shouldn't have, or maybe I'm getting weak/timid in my old age. I felt like if I pulled any harder I would break the connectors, even though they looked like they "should" have come apart quite easily. Since I like the unit, I placed a higher value on keeping the thing working rather than getting it open for pics. So my internal pictures will be limited to what is visible without separating those layers, and the rest of my pics will be stuff I found online. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]
 
 

Wolfson WM8740 DAC
 

Analog Devices AD1896 asynchronous sample rate converter 
 

Analog Devices AD8397 for headphone out
 

2 layer design
 

Replaceable battery
 

The spring on the top right normally pushes against the case, to ensure proper ground
 

The culprit - I could not get these things apart!
 

Screen connection
 

Headphone and line out
 

Another reason the device wouldn't open for me!
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] A few more technical bits: all data is upsampled to 24-bit/192kHz by the ASRC chip before being passed to the DAC for conversion. Upsampling can't be disabled. The amp section has some respectable specs: 450mW into a 16 ohm load, 225mW into a 32 ohms, 99mW into 150 ohms, and 50mW into 300 ohms. That means it should be able to reasonably power most headphones out there save for the most stubborn models. Output impedance is less than 1 ohm so no impedance interactions take place even with multi-armature designs.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] USE[/size]
[size=small] The usability of these types of devices is often a "make it or break it" type experience. The 812 comes across as competent but not amazing. It's useful in a similar way as the HiSound players or Sansa Clip with the stock firmware - one can find and play their music without issue, but don't ask for much in the way of extras. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] On the plus side: navigation is really straight forward. Browsing is simply done by folders, and the screen is large enough where many folders show up on the list, unlike the Sansa Clip or HiSound players where only a few lines will fit. Adding a microSD card creates two separate places to browse for files. Since browsing is done by folder rather than by artist or album, this isn't too big of a problem. The "now playing" screen is decent as well, showing sample rate and bitrate as well as metadata (optional). And the 812, unlike the QA350, has functional fast forward and rewind. It is quick and easy to connect the unit via USB and just drag/drop folders to load it with music. Startup takes about 5 seconds which is fast compared to some devices. While there is a hardware power switch, holding down the center button for a few seconds is sort of a software on/off button. Resume play does work when using that method. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] On the negative side: the screen looks kind of cheesy. See the pics to get an idea of what I'm talking about. The extra real estate is very much appreciated, but a lot of it seems wasted. It is in color but for the most part it could have just as well been black and white because color is not used much. Album art is not displayed even though it could be since there's plenty of room. Playlists are supported via cue but not available to be created on the fly. Basically what you have is a bare-bones, file browser type UI, and that's all. The EQ is about as good as the one on a stock Sansa Clip, meaning it is basically worthless. Metadata can be displayed but is not used for browsing by artist or genre. It also seemed to have issues with the tagging on some FLAC files (but this is a common issue found on plenty of other devices). To round out my list of complaints, there is a slight "thump" noise between tracks, or when powering off. It's not loud enough to hurt your ears or damage your IEMs, so this is just a minor annoyance. Oh, and before I forget - the unit arrived with a default setting of Chinese. It took me a lot of fiddling to get it into English mode. It would be helpful if they did that prior to shipping for English speaking countries. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] It's hard to put the user experience into words so I took a lot of pics showing the device in action. Hopefully that helps.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  
 

Startup animation - the needle moves from left to right, and it takes just a few seconds
 

 
 

 
 

Select "music" and you get this menu. Resume play no longer works if the power switch was turned off. 
 

All Music gets you a big list of tracks in alphabetical order
 

Selecting by folder
 

The "now playing" screen - note the unused space and lack of metadata
 

MP3 files never had issues with tagging
 

The overlay menu 
 

EQ is not worth bothering with 
 

 
 

There are some customization options, but not many. This freq chart animation is really choppy looking. 
 
 
 
Another minor issue - by default, the player will be in single play mode where it stops after playing the selected track. To fix this, go to "repeat mode" and choose "all", which really means "play all the songs in this folder before stopping". Maybe it's a "lost in translation" sort of thing. 
 
[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] EQUIPMENT[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] This is the gear I used for evaluating the 812:[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] IEMs: Heir Audio 4.A, 6.A LE, 8.A, Westone AC2, UM Merlin, Lear LCM-2b and LCM-5, Earproof Atom, Aurisonics AS-1b, 1964 Ears V3, Cosmic Ears Pure Plus and Flex Twin[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Headphones: Sennheiser HD650, Lawton LA7000, Audio Technica W1000x, HiFiMAN HE400, Ultrasone Signature Pro, VMODA M80, late model Smeggy-built Thunderpants TP1[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Portable amps: Leckerton UHA-6S mkII, TCG Tbox, Shonyun 306, Audinst AMP-HP[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Home setup: Opera Consonance M10S tube integrated feeding a Woo Audio WEE transformer box driving Stax SR404LE[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I used a CablePro Freedom series adapter to convert my 1/4" headphones to the 1/8" required by the 812. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] [/size]
[size=small] HE400 with CablePro Earcandy cable[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] [/size]
[size=small] Lear LCM-5 custom IEMs[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] [/size]
[size=small] Ultrasone Signature Pro[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] LISTENING[/size]
[size=small] In the interest of keeping this review relatively short, I'm going to be as brief as possible here - the 812 sounds quite good, and does what it's supposed to do in terms of powering difficult full sized headphones. The overall sound signature is neutral, with good extension on the low end. Highs are just slightly on the smoother side of neutral which is not strong enough to be intrusive - it's a very minor thing that falls into the category of "character" rather than "coloration". I was able to drive my sensitive CIEMs with practically zero hiss or background noise (the exception being that thump I mentioned prior), and I was also able to easily drive the HD650, HE400, and other full sized headphones to satisfactory levels. In a nutshell, the 812 performs admirably in terms of sound, doing everything I expected of it. I had been somewhat concerned about the ASRC feature because in some cases upsampling equates to brighter, edgier sound. But fortunately that isn't the case here. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Compared to the QA350, which I find to sound pretty darn good on its own, the 812 has the edge straight from the headphone jack. Rather, I should say the QA350 has the "edge" because it sounds slightly "edgy" in the highs compared to the smoother and more nuanced 812. I find the QA350 to be relatively smooth when used on its own, but comparisons with the 812 bring out this difference. I notice significantly more grain on the QLS unit, while the 812 is more transparent and clean sounding overall. It seems to be digging more information out the the music without being overbearing about it. I also notice deeper and more convincing bass extension - something I've heard people complain about on the QA350. Apparently QLS addressed this "issue" by releasing a V2 model, but I've heard some people complain that it actually goes overboard with too much bass emphasis. I've only experienced my original QLS model so I can't say for sure, but I can say that the 812 is very satisfying in that regard without being unbalanced. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Used as a player with an external amp, the 812 is also superior to the QA350. The difference is not quite as immediately obvious though. But when I use each unit to feed my highly revealing electrostatic setup, I can A/B them and quickly tell them apart. The 812 is just more convincingly "high end" sounding. While neither unit is as good as my reference sources, the 812 comes a little closer. Think of the QA350 as being a solid entry level CD player from a brand like NAD or Cambridge, while the 812 would be a step-up unit maybe one or two models higher in the lineup. This won't always make a difference depending on the associated equipment but with my Stax SR404LE I can definitely tell them apart. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] For portable use, the 812 is good enough to the point where many portable amps don't give an improvement. Sure, adding the Shonyun 306 amp results in a more lively sound, but it isn't really better... just different. Same story with the Audinst AMP-HP and TCG Tbox. In general it seems that most sub-$200 to $300 portable amps won't really improve the built-in amp stage. Adding my Leckerton UHA-6S mkII gives a subtle but noticeable boost in clarity and refinement. If this was my main home rig the improvement would be worth it; for portable use in noisy environments I wouldn't bother with the extra bulk. Keep in mind that the Leckerton is one of thebest portables I've experienced at any price; that the 812 comes relatively close is impressive. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] The gain selection is a welcome option though I ended up leaving it on "low" most of the time. The lower setting still allows me to power such headphones as the W1000x, LA7000, Ultrasone Sig Pro, and VMODA M80 without issue, and still has enough control even for sensitive IEMs. I tended to keep the volume knob at around 50 to 60 percent for normal listening, maybe up to 75 percent for quiet recordings or when I really wanted to rock out. Even my planar magnetic headphones such as the HE400 and Thunderpants go fairly loud on the lower gain setting. The only headphones I found where I consistently wanted to use the higher gain are the Sennheiser HD650 and Thunderpants. Still, I'm glad the option is there, and it might come in more handy for other headphones (or for people who listen at louder volume than I do). [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] This leads me to my chief complaint about the 812 - no digital output. While the headphone out and line out sections are quite good, the lack of digital output is a real drawback compared to the QA350 which features both Toslink and coaxial SPDIF outputs. Those outputs seemed to be a major draw for that unit - how many other devices can do that? The 812, by omitting that feature, becomes "just another DAP". It's a good one, but it's not unique in the same way as the QA350, and that limits the appeal to some extent. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] I notice that iHiFi has a new model coming out very soon called the 960 which does offer a digital output. It looks similar to the 812 as far as design, using the same chips for ASRC, DAC, and headphone amp. It looks to have some improved caps and a better system clock as well as a more refined exterior. It sells for around $430 - I can't really comment on the value of it other than to say my expectations rise corresponding with the price. For under $300, I'm willing to be more forgiving with the 812 than I would be with the 960. But I guess improved sound and a digital out might justify another $130 depending on the needs of the user.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] CONCLUSION[/size]
[size=small] The iHiFi 812 is at once an achievement and a missed opportunity. The UI, while somewhat clumsy, is certainly workable from a usability standpoint. And the unit plays most types of files, sounding great in the process. In those two aspects the 812 is far better than the QLS device that it seems to compete with. On the other hand, the lack of digital out is disappointing - how much more could that feature have added to the bottom line? [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Ultimately the iHiFi812 is still a compelling product - provided one keeps their expectations in check. It may not have quite the appeal of the QA350 due to the lack of transport functionality but aside from that it does the job it set out to do. It's roughly the same size as something like an iPod Classic paired with a midsized portable amp and easily sounds as good as most of those. If you can deal with a lack of features like gapless playback or a usable EQ (considered extras by some, necessities by others), the 812 just might be your all-in-one solution. [/size]
[size=small]  [/size]

 

 
 
 
 
This thread is now updated to a full review. Some of the posts that follow were done prior to the full review being posted, so if things seem a little confusing, it's because the review was added later. 
 
Starting from the beginning: Lear is a custom IEM company out of Hong Kong. You may recall the name from my prior review of their mid-range LCM-2b model. This new release is the flagship LCM-5, with the 5 referring to the 5 balanced armature drivers in each side. 
 
On price: the LCM-5 costs 6,888 HKD plus 200 HKD for shipping. That works out to just over $900 as of today's exchange rate. For that price one can select from a variety of colors in translucent or solids, and a free "Lear" logo is optional. On my LCM-2b the logo was a standard engraving, but since then they have apparently upgraded their equipment and can do a nice metallic electroplate printing. It's shiny silver and looks pretty nice. Another option is their "True Texture" faceplate for 398 HKD. It's rather unique, almost 3 dimensional in nature, and looks somewhat like Carbon Fiber (though it isn't). It's like they "stamped" the texture into the faceplate. Good stuff. It is limited as to which colors it works on. I got mine in black.
 
Also available for 888 HKD (shipped) is their "Monitor Sound Tuned Adapter" which I got along with my LCM-5. This is a special adapter that supposedly tunes the IEMs differently, offering a variation in sound signatures. I haven't been able to confirm just what the heck it does but I suspect it is an impedance adapter at the very least. 
 
 

 
 
DESIGN
I got my LCM-5's in different colors - right side is in a very light blue, so light that it almost looks clear from some angles, and then sometimes looks teal green in certain lighting. The tips are clear, a small upcharge, and then I got the True Texture faceplates and the Lear text. My left piece is the same but in a deep translucent blue. 
 
I'm exceedingly impressed with the way they look. Just like my LCM-2b, they are practically flawless. 
 
I look inside and see the drivers but so far haven't identified them. If I had to guess, I'd say the low frequency driver is a CI variant, the mids are 23689s, and highs are TWFK, all from Knowles Acoustics. But I could be (and probably am) way off on some or all of those. I haven't actually asked Lear yet nor have I taken out the flashlight/magnifying glass to really get a better look. 
 
Lear lists the specs as follows:
 
[size=medium]Frequency response: 20~20kHz[/size]
[size=medium]Impedance : 28ohm @1000 Hz[/size]
[size=medium]Sensitivity : 122dB @1mW[/size]
[size=medium]THD Ratio: Below 1% (20~18kHz)[/size]
[size=medium]Driver: 5 Balanced armature (1 low,2 mid,2high)[/size]
[size=medium]Crossover: Passive 3 way[/size]
 
Notice that sensitivity rating - that's about as high as you'll find on any IEM, and it really is a brutal load for some larger/more powerful desktop amps. The Apex Butte for example did not give me near enough volume travel with this IEM - it went from too quiet to LOUD!!!!! in a very short turn of the knob. And there was a very clear hiss in the background which I would consider a dealbreaker if that was my only amp. Thankfully other amps are capable of driving this load. 
 
The adapter makes them far less sensitive. I'm able to use them with various tube amps I have on hand without causing major hiss or other background noise. I haven't made up my mind exactly what it does to the sound just yet, but at very least I appreciate it making the IEM usable on a wider range of gear.
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
BUILD 
Once again Lear shows impeccable build quality. From the cool True Texture faceplates to the shiny chrome-look logo to the clear, blemish free shell, the LCM-5 is even more well built than my already-impressive LCM-2b. This is the kind of build one should expect from a CIEM in the $1000 range, but sadly it is not always delivered. 
 
I will say that I've noticed an increase in quality from major IEM companies, compared to several years ago. I think when UM, Heir Audio, and Lear can show up making exceptional customs, it reminds the big players like UE, Westone, and JH that they need to step up their game. And I believe they have for the most part. But that doesn't take anything away from Lear, who apparently has the process under wraps.
 

 
 
 

 

 
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT
Source: Auraliti PK90 music server with NuForce LPS-1 power supply, Cambridge Audio 840C
 
DAC: Anedio D2, Violectric V800, Yulong Sabre D18, Yulong D100 mkII, Matrix Quattro, Grant Fidelity TubeDAC-11
 
Amplification: Violectric V200, Yulong Sabre A18, Analog Design Labs Svetlana 2, Icon Audio HP8 mkII, Yulong A100
 
Portable stuff: Sansa Fuze and Clip+, iHiFi812, QLS QA350, Leckerton UHA-6s mkII, Meizu MX 4-core, iPad 2
 
The home rig is supplied by a CablePro Revelation power conditioner and CablePro Reverie AC cables. Interconnects are NuForce Focused Field and Signal Cable Analog Two, digital cables also from NuForce and Signal Cable. 
 
LCM-5 was burned in for several hundred hours prior to listening (I was busy). I used the stock cable a few times and it is nice enough, but honestly 99% of my listening was done with the exceptional Heir Audio Magnus 1 cable since I find that cable so ergonomically perfect. Lear also has their own upgraded cable for an extra fee but I didn't try that out for myself. 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
LISTENING
The Lear LCM-5 is unique in the Lear collection: while the LCM-1, LCM-2, and LCM-3 each come in three configurations (Bass heavy, Flat, or Clear), the LCM-5 has only a single version. Apparently Lear felt that the capabilities of the 5 drivers were such that it had an ideal tuning in mind, and thus didn't want to upset that balance by offering different versions. Keep in mind though that the adapter cable does in fact change the sound, so essentially you get two versions in one.
 
My initial report will be concerning the LCM-5 by itself, sans adapter. The first thing that stood out to me was the intoxicating clarity of the upper mids and highs. It sounded so clean and so transparent that it really shined a spotlight on the quality of the recording. That wasn't always a good thing, as some albums are so packed with grit, grain, and glare that they aren't fun to listen to. Other headphones may accentuate those flaws less, and some will actively seek to hide them. Not the LCM-5. The flip side of that experience came when I tried some of my favorite reference albums. Marta Gomez - Cantos de Agua Dulce (24/96), Alison Krauss and Union Station - Paper Airplane (24/96), Eric Clapton - Unplugged, Bill Evans Quintet - Interplay Sessions (XRCD), Herbie Hancock - River, the Joni Letters (24/96), and many others. These all sounded exceptionally clear, to the point where it might just be the best I've heard in this particular area. And remember that I do own some reference level CIEMs such as the Heir Audio 6.A LE and UM Merlin, and have owned or heard many others such as JH13 and UM Miracle. In this one area, I feel like the LCM-5 just might surpass them all. It seems roughly comparable to the HD800 or the Stax SR-404LE, not just in terms of clarity but also transient response. Some people value this more than others and if this is your thing, the LCM-5 is hard to beat. 
 
I'm going to stay focused on the upper mids and highs for a while because they really deserve some attention. Anyone familiar with IEMs knows that they can't just deliver a completely flat frequency response from 20Hz to 20kHz. The ear doesn't work that way. To compensate for the fact that the drivers are firing from within the ear canal, and thus not interacting with the outer ear, good IEMs need to have some type of boost in certain spots in order for the resulting sound to be heard as natural. If the IEM measured flat, the perceived sound would be very dull and not actually "flat" according to your ear. 
 
As you can see, there are some areas where the human ear is more sensitive to certain frequencies - and then some areas where we are less sensitive. The LCM-5 seems to be tuned in order to counteract that and thus give a flat, natural response. But of course this is nothing new and many IEM makers have their own take on how to accomplish this. I will say that the LCM-5 is exceedingly clear and transparent sounding, so they did accomplish that aspect of their intended goal. 
 
Mids on the LCM-5 are somewhat dry in that they don't have extra bloom to them. Some IEMs aim for a warm, romantic sound, and the LCM-5 largely avoids that. At the same time it doesn't have that "thin" sound that some IEMs have. It's nicely balanced for both male and female vocals, though if I had to choose I'd say it is somewhat tipped towards the "crisp yet full-bodied" side of things rather than "slow and smooth". Attack and especially decay is very well controlled but not overly speedy - it is capable of sounding as fast or as slow as the recording dictates and the associated equipment can handle. I tend to dislike it when IEMs have a deliberately rapid note decay, in an attempt to sound "accurate". This, to my humble ears, leads to timbre that is less convincing than it would otherwise be. 
 
Even compared to a mostly neutral competitor like the UM Miracle or Heir 4.A, I feel like the LCM-5 has more content in 2kHz to 5kHz range. This makes for a more noticeable "snap" on snare drums, more "bite" on trumpets, and more "splash" on cymbals. On an excellent recording where there is no inherent grain, this can sound very convincingly real. Unfortunately not all recordings are perfect... so a lot of times the LCM-5 just ends up spotlighting how poorly done the song is. 
 
This is definitely an IEM for the detail lovers out there. Due to the very high resolution and clarity levels, it essentially lays bare the micro-details in the recording. Hearing a metronome in the background of a pop song, or pages being turned by an orchestra, or coughs from the audience at an acoustic performance, can really enhance the "you are there" part of the experience. It helps that the soundstage presentation is very realistic - almost enveloping the listener in the performance. It's not quite the most expansive I've ever heard, but it does rank among the top overall for combining accuracy with size - especially depth. It's very immersive and fun. 
 
All of this would become tedious if the bass impact was insufficient, as is the case with lots of "reference" type IEMs. Thankfully Lear has tuned the LCM-5 to have a very slightly tipped up low end that hits just hard enough to sound natural without overdoing it. It isn't quite a "basshead" sound, but should satisfy most users with its depth and texture. In volume it reminds me of the Heir Audio 6.A LE, though in character it is a bit different (which I'll discuss later). Worth noting is the fact that getting good bass out of the LCM-5 requires a fairly nice setup. When I simply plug in a Sansa Clip+, the presentation tilts more towards the bright and cool side. The "lowest" I like to go with the LCM-5 is the Meizu MX 4-core, but even so I still prefer to use a portable amp. With the Leckerton UHA-6S mkII in the mix, things shape up nicely. Bass hits with more authority and I really enjoy the overall experience. 
 
On a related note, this IEM is very sensitive to noise. At 122dB for 1mW of power at 1kHz, this thing is more sensitive than most other IEMs out there. Thankfully the impedance is not very difficult - 28 ohms at 1kHz. Contrast that with the Lear LCM-2b which dips down to 10 ohms at 1kHz, meaning an amp with low output impedance is essential. The LCM-5 is not as concerned with output impedance (anything under 5 ohms should be fine) but it will absolutely show any noise, hum, or other undesirables in the output stage. A few amps that I had previously found to be rather quiet, such as the Audinst AMP-HP, turn out to have a bit of background noise that I hadn't heard before. So not only does the LCM-5 require amplification to reach its full potential, it also demands that amp to be exceedingly quiet. Then again, the target market for a $900+ custom IEM should be assumed to have access to a quality source. 
 
Overall the LCM-5 is characterized by a high clarity sound that remains engaging. Calling it somewhat bright might be partially accurate but it doesn't paint the whole picture, and is usually a byproduct of an inferior signal chain. If the treble was of lesser quality I'd be disappointed in the tuning, but as it stands the highs are so clean and so transparent that it really is enjoyable (again, depending on the recording). And the rest of the spectrum is reproduced in a natural and engaging manner that moves this IEM beyond the realm of purely analytical. So while I make several allusions to the HD800 in this review, the LCM-5 actually has more of an "all-purpose" sound than that model - similar in some ways but more engaging in the lower regions. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
ADAPTER
Now for the adapter - Lear advises that this is not a mere impedance adapter (though it does increase impedance to roughly 180 ohms at 1kHz) - it uses passive components specifically designed for tuning the LCM-5, so it isn't for use with other IEMs. Combined with the increased impedance, sensitivity drops significantly, so the adapter really isn't good for most portables (though perhaps some of the more potent portable amps would work). 
 
I tended to use the adapter at home, and mostly paired it with tube amplification, though I did try multiple solid state amps as well. I like the fact that impedance is raised to levels high enough where practically any amp is an option. Even some OTL tube amps will be acceptable, which is not usually the case with IEMs. 
 
In a nutshell, the adapter seemed to turn up the brightness a little bit, while also reducing the overall impact of the bass by a small amount. The result is a sound that I don't particularly enjoy when paired with a brighter system, but does pair quite well with warmer gear and especially most tube amps. Care must be taken in system matching: I don't love the results when using my Cambridge Audio 840C as a source, feeding a Yulong A100 amp. Both of these components lean towards the analytical side, and with the adapter the LCM-5 becomes just too bright for my tastes. Even without the adapter, things sound a bit better but still not ideal. When I replace that solid state amp with an Icon Audio HP8 mkII tube amp, the sound is very nice indeed. Once bright highs become smoother and more enjoyable, and the bass, while still relatively neutral, has a sweeter and more textured feel to it. Things get even better when adding a warmer DAC like the Yulong Sabre D18 and drafting the Cambridge 840C into transport duty. In short - the LCM-5 again takes on the attributes of the signal chain itself itself. This wouldn't be possible without the adapter, since the LCM-5 is far to sensitive to use on its own with this amp. I get similarly enjoyable results when using my reference Analog Design Labs Svetlana 2 SET amp, as well as a low priced Project Sunrise tube amp. Where the 10 ohm output impedance of the Project Sunrise amp is a poor match for the LCM-5 on its own, the adapter makes it pair up very well. It is possible to use the LCM-5 without the adapter when pairing with most solid-state amps, but the adapter plus smooth tube amp combo is a real winner. 
 
My contact at Lear tells me that the LCM-5 was tuned for a smooth, natural sound, non-fatiguing, with slightly boosted bass (which they feel is preferable to a purely neutral response). They designed the adapter to help tune the sound more flat, being therefore useful for studio work or for people who just like that type of sound. My definition of smooth and natural must be slightly different than theirs since that's not exactly the way I would describe the LCM-5. Or maybe my hearing is just different. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy them a lot. The adapter is a perfect match for warm and smooth amps, especially tube amps, and it allows the IEM to be used in systems where it otherwise would not fit. On paper it seems a little odd that increased brightness would be a good thing. In practice, it just works. A very good idea from Lear.
 
 

 
 
 

 

 
SYNERGY
In case I haven't made it clear enough by now - the Lear LCM-5 sounds exceptional when mated to the right gear, but it can also sound edgy and bright in the wrong system. What you generally want is a smoother sounding component - not necessarily dark, though darker gear will work if that's what you have. Otherwise something neutral but smoother on the top end is desirable. DACs and amps which tend to get shrill or sound thin will not pair very well. 
 
COMPARISONS (done without the adapter)
Heir Audio 6.A LE: The 6.A is a spectacular reference-type IEM. It's almost totally neutral by my definition of the word, but does have a bit of extra grunt on the low end in order to make things more lively. In comparison, the LCM-5 is warmer and more lively, with increased "bite" in the upper mids and extra sparkle in the highs. They have roughly the same amount of bass by volume but the presentation is different. The 6.A bass is ultra-clean, textured, nuanced, refined, while still having some slam to it. The LCM-5 can dig a little deeper into the sub-bass region, likely due to the sheer size of the driver, but the overall presentation of the bass is smoother and less detailed. Don't get me wrong - it's still accurate, and is certainly far from the one-note bass you'll hear on some other IEMs. It is just a tiny step behind the clarity of the excellent 6.A LE. That's not bad company to trail behind, and I suspect some people would actually even prefer the trade-off of a little articulation for the slightly improved extension. But both IEMs are quite good at what they do. The 6.A shows its edge when dealing with subtleties, and the LCM-5 counters with a more rewarding sense of slam. Each is a good fit for its respective presentation - I wouldn't like the 6.A bass as much if paired with the overall sound from the LCM-5, nor would I like it the other way around. 
 
The mids of the LCM-5 are somewhat more immediate than the Heir. There's a certain "zing" to the upper midrange that can be either exciting or annoying depending on your preferences. Vocals are brought more forward and presented in a more intimate way, as if the singer took a few steps towards you. Both are very clear and very convincing in their own way. 
 
Highs on the LCM-5 are somewhat hotter than the 6.A. When I start with the 6.A as a baseline, then switch to the LCM-5, it sounds exciting but also bright and somewhat fatiguing. Yet after listening a while and adjusting to the sound, it seems great, and I wouldn't change a thing. Then I switch back to the 6.A and that model sounds muffled and boring. Listen for a while and it becomes clear again. The brain has a funny way of adjusting to things, so it really does make A/B comparisons difficult between these particular models.
 
The Lear unit has the edge in soundstage immersion. The 6.A is extremely accurate with regards to imaging, but the LCM-5 is able to match that while giving more depth to the presentation. This is unexpected because the more forward vocals would suggest inferior layering, but it doesn't work out that way. The LCM-5 is closer to the Heir 8.A than the 6.A in soundstage size, though the 8.A beats the Lear at its own game. 
 
Overall I think the 6.A remains my favorite for general listening. However, the LCM-5 certainly has its strengths, and at times I prefer its razor-sharp clarity and open-window transparency. I know some people who would almost certainly prefer the Lear presentation over the 6.A, so it really comes down to preference. Both of these are masterfully tuned IEMs that fully capture the intent of their designer - it's just that the designers had different goals in mind.
 
 
Other good candidates for comparisons would be the JH13 and the UM Miracle. All three models are vaguely neutral but have some level of slightly aggressive or hyped upper mids/highs. Unfortunately I sold my JH13 a while back and only had the Miracle as a demo loaner for review. From memory, I'd say I like the LCM-5 more than the JH unit, but I'd have to have the Miracle here for direct comparisons to make a judgement on that one. But just the fact that the LCM-5 competes with the likes of these is an indicator of its high level of performance. 
 
CONCLUSION
Is the Lear LCM-5 a top-level custom IEM? Without a doubt. Is it perfect for everyone? Of course not. But no IEM or headphone is. Having said that, the LCM-5 will appeal to certain people in a way that not many other CIEMs do. If you like crystal clear highs, or the HD800 (when properly driven), or Stax in general, and tend to listen to quality recordings on quality gear more often than not, the Lear LCM-5 should definitely be on your radar. Feed it something good and it will reward you with stunning, lifelike playback that sounds convincingly real. 
 
Adding up the score, Lear is two for two in my book - their LCM-2b is a very solid entry level unit in the $400 price bracket, and now their LCM-5 is a strong competitor in the flagship arena. After experiencing their products, their customer service, and their build quality, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them. 

For those interested in using their phone as their main audio source, the Meizu MX 4-core is my top recommendation. It ticks all the boxes for a quality phone - responsive interface, nice screen, camera that is actually useful, good amount of memory, etc. But there are plenty of nice phones out there. What sets this one apart is the audio quality - it's really good!
 
Straight from the headphone jack, this thing sounds superb. It's clean, clear, and has a black background. It has a good amount of volume too, able to comfortably drive plenty of full sized headphones from Ultrasone, Grado, Audio Technica, etc. The low output impedance (~3 ohms) means it works well with most IEMs too.
 
Also worth noting is the SPDIF output capabilities. Using an adapter (that Meizu is still finalizing) the MX 4-core can be used as a transport connecting to an external DAC. I successfully played standard and hi-res material, and the MX feeds it bit-perfect to the DAC. Very useful. 
 
See HERE for my complete in-depth review. Bottom line - this is a very competent phone, and also an excellent portable audio device. 

 

 
 
[size=small]Tube buffers used to be somewhat popular around here, among other places. There was the popular Musical Fidelity X-10 v3 as well as a few models from Chinese company Yaqin, and plenty of people swore by them. But that popularity seems to have disappeared and you rarely hear about these things anymore. I've been playing with this unit for a few months, so I'm finally ready to post some thoughts. The product is labeled as YiXin Audio MDS-623 and sells for around $160  (By the way - that listing has some of the most entertaining/unfortunate translation I've ever read - definitely check it out).[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]Just what exactly is a tube buffer? In a nutshell, it slots in between the analog outputs of your source (CD player, DAC, music server, whatever) and the inputs to your preamp or integrated amp. In this case it can also work with a plain old power amp since this particular unit has a volume control. So to a degree this could be called a single-source tube preamp if that's easier to handle. Most other tube buffers I've seen did not have the volume control. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]In any case, a tube buffer is exactly that - a buffer. The best explanation I can find is from Purity Audio, who markets their own (rather expensive) tube buffer called the Harmony. HERE is their info - keeping in mind that they are trying to sell you their product, this still sums it up rather well. [/size]
 
 

 
 
 

 
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]DESIGN[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]The MDS-623 is different than the Yaqin tube buffers (but similar to the Musical Fidelity) in that it doesn't have tubes protruding from the top. It does give you a window on the front panel to remind you they are there. Unfortunately they chose a bright LED to light up the tubes when in use, which is a choice I would not have made. It's not as bad as it sounds.... okay, maybe it is. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]The enclosure itself feels fairly sturdy if not quite as refined as some of my other gear. But it looks nice enough and doesn't call attention to itself (until you turn it on and the lights show up). The body is always black but the front panel is available in black or silver. The volume knob is the only part that the user interacts with. Around back we find a power switch, a single pair of RCA inputs and outputs, an IEC inlet, and a voltage switch (meaning the unit will work most anywhere). [/size]
 
 

 

 

 
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]SPECS[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]Tube: JAN 5670 2pcs[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]Input sensitivity: 150mv[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]Output voltage: 1.8V (RMS THD <0.03%)[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]Signal to noise ratio (S / N Ratio): 94DB[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]Frequency Response: 10Hz-50KHz (-0.5DB)[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]Input Impedance: 250Kohm[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]Output Impedance: 600ohm[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]Input voltage (AC Input): 110V/220V (switch exchange)[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]Total power consumption: 15W[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]Dimension: 260 * 130 * 110 (mm) (WDH)[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]Net Weight: 2.8KG[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]As you can see, the specs are pretty good if not amazing. SNR is slightly lower than many of the better DACs out there, so you could be potentially introducing a bit of noise into the chain. But it's still high enough where it shouldn't be glaringly obvious. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]The output impedance is 600 ohm. For most devices, that should be great. But there are a few things out there which won't do as well. For example: this Jaton Operetta amp has an input impedance of 4k ohm. If driven by this tube buffer, that gives a damping factor of less than 7 which will almost certainly result in mushy low frequency response. There aren't all that many amps with low input impedance like that, but it's something to be aware of. [/size]
 

 

 

 
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]SOUND[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small]First off, I need to explain the tube situation. The stock tubes are JAN GE 5670 which are a surprisingly solid tube to start with. I believe there is a cheaper version of the MDS-623 available that sells for $25 less, comes with cheaper tubes (Chinese 6N3 I think) and uses lesser quality parts like capacitors and such. But I don't know much about that model. Anyway, the stock JAN tubes were used for the majority of my listening. I did try some more expensive tubes - Western Electric 396A ($80/pair) and Bendix 6385 Red Bank (~$250/pair when you can find them). I realize these are unlikely matches for a $160 tube buffer device, but they are the only ones I had access to. Both of these were very slightly better than the stock JAN tubes, especially the Bendix, but honestly the improvement was not proportional to the price. There aren't that many cheaper tubes that will work in this application and be an improvement over the stock, so I'm happy with the direction they went. I'd probably buy this "upgrade" version over the base model though - the tubes alone are worth $20, and the upgraded parts are almost certainly worth the remainder of the $5 difference.[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]To be honest I did not really have high hopes for this thing. How can adding an extra stage in your signal path make it sound better? But I tried to be as objective as possible because I do know of people who have used tube buffers and liked the result. I figured the best case scenario would be a pleasing coloration, a sort of "fixed EQ" if you will. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]I'll cut to the chase here - In many cases, the tube buffer did very little to the sound. In a few cases it actually degraded the sound, and in a few others it seemed to improve it. I'm actually pretty impressed - by not doing anything to the sound, that means the device is pretty transparent. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]The situations where I didn't like the result came when using high-end equipment. I didn't like the MDS between my Violectric V800 DAC and V200 amp. It seemed to round the edges, smother the soundstage, and make the whole thing a little dull. But this is to be expected since the Violectric gear is really on a higher level altogether. The same happened when using other high end combos: Anedio D2 and Analog Design Labs Svetlana, Kao Audio UD2C and Icon Audio HP8, Yulong Sabre D18 and A18. So it seems once you cross a certain performance threshold the tube buffer doesn't bring much to the table.  [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]Situations where I didn't hear much difference: between the Yulong D100 mkII and the Lake People G103, or between the Matrix Cube and the Matrix M-Stage, or between the Audiotrak DR DAC2 DX and the Apex Butte. Not to say there was zero difference, but the effect was so minor as to be not really worth discussing in depth. I can summarize it as a vague "softening" of the music, with perhaps a little more "ease" to the presentation. How can this be? I notice the 1.8Vrms output - slightly lower than the redbook standard 2Vrms, which possibly causes the minor differences I hear in those combinations. Some people might take the somewhat "mellow" tone as a big difference, but to me it seemed rather minor. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]So what about the combinations where adding the tube buffer actually helps? Well, I found a few. The original Yulong D100 (not the new mkII) paired with the matching Yulong A100 amp is a great combo but can get a little bright with certain headphones. Adding the tube buffer to the mix, I had an easier time listening to certain headphones. K701, Edition 8, and all Grados were more appealing with this in the mix, as were IEMs such as the Westone AC2 and LiveWires Trips. I wouldn't call this a simple rolling-off of the highs, because it seems more graceful than that. The problematic highs do lose some volume, but also seem to have a softer attack. Transients remained strong (within the limits of each headphone or IEM design) but the whole thing became somewhat more organic and smooth. [/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]I noticed similar improvement when using the Matrix Quattro DAC with matching Quattro amp. When used in balanced mode, this combo sounds really nice. But when I switch to single ended operation it gets a tad hot up top, and the tube buffer again comes to the rescue. For some headphones or IEMs (1964-T, Heir 8.A, Signature Pro) the regular single ended performance is fine. But for those others, the tube buffer is welcome.[/size][size=small][/size]
[size=small][/size]
[size=small]I also used the tube buffer as a simple preamp, connecting the Yulong D18 to the Emotiva Airmotiv5 active speakers. The potentiometer handling volume control of the MDS-623 is from Tokyo Cosmos aka TOCOS, and I've heard some of their pots sound pretty unbalanced in other products. My particular unit is nicely done though, with just a hint of channel imbalance at very low levels. Overall this made for an acceptable solution (the Yulong D18, unlike many of the other recent flagship DACs, has no volume control) if not a brilliant one. I love the sound made by the AMT high frequency driver in the Airmotiv5, and it doesn't really need to be "tamed". But overall it was a very listenable solution and it would probably do even better if the speakers in question were a bit on the bright side.[/size]
[size=small]  [/size]
[size=small] Lastly, I tried a few players that I have around the house that are not known for their audio quality. I tried a Toshiba HD-A30 HD DVD player (remember those?), a Sony BDP-S590 Blu-Ray player, and an older Pioneer Elite DV-50a universal player (which I believe is just a rebadged version of their non-Elite DV-563a with no upgrades whatsoever). In all three cases I preferred the tube buffer to be in the chain, to take the edge off some of the digital glare these players all suffer from. It doesn't magically turn them into giant-killers but it does improve things and actually helped me enjoy the Pioneer again. I haven't used it in years because it was just too rough around the edges when placed in an otherwise competent setup. So in this area the tube buffer really did prove useful.

CONCLUSION
I'm still confused about my thoughts on this device. On the one hand, it's kind of like an audio band-aid, and it could easily be replaced by an EQ, or just by using better/more neutral gear in the first place. On the other hand, I rather enjoyed it when placed in the proper system. I can say that I've spent more time with the Yulong D100/A100/Edition 8 than I have in a long time, and this tube buffer gets all the credit for that. 

Would I recommend it? Yes, for certain applications I would. It isn't the ultimate solution for all your audio woes (as some users of tube buffers may have implied) but it is a useful device and sounds good in the right context. I sort of question the value of it - wouldn't it be better to use that $160 towards a better DAC or CD player? Could be. Sometimes people get attached to the device they already have though, for looks, usability, or other factors. In those cases this tube buffer could help. [/size]

 

 
 
 
 
 
I've been out of the loop for a while when it comes to budget IEMs. Back in the day, the low priced options were simply not very good. I remember paying $40 for the V-MODA Bass Freq as a workout IEM because I liked the massive impact, though it was obviously not an "all purpose" type IEM. I used them with my Creative Zen Micro Photo which I believe was $300 for the 6GB model, just to put things in perspective. I knew things had improved since then, but I didn't realize just how much IEM you could get for so little money.

The IEM in question is the Nuforce NE-600X. It sells for $25 and comes in several colors - the housing is always black and silver, but the cable is available in red, green, or black. Nuforce also has a version with an inline mic called the NE-600M. The one I have is standard, no mic, with the red cable. Specs are as follows:

Driver Size: 11mm
Impedance: 32 Ohm
Frequency Response: 20 to 20kHz
Rated Power: 10mW
Max. Input Power: 40mW
Sensitivity: 100dB+/-3dB
Connector: 3.5mm 3-pin stereo plug

Weight (without packing): 12.5 grams
Length: 110 cm (43.3 inches)


Package Contents Include
S,L spare tips
Carrying Case
 
Warranty
1 Year
 
Advanced-technology extra large drivers
High-efficiency acoustic design
Excellent bass impact
Self-untangling flat OFC wire
 
 
 

 

 
 

As can be expected for $25, the NE-600X uses a dynamic driver. The housing is what I'd call fairly "generic" - I don't mean that in a bad way though. It has a good size to it and does not attempt to reinvent the wheel. I was able to get an excellent fit using the standard medium sized tips, which seem to be of somewhat higher quality than some other bundled tips I've seen. Some of them are so thin that they will practically tear when you handle them; not so with the NE-600. The housing has what appears to be a fairly large vent in the rear. Looking closer, I don't think it actually goes through. Instead, there is a tiny little port on each housing next the "L" or "R" symbol. Isolation is on the lower side because of this, as is the case with many similar dynamic IEMs. These also do best (for my ears anyway) with a somewhat shallow insertion. I can usually just shove them in quickly and get a great seal right from the start. I like not having to fiddle with them much. 

The cable seems a bit on the short side compared to what I'm used to. It's a flat cable which is relatively tangle resistant if not completely tangle proof. One thing I like is the slider: when did universal IEM makers suddenly decide it was not necessary to have these? The last "budget" IEMs I've owned, from Meizu and HiSound, both lacked this feature, so I'm glad to see it here. The Y split and angled 1/8" plug are both fairly basic, low key affairs. They get the job done without being fancy and seem durable enough. Wearing the cable up over the ear is possible (contrary to what I has assumed based on the flat cable) and is actually rather comfortable. It does make the super-fast insertion a bit more complicated though, and the short cable becomes that much shorter. The cable does seem pretty microphonic when worn down, but going over-ear takes care of that nicely.
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOUND
As with all the gear I review, I burned in the NE-600X for over 100 hours. At times I paired these little IEMs with associated equipment costing over 100 times the price - a comical mismatch to be sure. But most of the time I used a more sensible approach: Sansa Clip+, Hisound RoCoo D, iHiFi812, iPad, etc. Honestly the NE-600X does not require extensive amplification to reach its full potential. It sounds about as good as it will ever sound from the little Sansa player.

The sound did not blow me away at first, but I'm used to far more expensive IEMs so that's not surprising. What did surprise me was that I could listen to them for long periods of time and not be too fatigued. The sound is somewhat U shaped, with exaggerated lows and a slightly tipped up top end. More boost applies to the bass than the treble though, and the mids remain fairly present so as not to be majorly unbalanced. Many of the low priced IEMs I've experienced are vastly more colored than this, so it's actually a pretty tame bass boost in comparison.
 
Most cheap IEMs use dynamic drivers, and often times they are fairly large. That means bass reproduction is usually a strength compared to other frequencies - especially when the mids and highs are a muddy, recessed mess. The NE-600X does impress with solid lows, but in this case they don't outshine the rest of the spectrum. The bass does bleed into the mids a little but not as bad as many other cheap IEMs I've used. I did find the overall presentation enjoyable if somewhat unremarkable. No, they aren't the last word in articulation or clarity, but they aren't bad either. They sort of succeed by doing a lot of things pretty well, and not doing anything particularly poorly. Remember - we are talking about $25 IEMs here. That's less than the weekly coffee budget for a lot of people. 

I tried all types of music with the NE-600, and nothing stood out as a particular weakness. As far as strengths, they seem to do well with more dynamic tracks that call for a lot of gusto. The new Tron soundtrack by Daft Punk sounded great, as did Immersion by Pendulum. I think my favorite album though was 7th Symphony by Apocalyptica. Track 10, titled Rage of Poseidon, sounded fantastic - if I had to guess, I would have sworn I was listening through an IEM costing at least $75 or so. Bass had depth and rumble but remained controlled, and I got a good sense of texture from the crunchy guitars. Very nice. 
 
Weaknesses? Sure. Obviously these are not going to have the same incisive clarity as a more expensive IEM. Vocals don't quite have that lifelike breathiness, and you miss a bit of shimmer on the top end of cymbals and other percussion. While the frequency response is admirably full, you don't get a correspondingly high amount of articulation. To put it another way - resolution is pretty good, transparency not as much. But none of this is really a glaring error. They sound good enough to where my cynicism is mostly kept in check while listening. No, these won't compete with my entry level custom IEMs. But that's an unfair comparison since those generally start in the $300-400 range and quickly move north from there. Taken as they are, the NE-600X is pretty good.
 

 

 
 
COMPARISONS
I'm not an expert in budget IEMs, but I dug up a few things to compare. First I tried an old set of V-MODA Bass Freqs ($40). They sounded comparably terrible. The bass had good impact but was grossly over-exaggerated, and the rest of the spectrum was muddy and unclear. These have not held up well with age.  
 
Next I tried a set of JVC FX-33 Marshmallows ($40). These were closer to the NE-600X but still lacking in some clarity in the highs, and the bass was still too boomy. They also didn't fit my ears as well either. These used to be a somewhat common budget recommendation, but again the NE-600X outclasses them.
 
Moving up in price, I tried the Hisound Popo ($59), which sounded incredibly recessed in the mids compared to the Nuforce. The Popo has satisfyingly tight bass that unfortunately leaks too much into the mids for my taste. Sometimes it is enjoyable but other times I wish it were more controlled. The highs on the Popo seem a little more rolled off compared to the NE-600X, which has a nice bit of sparkle without going too far. The Popo does take the lead in terms of soundstage though - its biggest strength in my opinion. And its wood body is far more attractive than the plastic of the NE-600. Still, I'd tend choose the Nuforce more often than not, even without considering the price disparity. 
 
Lastly I used the Meizu EP-40 ($40). I really like these IEMs. They offer more refined lows and seem faster than the NE-600X. Vocals are more transparent and the entire presentation is more cohesive. In many ways, these are the better IEM. The one drawback is with the upper mids - the EP-40 strives for greater detail but is sometimes comes across as peaky and grating. So no matter how good they sound, on some tracks they become annoying, despite their other good qualities. The NE-600X, while never soaring quite as high, remains consistently enjoyable from song to song. Less important (but still worth mentioning) is the fact that the NE-600 can be quickly and easily inserted. The Meizu takes some effort to get it right. 
 
CONCLUSION
[size=small]At $25, the NE-600 is clearly not intended to blow you away with amazing sound. And it probably won't. What it does do is offer a performance that is unobjectionable, and even enjoyable, for a very low price. Folks new to the IEM game could do substantially worse for the money. And for people who already own some more expensive models, these would make an excellent backup pair. They are suitably "fun" sounding without veering too far into unbalanced territory, and have no flaws that I'd consider fatal. I've had better sounding IEMs, and cheaper IEMs, but nothing that can beat the NE-600X in their price range. In a world of ever-advancing technology and correspondingly ever-increasing prices, I like seeing releases like this. Definitely recommended for what they are.[/size]

 

 

 
 
 
 
At this point, and on this forum, I don't think Yulong Audio needs much of an introduction by now. While mainstream audiophiledom may have no clue about the brand, HeadFi members know better. We've embraced several of their excellent offerings - especially the D100 DAC. With their latest D18 DAC – the most affordable DAC on the market featuring the ESS Sabre ES9018 chip - they've shown themselves capable of producing a true high-end product while still keeping the price relatively affordable.
 
Yulong now has a matching headphone amp to accompany the D18. Dubbed the Sabre A18, this amp is a beast. Class A, fully discrete, fully symmetrical differential circuit design, with balanced and single ended inputs and outputs. At $900 it certainly has some tough competition out there. Yet we know that Yulong always offers loads of value for the money with each of their offerings. Will that translate to the A18 being a reference quality amp? Read on to find out.
 
DESIGN
The A18 is a relatively small form factor amp. Its enclosure shares its size (but not construction) with the D100 and A100 units - 10" wide x 7" deep x just over 2" high. It weighs in at a fairly substantial 7 pounds. Like the D18, the enclosure is thicker and more "premium" overall compared to the D100/A100 models (which were already quite nice). It is available in silver or black - I chose mine in silver to match my D18.
 
Internally, there's a lot going on inside of this amp. Power supply features a Plitron toroidal transformer, large Elna smoothing capacitors, and a pair of LM337K linear regulators. Worth noting is that Yulong chose to use the TO-3 metal can package which allows for higher current than the standard TO-220 package. Each one is embedded in a rather substantial heatsink for maximum thermal efficiency in this high-current application.
 
As mentioned prior this is a totally discrete design. In the eyes of many, discrete designs will always be superior to opamps. Period. I’m not necessarily in agreement with that as a blanket statement - I’ve heard good and bad examples of both types, and each design has unique advantages and weaknesses. The trick is to design the circuit in such a way that those weaknesses are no longer a factor. Many of the prior Yulong designs use a combination of opamps and discrete output stages, so Yulong has experience with both.
 
There actually is a single opamp in the A18: an OPA2604 used to buffer the single ended input. This is similar to the Yulong A100 amp, and said to reduce dependence on signal source as well as interconnect cables. Aside from that everything is done fully discrete - K170/J74 JFET input stage, and MJE15030/31 low impedance output stage. Quality parts are used throughout the entire assembly, including Vishay BC series resistors and select Nichicon Muse capacitors. All connectors are from Neutrik and the volume pot is the popular RK27 "Blue Velvet" from Alps.
 
Yulong lists the specs for the A18 as follows:
 
SNR: >110dB
THD+N: 0.001%
Frequency Response: 20Hz to 20kHz 0.1dB
Output Power: 680 ohm 95mW, 300 ohm 200mW, 150 ohm 400mW, 32 ohm 1800mW
Power Consumption: <30W
Output Impedance: 2.2 ohms
 
Worth noting is the nearly 2 full watts per channel into lower impedance loads. That should certainly come in handy with planar headphones. But this amp has plenty of voltage swing for higher impedance headphones as well, dumping a peak 24V into 600 ohm loads like the Beyerdynamic T1. While it may not be quite as powerful as some of the recent monsters like the Schiit Lyr, rest assured that Yulong has designed this amp to handle nearly any headphone out there, with the possible exception of the HiFiMAN HE-6.
 
Externally the A18 is very straightforward. The enclosure is 6mm thick aluminum, with venting on both sides. Both headphone jacks are of the locking variety. The only user interaction on the front panel is with the power button and the volume knob. A switch on the rear allows for selection of RCA or XLR input - I would have preferred this to be on the front panel even if it meant a slightly more complicated appearance. Another minor nitpick - the LED "ring" around the power button lights up green. This makes sense (green meaning "go") unless you stack the A18 with the matching D18 DAC, where the corresponding power LED is blue.
 
The A18 sells for $899. I got mine from official North American distributer Grant Fidelity, who offers great service (including 30-day in home trial). They also have a bundle with the D18/A18 combo for a discounted price – save $50 compared to buying them separately. Yulong likes to mention that buying from Grant Fidelity is the same pricing as if you flew to China and purchased the amp directly from a local shop – there is no dealer mark-up involved just because we are overseas.
 

 

 

 

 
 
PACKAGE
The A18 arrived quickly to my house in perfect condition. As usual with Yulong products, the protective styrofoam and box are adequate but not exciting. A user manual is included although it doesn't really have much to say.
 
BUILD QUALITY
The A18 looks and feels appropriate for what I expect a $900 amp to be. Connectors are all of high quality, the volume knob is heavy aluminum with a great feel to it, and panel gaps are suitably tight. While the design is not flashy it is obviously a step above the A100/D100. Some people complained about the D100 volume knob being made of plastic – the Sabre series gets heavy duty metal knobs that remind the user of their flagship status.
 
My unit has perfect channel balance even at low volumes. Being a pure Class A design, I do note a very small amount of background noise when I turn the volume nearly all the way up. This only shows up on a few headphones or when using sensitive IEMs. With headphones, it is never an issue because there's no way I could listen that loudly. With IEMs it can sometimes become problematic - this "Class A" hum will sometimes be heard in the quiet passages of some classical tracks. It doesn't ruin the experience altogether but I do think it makes for a somewhat less versatile amp overall. It's too bad because the amp otherwise pairs beautifully with all of my high end custom IEMs. One exception is my Earproof Atom dual driver custom - as a 70 ohm load, they are dead silent and sound really wonderful. I'll discuss more about that pairing later.
 
Another byproduct of the Class A operation is heat - the A18 can run quite warm. It's probably the warmest component I've owned in a while, though I haven't experienced the Schiit Asgard and its infamous sizzling temps. Like many other high quality Class A amps, the A18 couples its transistors to the chassis for heatsink duties, which helps explain why the whole thing warms up so easily. We don't have extreme weather in my area but I have run the A18 for several days straight in 80-something degree weather (though I'm sure it was cooler in the house) with no hiccups.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
EQUIPMENT
This is the equipment I used during my evaluation of the A18:
 
Source: JF Digital HDM-03S music server, Marantz SA-1 (modified)
 
DAC: Yulong Sabre D18, Anedio D2, Violectric V800, Kao Audio UD2C-HP, Yulong D100 MKII, Grant Fidelity TubeDAC-11, Matrix Quattro DAC
 
Headphones: Audio Technica W1000x, Lawton Audio LA7000 lite, Unique Melody Merlin, HiFiMAN HE-400 and HE-500, Heir Audio 8.A and 6.A LE, Ultrasone Signature Pro, Earproof Atom, Thunderpants TP1, AKG K240DF, Sennheiser HD650
 
I let the A18 burn in for well over 100 hours prior to critical listening.
 
Power was handled by a CablePro Revelation conditioner and CablePro Reverie AC cables. Interconnects used were NuForce Focused Field RCA and Paillics Silver Net XLR. Some headphones had aftermarket cables: Toxic Cables Hybrid balanced and CablePro Earcandy single ended for HiFiMAN, Beat Audio Cronus, Heir Audio Magnus 1, and Toxic Cables Scorpion for custom IEMs.
 
 
LISTENING
My first serious listening with the A18 was done in the most obvious configuration: being fed by the matching Yulong Sabre D18 DAC via XLR cables and using the XLR jack with a balanced headphone. In this case I used the HiFiMAN HE-400 with a balanced Toxic Cables Hybrid cable. The result was nothing short of exceptional. It presented a big, bold sound with prolific low frequency extension, captivating midrange, and best of all - a very large and well defined soundstage. I had heard some great sound with the HE-400 from my other amps but I quickly decided that this was the best I had experienced from it. The black background rivaled the best I have ever heard, and the dynamics were astounding. Who would have thought that this was "only" a $399 pair of headphones? Switching to the HE-500 brought higher resolution, and more “snap” to the top end, though honestly I thought the HE-400 was so enjoyable that I may have preferred it overall.
 
As I cycled through the rest of my collection, I began to get a feel for the overall presentation of the A18. First and foremost, this is a warm and musical amp. It is not exactly "strictly neutral" and for that reason it will not be for everyone. No, this amp will appeal more to lovers of tube amps, lovers of vinyl, and lovers of "musicality" in general. Those looking for analytical perfection should probably look elsewhere. That's not to say that the A18 is majorly colored - because it's not. Let's be clear though - I expect any good ~$1K amp to sound pretty great all around. At this level we are talking about relatively minor differences in voicing. Also let me clear - not all of the ~$1K amps on the market are what I'd call "good" amps. 
 
So far it sounds like I'm just presenting the A18 as some kind of brute - all brawn, no tact. Let me reassure you that the A18 can do subtlety, nuance, and delicacy just as well as it does power and authority. It was a joy to listen to Hiromi's latest album Voice and hear the subtle interplay between instruments. The same goes for complex electronic arrangements from the likes of Electronic Noise Controller, BT, or Marc Houle, and of course the usual jazz suspects like Mingus and Miles. So while the A18 does have a big, powerful sound, it doesn't come at the expense of precision. 
 
I'll be more specific about the different aspects of the sound. Starting with the lows - the A18 has some serious drive to it. Bass reproduction is hard hitting yet remains very well controlled. It's the type of thing that raises the bar for other amps; you quickly get used to it, then expect it all the time. Switching back to an otherwise nice amp like the Matrix Quattro or Yulong's own A100, I was struck by the difference. The Matrix seemed a bit "one note" in comparison; a bit sloppy and undefined. The A100 comes close in terms of articulation but can't match the A18 in speed, texture, or most importantly - authority. Listening to these amps on an individual basis makes these shortcomings far less obvious. But when I use a headphone known for deep bass reproduction (LA7000, Thunderpants), and play the XRCD release Dancing With Drums (featuring some great Taiko action), I get a more convincing sense of depth and realism with the A18 than I do with almost any other amp. 
 
Midrange on the A18 is what I'd call "seductive". It's the type of sound that could make a tube lover re-examine their preconceived notions regarding what a solid state design is capable of. The presentation is full and rich without veering into overly syrupy territory. I absolutely love vocals through this amp: Nancy Bryan, Livingston Taylor, The Persuasions, Jacintha... take your pick of "audiophile" quality music with really well done vocals, and prepare to be carried away. Lesser recordings tend to sound decent, but the highly natural sound of the A18 really begs for top quality material to showcase its abilities. 
 
Highs on the A18 are really special - smooth yet articulate, extended yet controlled, airy but not bright. It's a study in seemingly contradictory behavior, yet somehow it just "works". This smoothness never left me wanting in terms of treble energy, though I know some people prefer a more "in your face" presentation. It is my opinion that a good number of people have conflated "brightness" with "detail", and thus won't accept an amp like this, however good sounding it may be, because it isn't pushing that "detail" down their throats. To each his own - obviously you have to go with what your ears prefer. But I maintain that this type of presentation is the more correct approach.
 
Soundstage presentation and imaging is yet another strength of this amp. Among all the headphone amps I've experienced, the A18 has to be near the top for this category, only surpassed by a select few competitors (all of which happen to be valve designs rather than solid state). It's an immersive experience that can really present a convincing soundscape, assuming the recording actually contains that information. This is impressive because it's usually the amps with heightened treble response that tend to give the perception of better imaging, as opposed to amps like this that fall more on the smooth side. But again the A18 strikes a great balance, and the soundstage is very dimensionally rich. 
 
So far this sounds like I'm presenting the Yulong Sabre A18 as one of the best amps I've ever heard. And in many ways, it is. The main thing that holds it back just a tad is the fact that it exhibits a bit of background noise with sensitive headphones. This behavior was somewhat unpredictable - the Ultrasone Signature Pro, rated at 32 ohms and 98dB sensitivity, could pick up this hum/static with volume at roughly 75%. But the Lawton LA7000, theoretically more sensitive at 108dB and 25 ohms, could barely pick up any noise even with the volume wide open. The Audio Technica W1000x, a fairly sensitive headphone, was essentially silent, as were the planar models I used. Ultimately this was not an issue while listening to actual music at actual volume levels; but there's a chance that some other headphone which I didn't try would exhibit the noise in a way that would actually impact your listening.
 
Switching from full sized headphones and moving to custom IEMs, I find that most of them have this hum/static, but this time it actually does encroach on the music. Some are worse than others - my Lear LCM-2B, LiveWires Trips, and Westone AC2 are all fairly audible at medium to loud volumes. My Heir Audio 8.A and 1964 Ears 1964-T are less sensitive, consequently performing better in this case, and I can actually enjoy those for lots of music without being bothered. The exception is with music like classical which needs a bit more volume, thus bringing out the noise. My Earproof Atom, with its 70 ohm impedance, is dead silent with the A18 and sounds fantastic, but it is the exception rather than the rule. Ultimately I'd say this amp is not ideal for people who intend to use IEMs. 
 
Just for grins, I tried to troubleshoot the problem by powering up the A18 without anything connected to it. I also tried different power outlets around the house, and various power conditioners from CablePro, Furman, and Panamax. None of these eliminated this noise, so I'm fairly confident it is just a byproduct of the Class A operation. But let's not overstate its significance - when used with full sized headphones, this amp is spectacular. And it certainly is not the only amp with this same limitation – many tube amps (even really nice ones) don’t play well with IEMs. The Schiit amps don’t, nor does the Matrix M-Stage with Class-A biased OPA627 opamp, nor does the Apex Butte, nor did the early versions of the Burson HA-160. Some of these fail with IEMs for different reasons, but the point remains – not every amp can shine with every type of headphone. If we stay away from IEMs though, the A18 really does a great job with pretty much every headphone under the sun. Some high-end solid state competitors (SPL Auditor and Phonitor for example) are excellent with high impedance cans but fall short with low impedance models. And most OTL tube amp designs are the same way. Other solid state amps are strong with low impedance models but only so-so with high impedance headphones. The A18 does a great job with both types.
 
COMPARISONS
The A18 is good enough to where it ranks up there with my best amps. There's really only one amp with which it begs to be compared: the Violectric V200.  
 
The Violectric is a solid state powerhouse which is priced within $100 of the A18. It's been my favorite solid state amp for over a year now, and has displaced several more expensive competitors. Interestingly, the A18 and the V200 have more similarities than differences. They both present a deep, rich bass response with loads of detail and authority. They both have a somewhat smooth top end, though the A18 goes a little farther in that regard. Some people would call the V200 more detailed, while others would call the A18 more natural, so it depends on your perspective. The mids on the A18 are a little more "wet" sounding; richer, more inviting compared to the V200 being more straight forward. Again, it’s not a huge difference, but enough for me to notice. Perhaps the most important distinction in this comparison: The A18 does massive soundstage while the V200 is more restrained. Both have excellent image localization but the A18 presentation is just bigger in every dimension. This is one area where a few people were disappointed in the V200, so the A18 could be a great alternative for them. In its defense, the V200 has a completely silent background no matter what headphone or IEM is used, so it is more versatile in that aspect. It also has those helpful pre-gain adjustments, though it lacks the balanced headphone out option like the A18 has. As you can tell, I'm conflicted as to which model I prefer - they both have advantages in both usablility and sound, so it depends on the needs of the user. But the fact that the A18 keeps up with the V200 is impressive – the V200 is one of the best solid state amps around, for any price, and I ended up preferring it to the far more expensive Luxman P-1u.
 
There happen to be quite a few solid state designs coming soon in this price category. The Burson Soloist, the Schiit Mjolnir, the Cary Nighthawk, all promise high levels of performance, and all hang their hats on a discrete design. I may get the chance to try one or more of those in the near future, and I will update this review accordingly. I obviously can’t predict how that comparison will go – but I can say that I prefer the A18 to some existing products in the same price range. That includes the Burson HA-160, Musical Fidelity M1-HPA, and SPL Auditor. I don’t have those on hand at the moment for direct comparisons but I’ve spent a good amount of time with each and to my ears the A18 is at the top of that heap.
 
OPTIONS
I do need to mention about the different sounds you can get from the A18. Just like the D18 DAC, this unit has subtle variations in sound depending on which inputs and outputs are used. Yulong does give you the option of using the single ended inputs with balanced output, or vice versa. But doing either of these methods gives a somewhat rolled off top end which takes the experience down a notch in my opinion. I assume this type of operation passes through additional circuitry which takes away some of the transparency. In any case, if you must use balanced output but you don't have a source with XLR out, I suggest using RCA to XLR cables instead.
 
Sticking with XLR in and XLR out, or RCA in and 1/4" out, I do hear a subtle difference in flavor between the two choices. The single ended output seems slightly less warm, having a more linear presentation at the expense of some of the fun that makes the balanced out so engaging. Some people may actually prefer this sound - it's highly competant in its own right. Personally I like the character of the XLR out a little more. But the differences are not huge. When combined with the D18 DAC, which also has different flavors for each type of output, you do end up having two distinct sounds. The culmination of warmth from the balanced chain combines with the more three dimentional presentation to make for a very enjoyable listen. The single ended chain is more straight forward, more direct, more "hi-fi" sounding. It's nice to have both options available.
 
CONCLUSION
The Sabre A18 is very good - almost shockingly good in fact. Yulong intended this as a flagship offering, and it does seem worthy of that status. I've heard few headphone amps that play on this same level and all of those come with higher price tags. Anyone interested in a warm, smooth, yet highly detailed presentation that flows like real music should absolutely put the A18 on their short list.
 
Is it the absolute best amp for all headphones? Not quite. Its weakness is ultra-sensitive in ear monitors, which are not an ideal match due to subtle background noise. Aside from that it mates very well with every headphone I tried. I had worried that its warm, smooth tone may be too much of a good thing when paired with a darker headphone like the HE-400, but that that ended up not being the case at all – in fact, the HE-400 was one of my favorite matches despite being a relatively affordable headphone.
 
Ultimately I believe Yulong has done what he set out to do – prove that a small (but growing!) Chinese audiophile brand can keep up with the more well established players on the high-end headphone amp scene. Spending more than this does not guarantee a better headphone amp – I know this because I’ve done it. I doubt Yulong will ever become a mainstream brand, and they certainly won’t ever spend the same money on marketing as a competitor like Schiit. But in my mind their gear is very competitive and deserves to be heard.
 
 

 
HiFiMAN HE400
 
 

 
 
By now I think most of us are familiar with the history behind the HiFiMAN HE-series headphones. What started with a single model has grown into a full lineup, with prices ranging from $1299 for the flagship HE-6 to just $249 for the entry-level HE-300. Worth noting is that the HE-300 stands apart from the rest by using a “traditional” dynamic driver. Every other model in the HE-series is based on planar magnetic driver technology.
 
The entry level position among the planar models is held by the HE-400. It is the most recent HiFiMAN headphone released and sells for $399, putting it in competition with some more established designs such as the Sennheiser HD600/650, AKG K701, and Denon D2000. As the only planar model available in this price range, I was curious how the HE-400 would measure up.
 
Those who follow my ramblings here know that I have a newborn baby in the house. Accompanying the birth of that little guy was a major purge of my open headphones; the logic being that I wouldn’t be getting much use out of them. So I sold my Sennheiser HD600, HD650, and HD800, my Grado PS1000 and RS1, and my Beyer DT880 and DT990. I also passed on buying the Audeze LCD-2 and HiFiMAN HE-500, which I have borrowed from friends multiple times and really wanted to own. Yet here I am with a new open headphone – why? The answer is simple: it’s one thing to have a $900 or $1,000 headphone sitting around getting little use. It’s quite another matter with a $399 model. I figured I would start small in the HiFiMAN lineup and make my way up the ladder when the time is right. Since then, the HE-500 has dropped to $699, but the point remains the same.
 

 
 
DESIGN
One would think that HiFiMAN must have cut some major corners with the HE-400 to allow pricing it at nearly half what the HE-500 sells for. But one would be wrong in that assumption. HiFiMAN claims the key to the low price is the use of automated manufacturing techniques. Apparently their planar magnetic designs are mature enough by this point to allow some level of hands-off construction. If anyone has ever seen the episode of “How It’s Made” showing the AKG factory building K702 headphones, you’ll note how automation makes the process many times faster and more efficient than it otherwise would be. There is still an element of human involvement but it is reduced in many key areas.
 
Think of a handmade… well, anything really. Whatever it is you picture, it’s going to be labor intensive to build. It’s also going to be expensive compared to an assembly line type operation. And it’s going to be more prone to have variability and likely a higher rate of flaws. Until now, it seems that all HE-series headphones were hand crafted. That sounds impressive but in reality there have always been issues with the method – think Audeze LCD-2 and LCD-3 sounding different from one example to the next. Think the initial run of the Grado PS1000 and the often disappointing silver finish. With the HE-400, HiFiMAN has automated the process of producing the driver, and I suspect at some point soon they will have more of the process automated, similar to AKG. The bottom line here is that the HE-400 may have otherwise been slapped with a $500 or $600 price tag if this new development process had not been achieved. So don’t think of it merely as a “budget” headphone with all the negative connotations that go along with that thought. Rather, think of it as an “optimized” design which allows the price to stay relatively modest.
 
In terms of appearance the HE-400 is very similar to its HE-siblings. The key difference is the blue paintjob, which I actually find more attractive than the usual dark color of the other models. Other than that we get the same leather headband, the same frame assembly, the same detachable cabling system, and the same earpads. But there are a few significant differences worth noting.
 
First, and probably most important, are the drivers themselves. They have smaller magnets and appear less complicated compared to the older models. While the HE-500 driver assembly looks like a fancy cheese grater, the HE-400 uses less complex perforations and a good amount of plastic. There’s also the earpad attachment system which is far better than the older “tab” system. It still isn’t perfect but I was able to swap pads several times without wanting to throw the headphones out the window in frustration. I consider that improvement. I believe all of the HE-series models are now using this new system. Then there’s the packaging and cable differences which I’ll discuss a bit later.
 
Here are the pertinent specs for the HE-400:
[size=12.0pt]·       [/size][size=12.0pt]Efficiency: 92.5 dB/mW[/size]
[size=12.0pt]·       [/size][size=12.0pt]Impedance: 38 Ohm[/size]
[size=12.0pt]·       [/size][size=12.0pt]Planar Magnetic driver (orthodynamic)[/size]
[size=12.0pt]·       [/size][size=12.0pt]Frequency response: 20 Hz to 35 kHz[/size]
·        [size=12.0pt]Weight: 440 g[/size]
In comparison, the HE-500 is 89dB and 502g. That means the HE-400 is lighter and easier to drive. Supposedly one could even run the HE-400 straight from an iPod, though I can’t imagine a scenario where I would actually want to do that. This is certainly not a portable headphone. Still, the prior HE-series models were known to bring many headphone amps to their knees, so the improved efficiency is very welcome, as is the reduced weight.
 

 
 
BUILD QUALITY
Like the prior models, the HE-400 is nice but not perfect. It doesn’t have the same level of sophistication and “tightness” that something like a Sennheiser or Audio Technica would have. But overall it is acceptable for the price. The blue finish is attractive, and there is a good mix of leather, metal, and plastic. The new pleather earpads feel decent as far as pleather goes. I’m not usually much of a fan and I would have preferred the velours instead, but I’ve seen far worse. The new pad attachment system does allow the pads to “spin” more freely than I’d like. It’s the only area that feels to me like it isn’t of very high quality. Yet the pads never fall off and are fairly easy to swap, so maybe I shouldn’t complain. 
 
PACKAGE
Prior HE models came in a nice looking storage case. In contrast, the HE-400 ships in a fairly basic plastic package as if it was a $50 headphone. As much as I miss the “wow factor” of the fancy box, I’m actually glad it was omitted here - unnecessary extras are just what you don’t need when trying to keep prices low. HiFiMAN does throw in a storage pouch which I’ve never once used; I guess it’s better than nothing and some people might have use for it. HiFiMAN sells a nice travel case for $29 if anyone desired such a thing. My HE-400 lives on a headphone stand so I’m pleased that I wasn’t forced to pay for a storage case that I’ll never use.
 
Prior models included a single spare earpad. I always thought that was strange – why not a pair? The HE-400 solves that strangeness by no longer including anything. And that’s fine by me. Additional sets in velour can be had for just $10 a pair.
 
The included cable is 10 feet long, terminates in a 1/8” plug, and is fairly thick and unwieldy. For me, this was the biggest letdown of the whole experience. I recall not being a big fan of the HE-500 cable, so I knew this one would probably be bad, but over time I came to really dislike it. It was an easy fix due to the plethora of aftermarket cable options on the market. Some people may not be as easily annoyed as I am, and may find the stock cable totally acceptable.
 
EQUIPMENT
This is the equipment I used for my evaluation of the HE-400:
 
Source: JF Digital HDM-03S music server, Squeezebox Touch, Marantz SA-1
 
DAC: Violectric V800, Anedio D2, Yulong Sabre D18, Matrix Quattro DAC, Kao Audio UD2C-HP, Grant Fidelity TubeDAC-11
 
AMP: Analog Design Labs Svetlana 2, Violectric V200, Yulong Sabre A18, Matrix Quattro Amp, Lake People G109P, Apex Butte, Audinst AMP-HP
 
Cables: As I’ll discuss later, I didn’t care for the stock HE-400 cable. So I replaced it with a CablePro Earcandy for single ended use and a Toxic Cables Hybrid for balanced operation.
Earpads: I swapped out the stock pads for a set of Lawton modified Denon D7000 pads. I’ll explain later.
Power was handled by a CablePro Revelation conditioner and CablePro Reverie AC cables. Interconnects were Signal Cable Analog Two for RCA and Paillics Silver Net for XLR. The HE-400 was burned in for well over 100 hours prior to doing any critical listening.
 

 

 

 

 
 
LISTENING
I have to preface this by telling my story about the pads. The stock pads are actually pretty nice - I was worried that I would have major isses with overheating, but that ended up not being the case. No, my issue was on the left side of my head apparently being a little lumpy. Behind my left ear, the stock pad would leave a tiny gap smaller than my pinkie finger. No amount of fiddling with the headband or cup angle seemed to remedy this. I've never had this issue with any of the dozens of headphones I've used, including the HE-500 with velour pads. I can’t fault the HE-400 but rather my own uneven skull. In any case, the gap caused a small but audible difference in sound from left side to right.
 
Obviously I couldn't eveluate the HE-400 without a proper seal. I borrowed an HE-500 from a friend but it used the older mounting system, so the velour pads were of no use. I was considering ordering a set (they are very reasonably priced) when I had an idea - why not try a few other pads that I have around the house? The very first set I found when I went digging in the drawer was from a Denon D7000. It had been modified by Lawton Audio when I sent my D7000 in for upgrades. When Lawton returned my Denons in LA7000 form, I never actually used the pads, opting instead for the J-Money V3 pads. So these Lawton pads were just waiting for a new home. For those unfamiliar, Lawton stuffs the pads with extra Poly Fil type material, especially to the rear area, which makes them look somewhat like an Audeze LCD-2 pad. It makes a great seal with my (apparently oddly shaped) head, and helps position the drivers at an angle to theoretically give a more speaker-like presentation. All of the impressions that follow were obtained with the Lawton pads in place. Since I couldn't get a good seal with the stock pads, no comparisons are possible. That might invalidate some of my impressions but there’s nothing I can do about it.
 
The sound from the HE-400 was immediately appealing to me. I heard the typical "planar" presentation which I categorize as having a sort of effortless sound to it, with excellent deep bass extension. I don't know how better to describe it, but it’s something that the LCD-2, Thunderpants, and HiFiMAN models all have in common, despite all sounding very different from one another. There's just an ease to the presentation that dynamic headphones can't quite match. I'm not saying planars are always superior, but this is one of their strengths.
 
Bass on the HE-400 is very nicely done. It isn't huge, but has enough of a solid impact and presence to be satisfying for all but the most extreme basshead listeners. Where similarly priced dynamic headphones from Sennheiser, AKG, and Beyerdynamic all have rolled off frequency response in the sub-40Hz range, the HE-400 (like most planar models) stays almost completely linear down to 25Hz or so, with a very mild drop below that. To my ears this ends up sounding more convincing; as if more air is being displaced. And maybe it actually is. The bass presentation is very close to that of the HE-500, lacking only a small amount of texture and refinement in direct comparison. On its own though it is some of the best low frequency reproduction I’ve heard from a non-flagship headphone.
 
Mids on the HE-400 are somewhat forward. This gives it a more exciting sound than the more neutral HE-500. There's an added "bite" to things like trumpets and violins, making for a very engaging listen. The mids have a nice smoothness to them though, meaning they aren't just run of mill, average quality stuff being boosted to sound more exciting. They really do have enough clarity and focus to pull off this little trick. Upper mids are somewhat subdued, which generally makes for a smooth presentation though it can occasionally take away some realism in the form of a lack of airiness or trailing edge. This was mostly noticeable with really well recorded tracks – on lesser material it could actually help hide some of the harshness from poor mastering. So it ends up being a give and take.
 
As with many headphones, the highs of the HE-400 are the one area where it isn't perfect. It isn't terrible either, but this is where I heard the biggest divide between the HE-400 and HE-500. The 400 has a bit of darkness to it but also has some brightness. "Dark and bright at the same time? How can that be?" Take a look at the Frequency Response chart as measured by Tyll at InnerFidelity. Notice the “droop” starting at roughly 1.5kHz which doesn't pick up until around 7kHz. From there it actually gets somewhat bright, and that's exactly how I hear it. Brass and woodwinds, while seeming fairly cool and dark overall, also have some "zing" up top peaking at 9kHz or so. This can sometimes come across as a bit brittle or harsh. Other times it is inoffensive and actually brings out some extra perceived detail. It works more often than not, but it must be mentioned because certain people are more sensitive to these types of peaks. I also need to point out how hard it was for me to wrap my brain around this presentation. With female vocals for example, you hear something of a darker presentation with less air or breathiness, which would normally be smooth all the way around. But then you get this peak which tends to accent certain consonant sounds, not quite sibilant but borderline.
Once Tyll got his measurements posted it started making more sense, though I do think my pad swap has helped the problem somewhat. I know people who use the velour pads and they report a subjective improvement as well, so that's something I definitely think is worth exploring since it costs so little.
 
I was surprised that the HE-400 was able to pull off a reasonably large and very well defined soundstage despite being on the darker side. Planar models tend to not have the most spacious presentation anyway, and the same goes for darker headphones in general. So I figured the HE-400 wouldn't have much going on to brag about in this area. Perhaps my angled pads are doing a lot to help, but I really do find these to be nice and open sounding, with good definition of the musical space. Imaging is accurate and there is some really nice layering going on. It might not be up to par with the HE-6 or HE-500, but it is definitely near the top of the pack in the "mid-fi" range where HiFiMAN has positioned this model. The K701 and variants might be more spacious but it comes at the cost of being somwhat artifical.
 
 
AMPING
The HE-400 is supposedly the planar for the common man. It doesn't require heavy amplification, so one could reasonably use it from a fairly low powered amp, or even straight from a DAP. That's the theory anyway. In practice I found that to be only partially true.
 
Yes, my iPad and Sansa Clip can drive the HE400 to reasonably loud levels, and the resulting sound is certainly listenable. But I don't enjoy it nearly as much as I do when adding even a basic amp like my portable Audinst AMP-HP. Specifically, the bass presentation is nowhere near as satisfying until a separate amp is involved. And the highs are much more prone to offend with that “edginess” I mentioned. The only exception to this amp required rule might be some of the "premium" portable units such as the iBasso DX100 or HiFiMAN's own HM series. I did try my RoCoo D Power Edition and the result was reasonably good – better than my iPad, but still not great. Ultimately I would never use this as a portable headphone anyway so I don't mind the amp requirement.
 
As far as which amps work best, it becomes a question of sound signature preferences. All amps have their own unique presentation, and while the differences are not always huge, you want to pick one that best fits your predilection. I found that I enjoyed the HE-400 with all of my desktop amps, but some were better than others. I don't care how sensitive they are, planar headphones seem to always respond to power. For that reason the powerful Violectric V200 and its cousin the Lake People G109P did a fantastic job. The V200 had a little more clarity on the top end but for the most part the cheaper G109P was able to keep up.  I also liked the Apex Butte and the Analog Design Labs Svetlana 2 for their exceptional midrange presentation. The Matrix Quattro amp in balanced mode offered an enjoyably smooth, refined presentation for a low price. But I think my favorite pairing is with the new Yulong Sabre A18 amp in balanced mode. This is a Class A, fully discrete, differential design that just mates perfectly with the HE-400. It delivers just under 2 full watts per channel to this particular headphone, bringing it close to the V200 in terms of current delivery. But it has an exceptionally expansive soundstage that sets it apart from the Violectric model. It isn't always better with every headphone, but the HE-400 seems to be a perfect match. Single ended mode was good too, but not quite up to the same level, and in that situation the V200 regained the lead. For anyone interested in balanced operation, I highly recommend the A18/HE-400 pairing.
 
With a seemingly dark headphone like this you don't want to obfuscate any of the top end presentation by using a darker amp. Yet the sometimes peaky highs also don't need any extra attention either. So keep in mind when planning an HE-400 based system: a generally neutral amp is desirable over one with a strong coloration of any type.
 
COMPARISONS
I have owned most of the similarly priced headphones that would be considered competition to the HE-400. Unfortunately I no longer have any of them on hand for direct comparison. But I'm familiar enough with them to make some generalizations.
 
The AKG K701, and its brethren in various colors, are very different from the HE-400. Almost complete opposites - they have significantly less low frequency resolution, and as a result give the impression of significantly more energy in the upper mids. Personally I would choose the HE-400 every time, except perhaps in the categories of comfort and soundstage size.
 
The Sennheiser HD650 is still a killer headphone in my opinion. I think it offers a more even, linear presentation from top to bottom, while the HE-400 is far more exciting and dynamic. These two would actually complement each other quite nicely if a person wanted to own two headphone for two different takes on their music.
 
The Beyerdynamic line of DT770/880/990 is in process of being replaced by the new T70/80/90 models. But not all of those are released yet, and way more people have experience with the DT series. So this is still a fair comparison. The HE-400 strikes me as being somewhere in between the 880 and 990, but superior to either. It has less bass quantity than the 990, but to my ears it does lows in a much more convincing manner. Sub-bass extension is superior to the point where it just makes the 990 sound bad in comparison... and keep in mind that I actually do like the 990. Mids are more forward than either Beyer model, which is a welcome improvement in my opinion. Highs reminds me more of the 990 but are not an exact match - I hear the HE-400 as being less grainy and having a more natural flow; even though they do both get harsh on some tracks, the 990 is clearly the bigger offender.
 
CABLES
I mentioned prior that I disliked the length and thickness of the stock cable. So I picked up two different aftermarket cables to try out. Both of them are miles ahead of the stock cable ergonomically, and both happen to look much better as well.
 
The first is the CablePro Earcandy which is currently on sale for $109 (regularly $129) for a 10 foot length. Construction is described as finely stranded 22 gauge OFC conductors, with a low-loss polyethylene dielectric and an OFC braided shield to block noise. Mine has a 1/4" Neutrik plug for single ended operation though other options do exist.  This is a very flexible cable with a low key, classy look to it that exudes quality while still remaining understated. It reminds me of the Cardas Sennheiser upgrade cables, but obviously priced way lower. I have to say I’m exceedingly pleased with the service I received from the company - CablePro sells all kinds of products (several of which I own) and they are extremely pleasant and helpful.
 

 

 

 

 
The other cable I got is from Toxic Cables. Based in the UK, their Hybrid cable uses a combination of cryo treated OCC copper and cryo treated OCC silver plated copper. I got mine with balanced termination though again, other choices exist. As of today's exchange rate the price translates to $134 for a 6 footlength. This cable looks like it should cost significantly more than it does – if the color was different it would looks a lot like the older (and rather expensive) Lawton Audio Jena Labs recable jobs. The best part is that it’s surprisingly flexible and easy to manage. I refuse to deal with an unwieldy cable no matter how nice it might look, so this aspect is critical for me. Toxic Cables is also a great company to deal with, and is actually an authorized HiFiMAN distributor as well - so headphone and cables could all be ordered together if one was interested. 
 

 

 

 

 
 
With a new headphone to figure out, a newborn baby in the house, and plenty of other reviews on deck, I don't have time to get into a cable debate here. I did let a friend who is a certified cable nut (and has way more free time than I do) borrow both cables, and he loved them. He normally uses Moon Audio Silver Dragon V3 cables for his HE-500 as well as his original HE-5. In his opinion, both the CablePro and Toxic Cables products were just as good as the more expensive Moon option, and possibly better. He said he liked the Earcandy more with his Cary Xciter amp driving the HE-5, and the Hybrid more with his HE-500 powered by the Red Wine Audio Audeze Edition balanced amp/DAC unit. Something about "synergy". Neither of those amps are high up on my list of favorites, so obviously he and I have different tastes. Yet we both enjoy these cables. I intend to keep them both - one will stay with the HE-400 and the other will pair with some future flagship HiFiMAN model that I'll eventually pick up.
 
CONCLUSION
HiFiMAN has done an excellent job of tuning the HE-400 to have big, bold sonics with any type of music you throw at them. The low frequency capabilites are very impressive, sounding very close to the much more expensive HiFiMAN models. And the mids are wonderfully engaging - nobody would ever call this a boring sound signature. The only area of concern is the highs; most of the time it is smooth, slightly dark, and generally inoffensive. Every once in a while it becomes just grating enough to remind the listener that this is in fact still a "budget" model. 
 
It sounds like I'm being hard on the HE-400 with my description of the highs. I don't mean to be picky and I don't want to overstate the problem. These really are excellent sounding headphones in the sub-$500 price bracket - a bracket where all entries will be flawed in one way or another. To some extent you have to pick the flaw which you find least offensive and go with that one.
 
I will say that these are my current favorites in the sub-$500 range. The HD650 is still an excellent all purpose model that could be a suitable counterpart for the HE-400, but if I had to choose just one I'd go with the HE-400 first. The Grado RS-2 might be more exciting for a very limited selection of music, but with everything else the HE-400 leaves it in the dust. Believe it or not, I could totally see the HE-400 being preferred over the HE-500 for some listeners. I think HiFiMAN has done a great job with this release and I can easily recommend them to anyone looking to purchase a good sounding headphone that isn't astronomically priced.
 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 
The story behind this review is kind of interesting. I was in contact with Meizu about an upcoming portable audio player being released later this year. I asked for a loaner so I could do a review over at InnerFidelity. That device is still a few months out so they don’t have review models yet. During the course of our conversation the Meizu rep asked if I might be interested in covering their latest IEM, the EP-40. A budget IEM selling for around $40? That’s not the type of thing I usually review. But I did some research on it, and the design actually looked very well done for such a low price. So I agreed to have a listen and cover it here at HeadFi rather than at InnerFidelity, since Tyll is way backed up on important headphones to be reviewed. Now that I’ve spent some time with the EP-40 I’m glad gave it a chance.
 
The EP-40 is available all over the place.... in retail stores all across China. Those of us living on other continents will need to order them online. I found THIS website selling for $49 though it seems demand is so high that Meizu can't keep up at the moment. By the time this is published they may be in stock again. Or not. 
 
DESIGN
The EP-40 is a compact In Ear Monitor. Maybe compact doesn’t do them justice – how about extremely compact? The design is among the smallest I’ve seen, right there alongside the Microsonic Epic X, UE700, ACS T15, and Jays q-Jays/d-Jays. What makes it unique among that group is that it uses a dynamic driver instead of an armature driver. Here are the specs as listed by Meizu:
 
[size=10pt]·       [/size] [size=8.5pt]7μm ultra-thin composite diaphragm[/size]
[size=10pt]·       [/size] [size=8.5pt]8mm powerful drive unit[/size]
[size=10pt]·       [/size] [size=8.5pt]14 0.05mm high-purity oxygen-free copper headphone wires[/size]
[size=10pt]·       [/size] [size=8.5pt]3 earplugs in different sizes[/size]
[size=10pt]·       [/size] [size=8.5pt]Microphone and remote[/size]
[size=10pt]·       [/size] [size=8.5pt]High-speed Response Technology[/size]
[size=10pt]·       [/size] [size=8.5pt]Speaker impedance: 16 Ω[/size]
[size=10pt]·       [/size] [size=8.5pt]Sensitivity: 101dB SPL[/size]
[size=10pt]·       [/size] [size=8.5pt]Frequency response: 20Hz ~ 20KHz[/size]
[size=10pt]·       [/size] [size=8.5pt]Maximum input power: 10mW[/size]
[size=10pt]·       [/size] [size=8.5pt]Length: 1.2m[/size]
[size=10pt]·       [/size] [size=8.5pt]Plug: 3.5mm[/size]
 
Let’s examine the highlights – dynamic driver at 8mm, with an “ultra thin composite diaphragm” at a mere 7 microns thick. I have no way of knowing how that compares to other in-ear monitors; Stax seems to be the only company that likes to advertise their diaphragm thickness. The next line is somewhat unclear but I take it to mean that the cable is constructed of 14 strands of .05mm thick OFC wire. Again, I have no clue how that compares to the average cable from competing brands. The cable measures 1.2 meters and has an inline microphone with a single button placed at roughly mouth level. It terminates in a straight 3.5mm plug. Impedance is 16 ohms and sensitivity is 101dB which is well within the normal range.
 
Physically the EP 40 is very compact as I mentioned prior. The housing appears black at first glance but closer inspection reveals it to be a transparent “smoke” color, allowing a view of the driver itself. The nozzle extends from the driver housing at an extreme angle, similar to the Radius DDM though not completely to the side as seen in the Sony EX1000. The difference is that this nozzle is longer and thinner than both of those - roughly the same as the Westone UM3X. There is a tiny vent in the shell which is so small that I can hardly imagine it making any sort of difference. No sound leaks from the vent and isolation is moderate. Overall build quality is very impressive – not just for the price either. If I was handed the EP-40 and told that it sells for $150, I would not have any reason to doubt that claim. They feel solid enough to take some serious abuse, and the cable has a decent strain relief that it should last for the long haul.
 

 

 
 
PACKAGE
The EP-40 comes in a circular case which either looks like a record or the bottom view of a Playstation 1 disc,  depending on what era you are from. It’s a unique bit of packaging but doesn’t seem all that useful for on the go storage. A twist of the top allows access to the inside layer of padding containing 3 pairs of tips and the earphones themselves. Tips are a dual flange type in the usual small, medium, and large sizes. Overall it is a decent setup though not as extensive as some other budget IEMs I’ve recently seen who like to drown you in accessories. Priority here seems to have been placed on presentation rather than utility.
 
I have noticed a recent trend where budget IEMs come packaged with a large selection of tips. They may not be of the highest quality, but the large selection at least gives the user options and helps determine which size is optimal. The user can then buy a higher quality version of that same size and type. With the EP-40, the user gets some reasonably nice tips but not much variety. I found that the medium tips were just slightly too small while the large tips were a bit too big – they sealed well but the pressure on my inner ear was stronger than I’d like. I had to take breaks every 30 minutes or so in order to prevent pain. Then again I have always been tough to please when it comes to tips; one of the key reasons I only use custom IEMs these days.
 

 

 

 
LISTENING
Not being sure what to expect, I burned the EP-40 in for about a week straight prior to listening. Once I figured out the proper fit I was really impressed with the sound. The general sound signature has a slightly warm tilt – mostly neutral mids and highs but a respectable bass boost. The bass reaches extremely deep and punches hard, yet remains clean and controlled. I was blown away when listening to Beverley Knight’s Music City Soul which is a great album for testing low frequencies. The EP-40 handles bass drum, bass guitar, and other low frequencies so well that it seemed like I was listening to a much more expensive product. Speed and texture approaches what I might expect from an entry level custom IEM. Mid-bass bloat, a common occurrence with cheaper dynamic designs, is thankfully kept to a minimum. Overall the low frequency presentation is outstanding.
 
The mildly boosted lows transition cleanly to a neutral sounding midrange. Separation and clarity are nicely handled, with vocals sounding distinctly layered against the instrumental backdrop. Since the lows are kept in their own realm the midrange remains uncolored – it has enough weight of its own without needing any added thickness. Everything from congas to trumpets to violins have a pleasingly natural tone free from honk or tininess.
 
Unfortunately, the one area that is less than perfect is the area that many people are sensitive to – the upper mids and highs. The EP-40 attempts to channel certain Westone models in an attempt to produce a somewhat lively sound. Unfortunately it doesn’t always succeed. There are some instances where vocals, especially the female variety, sound outstanding: crisp and airy but not overdone. Yet other times the EP-40 pushes a bit too hard and the whole affair turns peaky, sibilant, and downright unpleasant. So while Nancy Bryant sounded wonderful, Beverley Knight had traces of edginess and Allison Krauss become borderline harsh at times. A bit of EQ applied to the 5-6kHz range helped considerably but the effect never disappeared completely. Aside from that the highs are actually very nice – sparkly, clearly defined, and with a good amount of airiness. I speculate that within their budgetary limits, Meizu could have gone for a smooth but rolled off response or else an extended but peaky response, and they chose the latter. You can’t have it all at this price range and the market is full of dynamic drivers that sound like the former. I don’t want to overstate the problem here; no IEM is perfect, least of all one selling for under $50. And there are plenty of much more expensive options on the market which exhibit the same difficulty with high frequencies. Think Westone 3: some people love them, some can’t stand the highs.
 
I found the EP-40 easy to drive overall. Volume was rarely an issue whether using a Sansa Clip, Hisound RoCoo D power edition, or even just an iPad. There was a mild improvement when using a portable amp, mostly in terms of soundstage definition, but it isn’t really a requirement. The bigger upgrade came when using a higher quality source – something like the Grant Fidelity TubeDAC-11 or Audiotrak DR.DAC 2 DX is able to squeeze out a bit more realism and definition while helping keep those highs more controlled. You certainly don’t need the extra power on tap, but the clarity and smoothness of the DAC section is appreciated when dealing with a potentially harsh top end. Barring a higher end source, the next best thing is something like the RoCoo D which has somewhat rolled off highs. This band-aid approach is less than ideal but can get the job done if your musical preferences end up being a poor match for the EP-40.
 

They make the Hisound Popo look positively massive (which they are not)
 
 
COMPARISONS
Before I begin, I need to explain why I was hesitant to accept this review in the first place. This may end up making me sound like a total snob… but I’m accustomed to listening to far nicer IEMs than this. My permanent collection solely consists of custom IEMs these days. Sure, it is spread out from flagship models to mid-range choices and even budget models. But most of my “budget” customs still cost roughly 10 times what the EP-40 does. Frankly, I admit that I’m out of touch with the current state of low priced universal IEMs, and therefore I’m not in the best position to ascertain where the EP-40 stands in comparison to similarly priced competition.
 
Having said that, I do have a few reasonable comparisons to offer. Taken within reason, I find that the EP-40 competes with some significantly more expensive choices.
 
Hisound Popo: the oddly named Popo sells for $60 on eBay making it the closest contender I have on hand. I’ll be honest – the Popo is not an IEM that I particularly enjoy listening to. There are some things about it that I do appreciate: the fit is surprisingly good, comfort is excellent, build quality is nice enough, appearance is subjectively appealing, and the included assortment of tips is substantial (though somewhat low quality). Notice how I haven’t mentioned any good qualities about the sound? Simply put, I find the Popo to be overly warm to the point of being thick and syrupy. Mids are recessed and muddy, while highs are way too rolled off for my taste. Yet I’ve read positive reviews of these from respected HeadFiers, so perhaps this is an example of my expectations being too high.
 
To my ears, the EP-40 sounds like a completely different class of IEM. Bass is less prominent (which is welcome in this case) but significantly tighter and more controlled. Mids are more forward and have a far better sense of clarity. Details that the Popo would stumble on or even completely gloss over, the EP-40 renders with precision. Highs, while less offensive on the Popo, are dull enough to lose my attention, where the EP-40 grabs hold of it. Only in soundstage does the Popo offer any redeeming value in this comparison.
 
Part of this is admittedly just my preferences for sound signature, and the EP-40 lining up far better with my ideal sound. The two could really not be more different. In appearance, I actually like the Popo which seems to capture a sort of steampunk LCD-2 aesthetic compared to the somewhat high-tech but more traditional Meizu design. But appearance and signatures aside, I think the EP-40 is several steps above in overall sound quality.
 
Shure SE310: having recently sold these, I don’t have them on hand for direct comparison.  At one time these went for $299 though recently they could be had for roughly half that. Their armature based design offered a linear, extended sound with good resolution… assuming one could obtain a proper fit. When achieved, these were some of my favorite single driver armature based IEMs.
 
The EP-40 actually has a similar tone, but tweaked towards warmth on the low end and not as smooth up top. On the one hand I appreciate the SE310 for its neutrality, but on the other it could be a little sterile at times. The EP-40 is far less likely to be called boring – the bass has just enough added thump to inject some fun into to proceedings, without being overdone. I also hear the EP-40 as having a more expansive soundstage, if perhaps slightly less accurate imaging at times. Ultimately the highs are the deciding factor: with many songs, the EP-40 is clean enough to be inoffensive, and therefore become my first choice. In the instances where it does become fatiguing, then SE310 would be my favorite. It’s impressive that this sub-$50 IEM can compete with, and sometimes be preferable to, a model that sold for $299 a few years back. If I could graft the cleaner highs of the Shure model onto the overall sound of the Meizu I would be a very happy guy.
 
CONCLUSION
The Meizu EP-40 is an impressive little thing. It won’t set the world of headphones on fire but I’m glad I took the chance to hear it, as I find myself impressed – the build is excellent, and the sound is surprisingly capable. It has exceptionally well done lows, rich detailed mids, and lively highs that are either a benefit or a detriment based on the source material used. I’ll say with confidence that nobody should find these things unexciting.
 
Will the sound be perfect for everyone? Of course not. Neither is the Grado sound, or the Westone sound, or the Beyerdynamic sound. The benefit of the Meizu is that the price of entry is much lower compared to those others. But I find myself enjoying the EP-40 more often than not, a statement I can’t make about many of the other low to mid priced IEMs I’ve experienced. I’m interested to see if Meizu goes the way of HiFiMAN’s RE-series and continues to develop this design to its maximum potential.