You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Reviews by shampoosuicide
Filters
Show only:
Loading…
shampoosuicide
500+ Head-Fier
Pros: + Superlative sound quality with both low-sensitivity planars and high-impedance dynamic headphones
+ Sonic performance that punches way above its class (and then some)
+ Transparent, clean, accurate, and precise, yet full-bodied, vigorous, and robust
+ Macrodynamics and slam deserve special mention
+ Excellent low-end grip and control
+ Transients are clean, smooth, and incisive; never excessively sharp
+ Sophisticated aesthetics
+ Refined and polished fit and finish
+ Big, smooth, and sturdy volume knob
+ Remarkably low to nearly-undetectable channel imbalance
+ Sonic performance that punches way above its class (and then some)
+ Transparent, clean, accurate, and precise, yet full-bodied, vigorous, and robust
+ Macrodynamics and slam deserve special mention
+ Excellent low-end grip and control
+ Transients are clean, smooth, and incisive; never excessively sharp
+ Sophisticated aesthetics
+ Refined and polished fit and finish
+ Big, smooth, and sturdy volume knob
+ Remarkably low to nearly-undetectable channel imbalance
Cons: + Dead zone between 7 o'clock and a little before 10 o'clock
+ Slow volume ramp up until 1 o'clock
+ Soundstage appears about average
+ Not for listeners seeking a warm, lush, romantic, or tube-like signature
+ Slow volume ramp up until 1 o'clock
+ Soundstage appears about average
+ Not for listeners seeking a warm, lush, romantic, or tube-like signature
Tidal via Roon on Mac > FiiO K7 [ 4.4mm balanced ] > Hifiman Edition XS
Let me make a disclaimer first and foremost that I paid for my K7 out of my pocket. I have never been compensated in any way for any of my reviews or impressions, nor do I intend to go down that route.
My only piece of FiiO source/amplifier gear hitherto was the humble FiiO E10K Olympus some years back. Most recently, my primary DAC/amp was the iFi micro iDSD Signature, then the JDS Element II and JDS Atom stack prior to that, with the iFi ZEN DAC Signature and Gustard H10 and iFi ZEN CAN being my staples for the last year or so. Other amps I've owned that are worth mentioning include the Drop + THX AAA 789, Monolith Liquid Platinum, Schiit Asgard 3, and Schiit Valhalla 2.
Note that I no longer own any of the units mentioned above nor do I have any other sources to conduct a direct comparison with the K7, so do take the following impressions with a reasonable grain of salt.
My first impression of the K7 and the Hifiman Edition XS via the 4.4mm balanced output was: airy, transparent, pristine, clean, refined, effortless, spacious, vibrant, full-bodied, and robust.
By comparison, and from memory, the iFi micro iDSD Signature I most recently owned sounded distinctly softer, mellower, warmer, more intimate, less precise, and less detailed, even with the GTO filter. At the same time, I would not describe the K7's sound as sterile, cool, or limp. It also does not exhibit the flatness and two-dimensional presentation of the JDS Atom, the sometimes overtly analytical and lean character of the THX AAA 789, or the compressed and strained quality of the Topping gear I've owned and auditioned (namely the Topping G5 and NX4).
I'm in the honeymoon phase at the moment to be sure, but the K7 seems to quite remarkably combine the effortlessness and naturalness of the iFi house sound with the precise and pristine quality of the Drop + THX AAA 789 and JDS Atom, the spaciousness and expansiveness of the Gustard H10, while injecting a healthy dose of vibrancy and robustness of its own all at once. Keep in mind, however, if you are seeking the warm, lush, romantic, or tube-like sound that is so sought after, you will not find it in the K7.
As for tangibles, build quality is solid with excellent fit and finish, and the volume pot is smooth, sturdy, with a pleasant amount of resistance. My main nitpicks so far are the dead zone on the volume pot between 7 o'clock and a little before 10 o’clock, along the slow initial ramp up in volume before 1 o’clock, and its relatively large footprint.
These are early impressions, and time will tell how they hold up in terms of quality control and if the magic sustains itself. For now, colour me very impressed.
Update - 15 December 2022
Tidal via Roon on Mac > FiiO K7 [ Single-ended ] > Beyerdynamic DT 150
Now with a high-impedance dynamic, the Beyerdynamic DT 150.
Again, as with the Edition XS: pristine, clean, open, transparent, vibrant, with excellent low-end control and grip.
I don’t recall ever hearing the DT 150 sound this detailed, open, transparent, and precise—not out of the iFi ZEN CAN balanced, not out of the Gustard H10, not out of the JDS Element II or the JDS Atom stack, and not out of the iFi micro iDSD Signature.
One of my main quibbles with the DT 150 with stock pads is that its low-end could often sound boomy and overblown and it could get congested on busy tracks—not so with the K7.
I had my doubts for a while with the iFi micro iDSD Signature and JDS Element II, but boy does the DT 150 scale with the K7.
Update - 29 December 2022
Further thoughts
Tidal via Roon on Mac > FiiO K7 [ Balanced ] > Beyerdynamic DT 150 / Hifiman Edition XS
- Transients are clean, smooth, and incisive; never excessively sharp
- Excellent low-end grip and control
- Macrodynamics and slam deserve special mention
- Soundstage seems about average upon further listening
- Tonality: Neither tube-like, warm, organic, or analog, nor analytical, cool, and lean. I’d characterise it as clean, accurate, precise, full-bodied, vigorous, and robust, with excellent control. It’s a modern sound, all things considered, but without being sterile, limp, or lifeless or plagued by digititus.
Last edited:
D
DewanPretorius
Could I ask if there's any way to use a tube amp as a pre amp or pass through in some way or another with the fiio k7? Thanks a bunch
shampoosuicide
500+ Head-Fier
Pros: + Tonal richness
+ Timbral accuracy
+ Analog tonality
+ Micro-contrast
+ Macro- and micro-dynamics
+ Visceral, vivid presentation
+ Lively, energetic V-shaped tuning
+ Very good isolation for a vented IEM
+ Timbral accuracy
+ Analog tonality
+ Micro-contrast
+ Macro- and micro-dynamics
+ Visceral, vivid presentation
+ Lively, energetic V-shaped tuning
+ Very good isolation for a vented IEM
Cons: - Some (easy) modding might be required to attenuate the lower-treble peaks
- Some driver flex
- Somewhat bulky shells
- Some driver flex
- Somewhat bulky shells

I recently repurchased both the 3DT and Sony IER-M9 and wanted to share some of my own thoughts in my comparison of the two. I previously posted my review of the IER-M9 here: in short, I think the IER-M9 are a masterfully and tastefully tuned IEM, served alongside some of the best technicalities I've had the privilege of experiencing in any IEM I've owned or auditioned, including the venerable IER-Z1R and Campfire Andromeda.
Sound Chain
Tidal on Mac > JDS Atom DAC > JDS Atom Amp > UM 3DT [ 3mm micropore tape mod, Azla Sedna Light ] / Sony IER-M9 [ Sony Hybrid ]
- Transparency, clarity, and detail retrieval are surprisingly excellent on the 3DT. I certainly don’t feel like I’m sacrificing all that much at all coming from the IER-M9.
- The 3DT truly excels at micro-contrast, micro- and macro-dynamics, and textural nuance. In this respect, I think the 3DT easily surpasses the IER-M9.
- The 3DT is definitely a more ‘fun’, V-shaped tuning, with significantly greater sub-bass and lower- and mid-treble presence.
- The 3DT also excels and surpasses the IER-M9 in terms of tonal richness and timbral accuracy. Note that I am not talking here about tonal balance or tonal accuracy (i.e. neutrality).
- The IER-M9 stills excels in tonal balance. In this regard, it is quite simply superlative.
- Subjectively, I find the 3DT to be, again, incommensurably more engaging. To my ears, the 3DT provides a positively visceral experience.
- Staging wise, the IER-M9 is distinctly wider. I would characterise the IER-M9’s staging as elliptical, being wider than it is tall or deep. On the other hand, staging is narrower in width on the 3DT, but its dimensions are distinctly rounded, and therefore perceptually more natural to my ears.
- Presentation wise, the IER-M9 is certainly more spacious and expansive, with much greater space between notes.
- At the same time, the 3DT strikes as being distinctly more open sounding, owing likely to its venting.
Compared to the JVC HA-FDX1 [ Blue nozzles, Spiral Dot+ ]
- The 3DT is leaner, cleaner, and more precise sounding
- The 3DT displays greater treble extension and articulacy
- The 3DT displays greater bass presence, impact, and definition
- The 3DT displays greater clarity, resolution, and transparency
- The 3DT sounds relatively V-shaped in comparison to the FDX1
- The 3DT displays greater macro- and micro-dynamics
- The 3DT offers distinctly superior isolation
- The 3DT is undoubtedly the superior technical performer, and easily at least a tier above the FDX1
- The FDX1 still suffers from somewhat shouty upper-mids
I currently have my 3DT listed in the Classifieds, under the assumption that I was going to 'upgrade' to the IER-M9. Having the IER-M9 in my hands again, I now find myself strongly inclined to keep the 3DT.
Bravo, @UniqueMelody.
Last edited:
shampoosuicide
500+ Head-Fier
Pros: + Clean, lean, energetic presentation
+ Sophisticated U-shaped tuning, safe from any disagreeable peaks or dips
+ Highly transparent
+ Lifelike vocals
+ Crisp and energetic, yet smooth and composed
+ Revealing yet refined
+ Strong extension at both ends, with plenty of air
+ Tasteful, potent sub-bass shelf; agile, textured bass
+ Excellent separation and layering
+ Near-faultless tuning and technical performance for its price
+ Game-changing value proposition
+ Sophisticated U-shaped tuning, safe from any disagreeable peaks or dips
+ Highly transparent
+ Lifelike vocals
+ Crisp and energetic, yet smooth and composed
+ Revealing yet refined
+ Strong extension at both ends, with plenty of air
+ Tasteful, potent sub-bass shelf; agile, textured bass
+ Excellent separation and layering
+ Near-faultless tuning and technical performance for its price
+ Game-changing value proposition
Cons: x Mids are a touch lean, though certainly not sterile by any means
x Lacking some body, or ‘meat on the bones’
x Lacking some body, or ‘meat on the bones’

As there are a number of of reviews of the Variations at present that describe its tuning and tonality in great detail, this 'review' aims to provide brief notes on the Variations with respect to other popular IEMs that I have owned, with the hope that it may serve as a useful reference point for prospective buyers.
Moondrop Blessing 2: Dusk
Chain: Spotify Premium on Mac > iFi ZEN DAC V2 7.2c > iFi 4.4mm-XLR > Gustard H10
Tips used: ePro EP00, ePro EP01, Azla Sedna Light Short
Against the Dusk:
- Treble is significantly more extended on the Variations, with much greater air
- Bass is significantly more textured, taut, and agile
- Soundstage is distinctly more spacious, with an out-of-head presentation, whereas the Dusk's stage is fairly forward and in-your-face
- Significantly better separation and layering
- Significantly greater clarity
- Much quicker transients
- Overall, the Variations is simply much more precise, nimble, textured, energetic, incisive, and revealing
- By comparison, I found the Dusk to be somewhat muted in terms of its attack and downwards compressed, and really just not all that resolving. Presentation wise, the Dusk is relatively polite, reserved, intimate, button-downed, and mid-centric.
- Suffice to say, I consider find the Variations to be a significant step up from the Dusk, sitting easily a tier above it
ThieAudio Clairvoyance
Most of my summary thoughts on the Variations vs. the Dusk can be transposed to the Clairvoyance, albeit to a somewhat lesser degree: the Variations outperforms the Clairvoyance in terms of overall clarity, spaciousness, transient response, air, separation, extension, and dynamics. I'm frankly hard-pressed to name any area where the Clairvoyance outdoes the Variations, although I can certainly appreciate the value of its palatable and versatile tuning. I sold the Clairvoyance very quickly due to two dealbreakers: I found its bass relatively soft and amorphous and its overall dynamics left me wanting. Upper-mids were also a touch shouty to my ears. aminus's review here very aptly outlines my main complaints. The Variations' bass strikes me as being significantly more defined, faster, and hard-hitting, with a more pleasing (to my ears) sub-bass shelf. It's an out-and-out cleaner, leaner, meaner, and more technically competent offering.
Sony IER-M9
As competent as the Variations are, they're certainly not on the same level as the IER-M9 in terms of sheer resolution, precision, and imaging. If one were to take the IER-M9 as the 'kilobuck benchmark', then the Variations are not quite kilobuck killers. To be sure, the Variations are excellent performers - it is simply the case that the IER-M9 are superlative in these areas.
Further impressions from fellow Head-Fi members
I've personally found the impressions contained in the following posts to be very much aligned with my own thoughts:
- surfgeorge's comparison of the Variations and the IER-M9 and Blessing 2
- toranku's comparison of the Variations and the IER-M9 and Blessing 2 variants
- SteveK27's comparison of the Variations and the Blessing 2 Dusk and ThieAudio Clairvoyance
Concluding thoughts
Until I heard the Variations, I had been persuaded that the 'sweet spot' in terms of price-to-performance for IEMs sat firmly in the $200 - $300 bracket. Based on my own experiences with IEMs in the $400 - $500 range (iBasso IT04, Fearless S8F, ThieAudio Clairvoyance), I'd written off most IEMs above the $300 mark and below $1k as falling in something of a 'no man's land' - while they usually offered incremental advantages in terms of refinement and technicalities, the price differential didn't quite justify itself in the way that the jump to TOTL IEMs did, where the sonic advantages are often incommensurable. To my mind, the Variations has singlehandedly usurped this paradigm, and well deserving of the highest praise.
Last edited:
C
Codename john
Great review. As you said not quite kilobuck league saying that in it's price range it is very hard to beat 

shampoosuicide
500+ Head-Fier
Pros: + Unique staging and presentation. Open-sounding, airy, expansive, large images.
+ Refined, lightly V-shaped tuning. Evenly emphasised sub- and mid-bass; mildly accented upper mids; highlighted treble
+ Bass that kicks deep and hard, with excellent control, speed, and texture
+ Superb dynamics and engagement factor
+ Good technicalities all around: speed, imaging, detail, separation
+ Fantastic build and aesthetics
+ Good isolation for a semi-open design
+ Impressive accessory set, including a modular-plug cable, and Final MMCX Assist tool
+ Good value, taking into account sound quality, build, design, and accessory set
+ Refined, lightly V-shaped tuning. Evenly emphasised sub- and mid-bass; mildly accented upper mids; highlighted treble
+ Bass that kicks deep and hard, with excellent control, speed, and texture
+ Superb dynamics and engagement factor
+ Good technicalities all around: speed, imaging, detail, separation
+ Fantastic build and aesthetics
+ Good isolation for a semi-open design
+ Impressive accessory set, including a modular-plug cable, and Final MMCX Assist tool
+ Good value, taking into account sound quality, build, design, and accessory set
Cons: - Highly tip-dependent; stock tips do not produce the best sound
- Requires some experimenting with third-party tips (and cables, if you believe that stuff) to attenuate its lower-treble peak
- Requires some experimenting with third-party tips (and cables, if you believe that stuff) to attenuate its lower-treble peak
A 1.5 Year Revisit
[ Updated 19 September 2022 ]
I remember the first time I picked up the FD5 (I would go on to own them three more times) in January of 2021 after reading the glowing early impressions of them. I was sorely overwhelmed on my first listen, until I discovered how tip-dependent they were, and after shuffling through an assortment of tips, finally discovering their sheer wonder with the SpinFit CP145.
At the time, I wrote a brief initial review of the FD5, mostly expressing my revelry, as one does in the early honeymoon stages. Fast forward to the third-quarter of 2022, and over a dozen IEMs later, including more expensive units as the Moondrop Variations, UM MEST, Sony IER-M9, and ThieAudio Clairvoyance, I thought I would do a proper revisit and head-to-head comparison with other popular competitors to the FD5 I’ve owned in the intervening time.
This review will cover comparisons with the following:
Unique Melody 3DT

Moondrop Blessing 2: Dusk

Sony XBA-N3AP

JVC HA-FDX1 ( compared to Unique Melody 3DT)

Comment on the Sony MH755

Curiously, of the IEMs I currently own, the FD5 is most reminiscent to my ears of the cult dollar-bin classic, the Sony MH755, but with a more masterful tuning and technical performance that far surpasses the latter. It dials down the decidedly boosted sub-bass of MH755, and shifts the broader lower-treble peak on MH755 a little closer to the mid-treble with a narrower band. For those looking for the upgrade to the MH755 with a more mature tuning, the FD5, at least for me, fits the bill.
Conclusion
Suffice to say, the FD5 is my favourite IEM of the Dusk, 3DT, XBA-N3, and FDX1. They are easily the most technically competent performers of the lot as a whole, with a tuning that deftly toes the line between palatability, engagement, and fun. The N3 is a close contender for subjective fun and engagement factor and close too to my ideal tuning, but it lacks that bit of lower- to mid-treble energy, and while its bass is incredibly fun, it can also be a tad intrusive on certain recordings. Technically, the N3 has also begun to show its age. The 3DT remains a compelling option for its unique timbre, vivid presentation, and visceral energy. As for the Dusk... well, if you're after a palatable, agreeable tuning, with decent technicalities, and a listen that doesn't stand out in any particular way, good or bad, I imagine that might be your cup of tea.
____________________________
Initial review
[ 16 February 2021 ]

I’ve been sitting on the FD5 for about a month now, and wanted to share my impressions.
For context, my main IEM of late has been the Sony IER-M9. Prior to that, my primary driver was the Sony XBA-Z5. Other single DD IEMs I’ve owned include the AK T8iE MKII (warmer, darker cousin of the Beyerdynamic Xelento) and the Sony EX1000.
Chain
Spotify Premium on Mac > iFi ZEN DAC Balanced > iFi ZEN CAN Balanced > FiiO FD5
Preface
I’ll state upfront that I was frankly disappointed when I heard the FD5 out of the box. I really liked the bass (meaty, plenty of slam) and the mids (full, euphonic), but I found its technicalities fairly lacking.
I ran through a bunch of tips—stock Balanced, stock Vocal, Symbio W, Symbio Peel, Acoustune AET07, Azla Sedna—but simply wasn’t hearing the staging, holographic imaging, or resolving capabilities that they had been praised for in reviews.
More specifically, I thought the separation, imaging, and detail were below average for its price point. Muddled and congested sounding, even. Upper-mids/lower treble also tended to display a certain harshness, upper-treble was poorly articulated, diffuse, and splashy, and there was a distinct lack of refinement to the sound as a whole.
On a whim, I tried the SpinFit CP145 tips, and that made a world of a difference. There was the staging and technical capability that I’d read about. Gone was the upper-mid harshness and dissonance between the lower and upper mids. Upper-treble became well-extended, well-articulated, and refined.
Summary
My sonic priorities are fairly defined: bass, soundstage, timbre, dynamism, liveliness. The FD5 checks all these boxes, with fantastic technicalities to boot.
At its price point, the FD5 are exceptional by virtue of their staging and presentation alone. There isn’t the closed-in quality or small images that characterises most IEMs, or the “ants playing in a concert hall” type effect that appears even with IEMs with large stages. This is an open, airy, and expansive presentation.
The closest approximation to the tonality and presentation of the FD5 in my estimation would be the Sony EX1000, albeit with a smoother, more refined treble, and a healthy added dose of bass slam, weight, and grunt. A lovechild of the Sony EX1000 and the Sony XBA-N3, if you would. I do want to caveat here that it's been a while since I've had EX1000, so I won't comment on their relative performance in terms of technicalities.
Of the V-shaped IEMs I’ve owned—AK T8iE MKII, Fearless S8F, Sony XBA-N3—I’d pick the FD5 everyday.
If it isn’t clear at this point, I dig the FD5, and I dig ‘em hard.
[ Updated 19 September 2022 ]
I remember the first time I picked up the FD5 (I would go on to own them three more times) in January of 2021 after reading the glowing early impressions of them. I was sorely overwhelmed on my first listen, until I discovered how tip-dependent they were, and after shuffling through an assortment of tips, finally discovering their sheer wonder with the SpinFit CP145.
At the time, I wrote a brief initial review of the FD5, mostly expressing my revelry, as one does in the early honeymoon stages. Fast forward to the third-quarter of 2022, and over a dozen IEMs later, including more expensive units as the Moondrop Variations, UM MEST, Sony IER-M9, and ThieAudio Clairvoyance, I thought I would do a proper revisit and head-to-head comparison with other popular competitors to the FD5 I’ve owned in the intervening time.
This review will cover comparisons with the following:
- Moondrop Blessing 2: Dusk [ 1DD 4BA ] — $329
- Unique Melody 3DT — [ 3DD ] — $319
- Sony XBA-N3AP — [ 1DD 1BA ] — $300 [ Discontinued ]
- JVC HA-FDX1 — [ 1DD ] — $280
Unique Melody 3DT
- The FD5 is distinctly more spacious and expansive staging-wise, with a far more open and airy presentation, and a greater sense of scale. By comparison, the 3DT’s staging dimensions are just about average, with a more conventionally intimate, closed-in IEM presentation
- Tonally, the FD5 is relatively more linear, with a mild U-shaped tuning, and a more polite, mid-centric presentation. The 3DT, on the other hand, is unapologetically lively, bold, energetic, vivid, with a slightly aggressive L-shaped tuning.
- Timbral accuracy and dynamism are quite simply superb on the 3DT. This is one of their defining qualities for me, and they easily surpass the FD5 in this regard, with the FD5 sounding relatively soft and smoothed-over. When it comes to the depiction of acoustic instruments, the 3DT stands out with a remarkable realism, vividness, and textural nuance.
- Tonal density is also appreciably greater on the 3DT, lending it a greater sense of realism with acoustic music.
- Clarity and detail retrieval are relatively similar between the FD5 and 3DT, with an edge to the FD5.
- Transparency and separation, however, are distinctly superior on the FD5, due perhaps in part to its semi-vented design.
- Bass displays distinctly greater density, vigour, and slam on the 3DT, whereas the FD5’s bass has a relatively more polite, softer, and more rounded quality
- Treble on the FD5 is smoother, more even, with a more delicate quality, and displays distinctly greater air and extension. The 3DT has a noticeable lower-treble peak that lends it the appearance of greater clarity, but it doesn’t quite extend as high as the FD5, and has a harder, edgier quality.
- Mids are appreciably fuller, more linear, and more open sounding on the FD5, whereas the 3DT’s mids are noticeably leaner, with a slightly recessed lower-midrange, and a greater upper-midrange emphasis
Moondrop Blessing 2: Dusk
- As with the 3DT comparison, staging is distinctly more spacious and expansive on the FD5, with a much more airy and open presentation. By comparison, staging on the Dusk is more forward and more involving, with a more conventionally closed-in IEM presentation.
- Tonally, the Dusk might be described as slightly thick bass-boosted neutral, whereas the FD5 presents a crisper, lighter, mildly U-shaped tuning
- Note weight is noticeably shallower on the FD5 (although this is tip-dependent), with a relatively leaner and drier quality, whereas the Dusk displays appreciably greater tonal density.
- Bass on the FD5 is distinctly tauter, more textured, more agile, with a greater sense of tactility. As has been well-documented, the bass on the Dusk lacks a certain dynamism, elasticity, and tactility, with a relatively dry quality.
- Transient response is distinctly quicker on the FD5, sounding a tad muted or lopped-off on the Dusk, relatively speaking
- There’s distinctly greater snap, bite, and attack on the FD5
- Treble extension is noticeably superior on the FD5, with a pleasingly delicate, airy quality
- Macro- and micro-dynamics are appreciably, if not distinctly, superior on the FD5. Again, as has been documented elsewhere, the Dusk still sounds relatively downwards-compressed. The FD5 simply comes across as being far more effortless and expressive.
- In terms of technicalities, I would say say that the FD5 is noticeably more resolving
Sony XBA-N3AP
- Soundstage is distinctly wider, more spacious, and expansive on the FD5
- Presentation is distinctly airier and more open on the FD5
- Tonally, the N3 is smooth, warm, and bassy, whereas the FD5 showcases a mildly U-shaped profile
- Note weight is appreciably thicker and denser on the N3
- Bass is distinctly weightier, more vigorous, more robust, and more impactful on the N3. However, the FD5’s bass is more agile, textured, defined, and less prominent.
- Mids are thicker and fuller-bodied on the N3, being more linear, open, and expressive sounding on the FD5
- Mid- and upper-treble have noticeably greater presence on the FD5, with greater air and extension, whereas the N3 sounds relatively darker and smoothed-off up top
- The FD5 displays distinctly superior micro-dynamics, contrast, and textural nuance, whereas the N3 sounds relatively smoothed-over, as noted by @crinacle in his ranking list
- Technicalities, in terms of clarity, detail retrieval, and separation, are distinctly superior on the FD5.
JVC HA-FDX1 ( compared to Unique Melody 3DT)
- The 3DT is leaner, cleaner, and more precise sounding
- The 3DT displays greater treble extension and articulacy
- The 3DT displays greater bass presence, impact, and definition
- The 3DT displays greater clarity, resolution, and transparency
- The 3DT sounds relatively V-shaped in comparison to the FDX1
- The 3DT displays greater macro- and micro-dynamics
- The 3DT offers distinctly superior isolation
- The 3DT is undoubtedly the superior technical performer, and easily at least a tier above the FDX1
- The FDX1 still suffers from somewhat shouty upper-mids
- The FDX1 is warmer, smoother, and fuller-bodied
- The FDX1 displays a more a more organic, atmospheric presentation
Comment on the Sony MH755
Curiously, of the IEMs I currently own, the FD5 is most reminiscent to my ears of the cult dollar-bin classic, the Sony MH755, but with a more masterful tuning and technical performance that far surpasses the latter. It dials down the decidedly boosted sub-bass of MH755, and shifts the broader lower-treble peak on MH755 a little closer to the mid-treble with a narrower band. For those looking for the upgrade to the MH755 with a more mature tuning, the FD5, at least for me, fits the bill.
Conclusion
Suffice to say, the FD5 is my favourite IEM of the Dusk, 3DT, XBA-N3, and FDX1. They are easily the most technically competent performers of the lot as a whole, with a tuning that deftly toes the line between palatability, engagement, and fun. The N3 is a close contender for subjective fun and engagement factor and close too to my ideal tuning, but it lacks that bit of lower- to mid-treble energy, and while its bass is incredibly fun, it can also be a tad intrusive on certain recordings. Technically, the N3 has also begun to show its age. The 3DT remains a compelling option for its unique timbre, vivid presentation, and visceral energy. As for the Dusk... well, if you're after a palatable, agreeable tuning, with decent technicalities, and a listen that doesn't stand out in any particular way, good or bad, I imagine that might be your cup of tea.
____________________________
Initial review
[ 16 February 2021 ]
I’ve been sitting on the FD5 for about a month now, and wanted to share my impressions.
For context, my main IEM of late has been the Sony IER-M9. Prior to that, my primary driver was the Sony XBA-Z5. Other single DD IEMs I’ve owned include the AK T8iE MKII (warmer, darker cousin of the Beyerdynamic Xelento) and the Sony EX1000.
Chain
Spotify Premium on Mac > iFi ZEN DAC Balanced > iFi ZEN CAN Balanced > FiiO FD5
Preface
I’ll state upfront that I was frankly disappointed when I heard the FD5 out of the box. I really liked the bass (meaty, plenty of slam) and the mids (full, euphonic), but I found its technicalities fairly lacking.
I ran through a bunch of tips—stock Balanced, stock Vocal, Symbio W, Symbio Peel, Acoustune AET07, Azla Sedna—but simply wasn’t hearing the staging, holographic imaging, or resolving capabilities that they had been praised for in reviews.
More specifically, I thought the separation, imaging, and detail were below average for its price point. Muddled and congested sounding, even. Upper-mids/lower treble also tended to display a certain harshness, upper-treble was poorly articulated, diffuse, and splashy, and there was a distinct lack of refinement to the sound as a whole.
On a whim, I tried the SpinFit CP145 tips, and that made a world of a difference. There was the staging and technical capability that I’d read about. Gone was the upper-mid harshness and dissonance between the lower and upper mids. Upper-treble became well-extended, well-articulated, and refined.
Summary
My sonic priorities are fairly defined: bass, soundstage, timbre, dynamism, liveliness. The FD5 checks all these boxes, with fantastic technicalities to boot.
At its price point, the FD5 are exceptional by virtue of their staging and presentation alone. There isn’t the closed-in quality or small images that characterises most IEMs, or the “ants playing in a concert hall” type effect that appears even with IEMs with large stages. This is an open, airy, and expansive presentation.
The closest approximation to the tonality and presentation of the FD5 in my estimation would be the Sony EX1000, albeit with a smoother, more refined treble, and a healthy added dose of bass slam, weight, and grunt. A lovechild of the Sony EX1000 and the Sony XBA-N3, if you would. I do want to caveat here that it's been a while since I've had EX1000, so I won't comment on their relative performance in terms of technicalities.
Of the V-shaped IEMs I’ve owned—AK T8iE MKII, Fearless S8F, Sony XBA-N3—I’d pick the FD5 everyday.
If it isn’t clear at this point, I dig the FD5, and I dig ‘em hard.
Last edited:

shampoosuicide
@Fat Larry Hi there, I've never owned the Xelento, so I'm afraid I can't offer a comparison here.
@mgw01 Hello! I have both the CP100 and CP145. Your estimation is right indeed - the narrower bore of the CP100 fits more snugly on the FD5. However, and speaking subjectively here, I find the tonal response and technicalities to be superior with the CP145. I did have an issue with the CP145 slipping off on one side, but fixed that by sticking some Blu Tack around the sides of the nozzle, then slipping the tips over them.
@mgw01 Hello! I have both the CP100 and CP145. Your estimation is right indeed - the narrower bore of the CP100 fits more snugly on the FD5. However, and speaking subjectively here, I find the tonal response and technicalities to be superior with the CP145. I did have an issue with the CP145 slipping off on one side, but fixed that by sticking some Blu Tack around the sides of the nozzle, then slipping the tips over them.

szore
kewl...

asifur
@shampoosuicide you should try out the narrow tube with Spinfit CP800 if you haven't already
shampoosuicide
500+ Head-Fier
Pros: + Superb fit and comfort. Extremely lightweight.
+ Superb isolation
+ Incredibly coherent and well-balanced
+ Versatile tuning
+ Vigorous DD-like bass. Robust, impactful, defined, taut, with near-DD decay. Significantly tauter, more defined, more authoritative, and more impactful than the Sony XBA-Z5.
+ Fantastic soundstage across all dimensions. Not quite as ‘out of your head’ as the IER-Z1R, but incredibly satisfactory nonetheless. Much larger than the Sony XBA-Z5 and Campfire Andromeda OG.
+ Open, spacious presentation
+ Ultra-precise imaging
+ Impressive instrument separation
+ Remarkably, effortlessly resolving
+ Great speed
+ Outstanding treble extension and detail; crisp, airy, and refined
+ Great value
+ Superb isolation
+ Incredibly coherent and well-balanced
+ Versatile tuning
+ Vigorous DD-like bass. Robust, impactful, defined, taut, with near-DD decay. Significantly tauter, more defined, more authoritative, and more impactful than the Sony XBA-Z5.
+ Fantastic soundstage across all dimensions. Not quite as ‘out of your head’ as the IER-Z1R, but incredibly satisfactory nonetheless. Much larger than the Sony XBA-Z5 and Campfire Andromeda OG.
+ Open, spacious presentation
+ Ultra-precise imaging
+ Impressive instrument separation
+ Remarkably, effortlessly resolving
+ Great speed
+ Outstanding treble extension and detail; crisp, airy, and refined
+ Great value
Cons: x Lacks the dynamism and physicality of DD bass
x Lacking in 'fun factor'
x Somewhat hard to drive
x Sensitive to tip selection and insertion technique
x Lacking in 'fun factor'
x Somewhat hard to drive
x Sensitive to tip selection and insertion technique

Spotify Premium on Mac > iFi ZEN DAC Balanced > iFi ZEN CAN Balanced > IER-M9 w/ Sony Hybrid tips + 4 Core 22AWG OCC SPC Litz 4 cable
I'll keep this brief:
My main drivers over the past year have been the 2014 Sony flagship XBA-Z5. Despite their age, I've yet to encounter anything around the $500 price point that matches their unique speaker-like presentation. I'm primarily a bass and soundstage head, so the Z5 fit the bill nicely, but I wanted to more out of them technically.
I bought the M9 blind, and kept my expectations checked, having read that they didn't match the Z5 in terms of soundstage, and having found the tonality of the all-BA Fearless S8F decidedly uninspiring despite its V-shaped tuning. I had also previously owned the AK T8iE MKII and extensively auditioned the Campfire Andromeda OG, and was frankly underwhelmed by their performance given their entry price.
Let’s just say the M9 has single-handedly disabused me of the notion that TOTL IEMs offer only “incremental refinements” above mid-fi units. To my ears, the M9 sit confidently in a class of their own, just below the IER-Z1R, and well above the AK T8iE MKII, Campfire Andromeda OG, and Fearless S8F.
Crucially, as several users have noted, the M9 are especially sensitive to tip selection and insertion technique. From my listening experience:
Non-ideal fit = Stuffy, overly-warm, thick, laidback, blunted transients, small soundstage
Ideal fit = Clean, quick, precise, open, airy soundstage, extended treble
Due credit to @CoryGilmore for the following tips:
- Use the smallest sized tip that provides the deepest possible insertion and seal without creating a vacuum/suction effect
- Pull the top of the ear up and back when inserting IEM—this minimises pressure from within the ear canal, and mitigates the vacuum/suction effect.
Last edited:
shampoosuicide
500+ Head-Fier
Pros: + Soundstage and presentation that matches open full-sized headphones
+ Superlative separation capabilities
+ Powerful, smooth, natural, and full-bodied sound
+ Realistic, life-like presentation
+ Superlative separation capabilities
+ Powerful, smooth, natural, and full-bodied sound
+ Realistic, life-like presentation
Cons: + Demands power
+ Fit might be awkward for some
+ Fiddly MMCX connectors
+ Below average isolation
+ Fit might be awkward for some
+ Fiddly MMCX connectors
+ Below average isolation

Sound
Chain: Tidal on Mac > Topping D50s > Cavalli Liquid Spark > Z5 + Null Arete MKIV cable + Symbio Peel tips
For perspective, the ‘highest end’ gear I’ve owned include the Fostex TH900, ZMF Ori, Sennheiser HD650, Sony EX1000, Fearless S8F, and iBasso IT04. I’ve auditioned the Andromedas thrice, twice out of an iFi Micro BL, and once out of a Chord Mojo.
Of the headphones listed above, I consider the Z5 driven by the Liquid Spark to be the most impressive and remarkable, in terms of its combination of technical competence and tonal representation.
Much has been said of the Z5’s bass and soundstage, but with the right chain, they’re also wonderfully cohesive, with the most natural tonality across the spectrum of the headphones I’ve heard. Combined with their remarkable openness, they also present a stark, life-like realism I have not heard before.
Bass is authoritative yet composed, with proper decay and texture. They’re not concussive like the TH900, but match their power with naturalness.
Midrange is my favourite of the headphones I’ve heard: wonderfully even and full-bodied, and a match for the Verum 1 in terms of timbre. This is the most natural and realistic midrange presentation I’ve encountered, and not the overdone, overly romantic midrange found in the HD650.
Treble. Perhaps a controversial opinion, but as with its midrange, I think the Z5 has the most natural treble I’ve heard. It’s airy, even, and well-extended, with no distracting emphases in any region. I have an above-average appetite for treble, and have been really, really into V-shaped signatures for the past 2 years. While the Z5 are not bright by any measure, they certainly do not suffer from any lack here.
Soundstage is unlike anything I’ve heard in an IEM (to be sure, I have not heard the Z1R), with a scale and presentation that matches full-sized headphones, coupled with a remarkable sense of openness and fantastic separation. The Andromeda, in comparison, still sounds decidedly like an IEM in this regard
Amping
These things scale dramatically. Moving from the iFi Nano BL (285mW @ 32 ohms) to the Cavalli Liquid Spark (2.4W @ 32 ohms) widened the soundstage tremendously.
Cables
The Z5 are the first IEM I’ve owned that revealed stark differences between cables, much more so than with any upper-mid fi IEM’s I’ve owned. In the past, I struggled with consistently hearing any immediate or distinct differences between cables. That’s not the case with the Z5 at all.
I was initially listening to the Z5 with the FiiO LC-3.5D, a silver cable, and found them surprisingly bright and lean. Then I swapped to a copper cable, the Null Arete MKIV, and the Z5 showcased a different signature altogether: smooth, natural, full-bodied, and expansive. Returning to the Fiio cable again, they are now eminently unlistenable.
Tips
Of the tips I’ve tried — including the Symbio W, Spiral Dot, Acoustune AET07, Final E, SpinFit CP100, KZ Starline, Azla Sedna — the Peels stand head and shoulders above the rest in terms of sound quality, and, for me, comfort.
Compared to the more popular Spiral Dots, the Peels present an even larger, more open soundstage, and superior separation, clarity, bass definition, and treble presence and extension.
For my own tastes, I disliked the stock, Final E, and KZ Starline tips, all of which narrow the soundstage significantly and result in a much more dark and closed-in sound.
Last edited:
Thanks for the original review and the updates. I've only got IEMs and was ready to go the Burson route but that's likely over-kill.