Reviews by tenedosian
Hello Head-fiers!
In this review, I will share my long-term impressions of Aune’s first attempt on In-Ear-Monitors :
The Jasper.
I would like to thank Aune for providing me a free sample, and giving me so much time for this review.
Let's start right away.
Aune (Wuhan AO LAI ER Technology Co. Ltd) is a company that has been making a name for itself in the industry for years after its establishment in 2004. They are especially known for their designs that are consistently above a certain quality, relatively few and elaborate.
However, Aune is widely known for its desktop DACs and amps rather than headphones. They have also produced portable players in the past (such as the M1 and M2 series), but they preferred to focus on the desktop by not continuing the line. Jasper, the product I will be reviewing in this article, is the company's first attempt at IEMs.
Readers who have been following IEM market for a while, probably know that we left behind a period in the past when IEM manufacturers tried to put as many balanced armature drivers as possible in their products, which in turn almost became a marketing tool and created a perception like "the more drivers, the better the sound". At the peak of this period, which we may call as "armature wars", the number of the balanced armature drivers placed in tiny IEM capsules by different manufacturers reached almost fifteen.
While this “race” was going on, meanwhile, companies like Sennheiser, Hifiman, JVC etc. continued designing flagship models with proprietary single dynamic drivers.
In line with the fashion of the last few years, as IEMs with single dynamic drivers (produced with different technologies and materials) have been on the rise again, it is quite understandable that Aune joins with this new trend.
Jasper is the company’s first shot at the highly crowded In-Ear-Monitors market with it’s proprietary 10 mm dynamic drivers.
Build Quality & Accessories
Jasper has a very good build quality with it’s price tag of $300, leaving a premium-like impression in hands.
Coming in two colour options, black and shiny metallic grey, Jasper feels like a luxury headset when you pick it up. The housings are heavier than that of average IEMs.
The cable that comes with Jasper is thick, feels sturdy and has no obvious microphonic noise due to friction. It connects to the metal housings with MMCX connectors. These connectors are neither too tight, too loose, nor too sensitive ; in this sense, I did not encounter any problems in plugging and unplugging.
However, the sad thing is that the phones only come with a simple / standard 3.5 mm cable and no balanced cable (or adapter) is included in the box. At this price level, it is a minus point for Aune.
A rough guess would be that the Jasper was designed compatible for on-the-go use. And right now as of the second half of 2022, regardless of their price, most of the digital audio players we have in the market come with balanced outputs for stronger amplification, and better sound.
Accordingly, the lack of balanced cable for a $300 IEM is a thing to be noted. I would have very much liked to see a 4.4 mm cable coming out of Jasper’s box.
In addition to the phones, the box contents consist of a very stylish and sturdy leather box with the Aune logo, 6 different sized ear tips, a soft microfibre cloth and a small brush for cleaning.
The accessories - especially the leather box - are of high quality, but the richness is less impressive than the overall quality of the phones and the $300 price etiquette. Many other brands in this price range offer richer accessory packs with their products.
Otherwise, Jasper fits well in the ear and provides good passive isolation when the appropriate tips are selected. It may be useful to try different tips other than the one provided in the package; as it is possible to further improve passive isolation by trying different brands of tips that can better adapt to your ear canal structure.
Sources Used For Review
For reviewing Jasper, I used sources of varying quality and sound character to reach an average concerning Jasper's overall performance, including two smartphones (Xiaomi and Samsung), the Aune M1S as an entry-level player, the Sony WM1A as a mid/mid-high-end player, and the JDS Labs OL DAC + Objective2 combo as a desktop source.
Besides, as recordings, I used a variety of different musics from different genres with different formates, ranging from old vinyl recordings to recent digital ones, from high quality DSD to highly compressed 128 kbps mp3 files.
Sound Signature
The Jasper has a sound character that is not exactly reference or neutral, yet it is quite balanced. The bass is slightly above what can be called as neutral, adding a slight warmth to the sound, but the Jasper is by no means a bass-head IEM.
During casual listening, no frequencies in the music recording jumps at you like "HEY I’M HERE", and the bass-mid-treble balance in Jasper’s presentation is very neatly balanced with no apparent sharp edges.
Accordingly with that, it is possible to listen to Jasper for some long periods of time without getting a headache, thanks to it’s relative smoothness in sound.
Jasper has a clear, slightly warm, and a forward sound in a balanced way.
On the other hand, although Jasper can resolve a good level of detail in recordings for its price range, it does not have a sterile and detail-oriented presentation that we can call analytical, and as far as I can see, Aune engineers primarily aimed to design a "balanced" headphone that presents instruments with realistic texture and timbre as well as satisfactory resolution rather than a headphone that focuses on very high technical prowess.
And for a first attempt of the company at IEMs, I should say that the tonality of Jasper is an apparent success.
Kudos to Aune on that.
Bass
As I mentioned, the bass intensity of the Jasper is slightly above neutral and this intensity is more pronounced as mid-bass. However, this slight bass emphasis does not cause any leaking into the mids, and is free from muddying them.
The 10 mm Multi-Gradation Diaphragm dynamic driver used in Jasper has a good bass extension, you can hear the sub-bass in the recordings; but Jasper does not have a sub-bass emphasis that you can see in some recent IEMs (such as Fiio FH5 or Sony IER-Z1R) that have become increasingly popular recently.
(On a personal note, I find a slight bass emphasis positive, sometimes even necessary, for many portable and easy-to-drive headphones for a reason :
Among the frequencies transmitted to our ears by the phones we use outside, the biggest loss in sensitivity due to external noise takes place at low frequencies. This is why, for example, when we use headphones (without active noise cancelling circuits) in public transport, we generally end up hearing a sound that is often shy on bass, consisting only of mids and treble. With a slight bass emphasis on the other hand, it is possible to get a slightly more balanced sound, even with the existence of some external noise).
Jasper's bass has the body you'd expect from a 10 mm diameter dynamic driver. For example, bass drums sound quite powerful and deep. But unfortunately, the bass detail and texture are on average levels. This is also due to Jasper’s bass signature being closer to a full / blooming bass rather than a fast one in general terms.
Midrange
Jasper's mids have a pleasing tonality, are clear and slightly warm, blending in well with it’s overall sound character. However, this clarity is not in your face like some IEMs with balanced armature drivers and analytical presentation.
Resolution and detail level are again good for its price range.
Since the stage is positioned at the front and has limited depth, instruments play close to you like a Grado-like presentation ; and although Jasper has a balanced frequency response, more often than not, this intimate positioning of instruments put the midrange at the center of the show.
In my personal opinion, Jasper's most prominent prowess also lies in these frequencies, as the instrument timbre sounds natural and organic with Jasper, punching above it’s class.
Pianos are clear and natural; guitars have good texture and dynamics. Vocals are generally good for both male and female vocals.
Only on some tracks (and partly at high volume), depending on the recording, there can occur a slight shoutiness in the vocals. Apart from this partial problem, Jasper's midrange performance is very good.
Treble
Jasper's performance at these frequencies is also good for its class.
Treble is revealing, dynamic and at the same time smooth, not splashy, dull or too aggressive, clean and with good detail for it’s price point. Since Jasper doesn’t have a detail-oriented analytical presentation, the flaws on mediocre quality recordings or lossy compression formats (e.g. mp3) are not directly presented in your face.
Jasper offers a certain sonic dynamism in the upper frequencies, but they are not fatiguing. Aune has again done a good job here in tuning.
In addition, unlike many single-dynamic driver IEMs, there is no apparent treble roll-off here. However, Jasper's treble does not have the general extension potential of hybrid IEMs or ones with balanced armature drivers.
As a shortcoming, the slight drop in the upper treble is reflected in the reduced airiness of the highs, so Jasper is not the best IEM in the world at projecting the space between instruments in a studio recording, for example; its ability to resolve ambient detail is limited.
Apart from that, I didn't notice any obvious deficiency in the high frequencies that I can say "actually, this could’ve been better", the company had obviously put a lot of effort to produce a balanced, consistent sound with Jasper that can appeal to many listeners.
A Friendly reminder : Burn-In Needed
I must say that I was a bit disappointed with Jasper on the first listen, especially in the high frequencies, as it sounded dull / overly smoothened, therefore lacking in detail and dynamism. The cymbals and distorted electric guitars in rock songs sounded off.
Afterwards, I left it to burn-in at intervals over a long period of time without listening (in order not to get used to its sound), and I started observing the sound being opened up, gaining dynamism and “bite” in high frequencies finally finding it’s tone.
In this sense, I’d like to make a reminder to those wishing to buy Jasper to lay them in burn-in, as it seems to need it to show it’s potential.
Soundstaging and Instrument Placement
This is one area where the Jasper is without a strong claim.
In fact, Jasper has an average IEM soundstage. It is quite wide, but due to the close placement of the stage, the depth is not spectacular, and does not extend much further back.
The placement of the instruments is good, Jasper clearly communicates the positional cues to the listener, which allows us to easily perceive the location of the instruments.
On the other hand, the relatively limited treble extension capability of Jasper creates an average airiness in the stage. In short, creating sense of space is not Jasper's forte.
Therefore, Jasper has a presentation that neither offers a gigantic stage nor compresses the instruments into a narrow space making you feel claustrophobic. In this respect, while it is ideal for pop / rock or jazz music (and to some extent concert recordings), it is not the best choice for orchestral classical music recordings that already challenge many IEMs in terms of staging.
It is not by any means a flaw, but rather a point for further improvement in Aune’s possible future high-end IEM models.
Driveability / Source Matching
Jasper has a conventional impedance of 32 ohms and a sensitivity of 102 decibels. These two numbers tell us that the current generated by any source, including smartphones, will be sufficient to drive these phones.
However, I should point out that although Jasper is not an IEM with analytical sound character, it responds well to the quality of the source you use with the level of resolution it offers.
In order to observe this, I connected Jasper to different sources (as I mentioned above) and saw that Jasper easily reflects the difference in sound performance between these devices. In this sense, although Jasper is an IEM that can produce satisfactory sound in many respects even from a mobile phone, it might be better to pair it with a good source to get more of it’s potential.
In terms of synergy, Jasper is an IEM that can match well with both analytical and warm sounding players / systems, especially thanks to its balanced frequency response that avoids extremes.
However, considering the fact that Jasper has forward mids, it might be better to match it with a source that has a little laid-back mids to gain a bit more depth in staging.
So who is the Aune Jasper For?
Firstly, Jasper is not an IEM for those looking for an analytical presentation or a soundstage larger than average IEM stage.
On the other hand, Jasper will also not satisfy those looking for a bass-head IEM.
In addition, Jasper only comes with a 3.5 mm cable, which will leave those who want to use the balanced output of their player / amp in search of a balanced cable.
For the majority of listeners other than these situations, Jasper can be a good choice with its high build quality with it’s detail level that can be considered successful for its class, balanced frequency performance and very pleasing tonality.
It can be said that Jasper is a great first shot at the IEM market, and hope Aune will continue to improve it even further in the future with new designs.
In this review, I will share my long-term impressions of Aune’s first attempt on In-Ear-Monitors :
The Jasper.
I would like to thank Aune for providing me a free sample, and giving me so much time for this review.
Let's start right away.
Aune (Wuhan AO LAI ER Technology Co. Ltd) is a company that has been making a name for itself in the industry for years after its establishment in 2004. They are especially known for their designs that are consistently above a certain quality, relatively few and elaborate.
However, Aune is widely known for its desktop DACs and amps rather than headphones. They have also produced portable players in the past (such as the M1 and M2 series), but they preferred to focus on the desktop by not continuing the line. Jasper, the product I will be reviewing in this article, is the company's first attempt at IEMs.
Readers who have been following IEM market for a while, probably know that we left behind a period in the past when IEM manufacturers tried to put as many balanced armature drivers as possible in their products, which in turn almost became a marketing tool and created a perception like "the more drivers, the better the sound". At the peak of this period, which we may call as "armature wars", the number of the balanced armature drivers placed in tiny IEM capsules by different manufacturers reached almost fifteen.
While this “race” was going on, meanwhile, companies like Sennheiser, Hifiman, JVC etc. continued designing flagship models with proprietary single dynamic drivers.
In line with the fashion of the last few years, as IEMs with single dynamic drivers (produced with different technologies and materials) have been on the rise again, it is quite understandable that Aune joins with this new trend.
Jasper is the company’s first shot at the highly crowded In-Ear-Monitors market with it’s proprietary 10 mm dynamic drivers.
Build Quality & Accessories
Jasper has a very good build quality with it’s price tag of $300, leaving a premium-like impression in hands.
Coming in two colour options, black and shiny metallic grey, Jasper feels like a luxury headset when you pick it up. The housings are heavier than that of average IEMs.
The cable that comes with Jasper is thick, feels sturdy and has no obvious microphonic noise due to friction. It connects to the metal housings with MMCX connectors. These connectors are neither too tight, too loose, nor too sensitive ; in this sense, I did not encounter any problems in plugging and unplugging.
However, the sad thing is that the phones only come with a simple / standard 3.5 mm cable and no balanced cable (or adapter) is included in the box. At this price level, it is a minus point for Aune.
A rough guess would be that the Jasper was designed compatible for on-the-go use. And right now as of the second half of 2022, regardless of their price, most of the digital audio players we have in the market come with balanced outputs for stronger amplification, and better sound.
Accordingly, the lack of balanced cable for a $300 IEM is a thing to be noted. I would have very much liked to see a 4.4 mm cable coming out of Jasper’s box.
In addition to the phones, the box contents consist of a very stylish and sturdy leather box with the Aune logo, 6 different sized ear tips, a soft microfibre cloth and a small brush for cleaning.
The accessories - especially the leather box - are of high quality, but the richness is less impressive than the overall quality of the phones and the $300 price etiquette. Many other brands in this price range offer richer accessory packs with their products.
Otherwise, Jasper fits well in the ear and provides good passive isolation when the appropriate tips are selected. It may be useful to try different tips other than the one provided in the package; as it is possible to further improve passive isolation by trying different brands of tips that can better adapt to your ear canal structure.
Sources Used For Review
For reviewing Jasper, I used sources of varying quality and sound character to reach an average concerning Jasper's overall performance, including two smartphones (Xiaomi and Samsung), the Aune M1S as an entry-level player, the Sony WM1A as a mid/mid-high-end player, and the JDS Labs OL DAC + Objective2 combo as a desktop source.
Besides, as recordings, I used a variety of different musics from different genres with different formates, ranging from old vinyl recordings to recent digital ones, from high quality DSD to highly compressed 128 kbps mp3 files.
Sound Signature
The Jasper has a sound character that is not exactly reference or neutral, yet it is quite balanced. The bass is slightly above what can be called as neutral, adding a slight warmth to the sound, but the Jasper is by no means a bass-head IEM.
During casual listening, no frequencies in the music recording jumps at you like "HEY I’M HERE", and the bass-mid-treble balance in Jasper’s presentation is very neatly balanced with no apparent sharp edges.
Accordingly with that, it is possible to listen to Jasper for some long periods of time without getting a headache, thanks to it’s relative smoothness in sound.
Jasper has a clear, slightly warm, and a forward sound in a balanced way.
On the other hand, although Jasper can resolve a good level of detail in recordings for its price range, it does not have a sterile and detail-oriented presentation that we can call analytical, and as far as I can see, Aune engineers primarily aimed to design a "balanced" headphone that presents instruments with realistic texture and timbre as well as satisfactory resolution rather than a headphone that focuses on very high technical prowess.
And for a first attempt of the company at IEMs, I should say that the tonality of Jasper is an apparent success.
Kudos to Aune on that.
Bass
As I mentioned, the bass intensity of the Jasper is slightly above neutral and this intensity is more pronounced as mid-bass. However, this slight bass emphasis does not cause any leaking into the mids, and is free from muddying them.
The 10 mm Multi-Gradation Diaphragm dynamic driver used in Jasper has a good bass extension, you can hear the sub-bass in the recordings; but Jasper does not have a sub-bass emphasis that you can see in some recent IEMs (such as Fiio FH5 or Sony IER-Z1R) that have become increasingly popular recently.
(On a personal note, I find a slight bass emphasis positive, sometimes even necessary, for many portable and easy-to-drive headphones for a reason :
Among the frequencies transmitted to our ears by the phones we use outside, the biggest loss in sensitivity due to external noise takes place at low frequencies. This is why, for example, when we use headphones (without active noise cancelling circuits) in public transport, we generally end up hearing a sound that is often shy on bass, consisting only of mids and treble. With a slight bass emphasis on the other hand, it is possible to get a slightly more balanced sound, even with the existence of some external noise).
Jasper's bass has the body you'd expect from a 10 mm diameter dynamic driver. For example, bass drums sound quite powerful and deep. But unfortunately, the bass detail and texture are on average levels. This is also due to Jasper’s bass signature being closer to a full / blooming bass rather than a fast one in general terms.
Midrange
Jasper's mids have a pleasing tonality, are clear and slightly warm, blending in well with it’s overall sound character. However, this clarity is not in your face like some IEMs with balanced armature drivers and analytical presentation.
Resolution and detail level are again good for its price range.
Since the stage is positioned at the front and has limited depth, instruments play close to you like a Grado-like presentation ; and although Jasper has a balanced frequency response, more often than not, this intimate positioning of instruments put the midrange at the center of the show.
In my personal opinion, Jasper's most prominent prowess also lies in these frequencies, as the instrument timbre sounds natural and organic with Jasper, punching above it’s class.
Pianos are clear and natural; guitars have good texture and dynamics. Vocals are generally good for both male and female vocals.
Only on some tracks (and partly at high volume), depending on the recording, there can occur a slight shoutiness in the vocals. Apart from this partial problem, Jasper's midrange performance is very good.
Treble
Jasper's performance at these frequencies is also good for its class.
Treble is revealing, dynamic and at the same time smooth, not splashy, dull or too aggressive, clean and with good detail for it’s price point. Since Jasper doesn’t have a detail-oriented analytical presentation, the flaws on mediocre quality recordings or lossy compression formats (e.g. mp3) are not directly presented in your face.
Jasper offers a certain sonic dynamism in the upper frequencies, but they are not fatiguing. Aune has again done a good job here in tuning.
In addition, unlike many single-dynamic driver IEMs, there is no apparent treble roll-off here. However, Jasper's treble does not have the general extension potential of hybrid IEMs or ones with balanced armature drivers.
As a shortcoming, the slight drop in the upper treble is reflected in the reduced airiness of the highs, so Jasper is not the best IEM in the world at projecting the space between instruments in a studio recording, for example; its ability to resolve ambient detail is limited.
Apart from that, I didn't notice any obvious deficiency in the high frequencies that I can say "actually, this could’ve been better", the company had obviously put a lot of effort to produce a balanced, consistent sound with Jasper that can appeal to many listeners.
A Friendly reminder : Burn-In Needed
I must say that I was a bit disappointed with Jasper on the first listen, especially in the high frequencies, as it sounded dull / overly smoothened, therefore lacking in detail and dynamism. The cymbals and distorted electric guitars in rock songs sounded off.
Afterwards, I left it to burn-in at intervals over a long period of time without listening (in order not to get used to its sound), and I started observing the sound being opened up, gaining dynamism and “bite” in high frequencies finally finding it’s tone.
In this sense, I’d like to make a reminder to those wishing to buy Jasper to lay them in burn-in, as it seems to need it to show it’s potential.
Soundstaging and Instrument Placement
This is one area where the Jasper is without a strong claim.
In fact, Jasper has an average IEM soundstage. It is quite wide, but due to the close placement of the stage, the depth is not spectacular, and does not extend much further back.
The placement of the instruments is good, Jasper clearly communicates the positional cues to the listener, which allows us to easily perceive the location of the instruments.
On the other hand, the relatively limited treble extension capability of Jasper creates an average airiness in the stage. In short, creating sense of space is not Jasper's forte.
Therefore, Jasper has a presentation that neither offers a gigantic stage nor compresses the instruments into a narrow space making you feel claustrophobic. In this respect, while it is ideal for pop / rock or jazz music (and to some extent concert recordings), it is not the best choice for orchestral classical music recordings that already challenge many IEMs in terms of staging.
It is not by any means a flaw, but rather a point for further improvement in Aune’s possible future high-end IEM models.
Driveability / Source Matching
Jasper has a conventional impedance of 32 ohms and a sensitivity of 102 decibels. These two numbers tell us that the current generated by any source, including smartphones, will be sufficient to drive these phones.
However, I should point out that although Jasper is not an IEM with analytical sound character, it responds well to the quality of the source you use with the level of resolution it offers.
In order to observe this, I connected Jasper to different sources (as I mentioned above) and saw that Jasper easily reflects the difference in sound performance between these devices. In this sense, although Jasper is an IEM that can produce satisfactory sound in many respects even from a mobile phone, it might be better to pair it with a good source to get more of it’s potential.
In terms of synergy, Jasper is an IEM that can match well with both analytical and warm sounding players / systems, especially thanks to its balanced frequency response that avoids extremes.
However, considering the fact that Jasper has forward mids, it might be better to match it with a source that has a little laid-back mids to gain a bit more depth in staging.
So who is the Aune Jasper For?
Firstly, Jasper is not an IEM for those looking for an analytical presentation or a soundstage larger than average IEM stage.
On the other hand, Jasper will also not satisfy those looking for a bass-head IEM.
In addition, Jasper only comes with a 3.5 mm cable, which will leave those who want to use the balanced output of their player / amp in search of a balanced cable.
For the majority of listeners other than these situations, Jasper can be a good choice with its high build quality with it’s detail level that can be considered successful for its class, balanced frequency performance and very pleasing tonality.
It can be said that Jasper is a great first shot at the IEM market, and hope Aune will continue to improve it even further in the future with new designs.
Hi Head-fiers!
I am here to share my findings & impressions about Fiio FH5 through our 10-day-long listening journey together. Months ago, I saw the European tour for the new FH5, and out of curiosity I applied to join it. From here, I want to thank Fiio for providing the review unit to me, thus making this review possible.
Similar to my other reviews which are about some popular devices, I will deliberately omit some very general and basic info about FH5, since they were already mentioned like a hundred times in the previous reviews. I will try to be as brief and precise as possible, and do my best to produce an easily readable review.
Hope it would help the readers.
Testing Methodology
As a general method in reviewing products, I listen to equipments with many other devices, and then try to reach an “overall performance of the product”.
The different sources I used for listening to FH5 contain Fiio’s own X3 3rd Gen. Aune M1S, Hifiman SuperMini, Sony WM1A, ZX100, A45 Walkmans, and my trustworthy JDS Labs OL DAC + Objective2 combo. I also tested FH5’s performance over half a bunch of smartphones.
I listened to FH5 with Fiio X3 and Aune M1S through both balanced and single-ended outputs of these devices. Other listening sessions were carried single ended. As cables, I very much liked to try Fiio’s new, performance series cables of LC-B and (especially) LC-C through balanced connection, yet they were unavailable for my purchase at the 10-day-period I had FH5 with me. So in addition to the included 3.5mm cable (LC-3.5B) I bought and used Ibasso’s CB12s ($99) and CB13 ($199).
For listening material, I throw in a large group of testing tracks of different musical genres ranging from well-recorded / well-mastered / well-encoded tracks (like the Brothers of Arms (1985) album of Dire Straits in DSD128) with natural dynamic ranges to ones very inferior and even problematic on these aspects (like Muse’s Absolution (2003)).
I also used tracks encoded in lossless formate, containing very high levels of musical data (even on RedBook audio with 16 bits of resolution) and then compress them to low bitrate mp3 to see how much of this “sonic downgrade” i.e. the data loss in music would be reflected to my ears by FH5.
This can be considered as a general resolution / forgivingness test.
To start with, it can be said that Fiio is actually a new kid in town in the midrange in-ear-monitor department. Like the other product evolutions on their portfolio, they generally start with basic products meeting basic needs with introductory level feature sets and then they continually develop these products on newer models towards meeting the demands from customers.
This might be one of the things I like about Fiio. They seem to give a listen to the community, especially the ones of Head-fi.
In 2013, Fiio released their first DAP, “X3” (of which I was one of the first buyers at that time!), and through that 5 years they evolved their first audio player (which has a number of shortcomings) to their current flagship X7 Mark II by using better parts and newer, more ambitious designs. Each new design or “renewal”, brought more sophisticated, higher quality products than before and some extra refinement over the previous ones.
We can see they’re following the same path in their amplifiers, DACs and - the topic of this review – IEMs. The company started with products in this class like F5, EX1, and then continued with the likes of F9, F9 Pro and FH1, experimenting to a degree on each step.
(Introductory Note : Recently, it seems that Fiio is following a two-sided approach with its familiar “FH” and new “FA” series IEMs. (Currently there is just one member of the FA series, namely the “FA7”)
As far as I have seen, FH stands for “Fiio-Hybrid” which comprises IEMs having both dynamic and balanced armature drivers, whereas “FA” – “Fiio-Armature” series utilize balanced armatures without the dynamic driver. Other than design differences, it seems that Fiio is trying to appeal to a wider scale of listeners with these two different lines ; as according to the company, these two series are tuned for different sound signatures.
FH aims toward lush, musical presentation and is supposedly for casual, “easier listening”, whereas FA(7) seems to be less coloured & more neutral and is more focused on technical performance according to Fiio's description. And after listening to FH5, I became quite anxious to give a try to FA7!!)
The latest of these (that I’ve tried) FH5 for that matter, is a product of continuous maturation from companies previous efforts in that regard. And as a reviewer, I can gladly say that it might be the first Fiio IEM that does not have a major shortcoming in any department of evaluation.
But for now, let’s leave these subjective thoughts for the conclusion of the review and get on with more specific & objective impressions.
Package & Accessories & Build
FH5 comes with a classy black box.
It is actually a bit big for an IEM box on average, but there is more than enough accessories inside to worth it.
Inside, there are the IEMs (as expected) with a nice cable, a familiar, pelican style hard case together with a very well thought soft case, both Fiio branded. Especially the availability of the soft case can prove handy in daily use, where it may not be very convenient to carry the bigger hard case.
Well played.
From the box, jumps out a rich selection of tips, too. I especially liked the classification of tips on their presumed effect on the sound signature. (Balanced, vocal and bass tips included of S / M / L sizes as well as 3 pairs of foams.)
Last but not least, there is a brush for cleaning, and that usual manuals stuff that I suspect anyone is reading : )
In short, Fiio seems to repeat its consistent approach in “filling the box” with accessories. (I was quite amazed by the plethora of accessories when I recieved X3 Mark III last year – for a player of $200 value).
The cable included is “LC-3.5B” of Fiio that can be purchased separately. LC-3.5B has 4 stranded cores of OCC construction and its street price is around $40. It has silver-plated copper with semi-transparent TPU coating.
It looks very sturdy (especially the jack), and well-built. I came across no memory effect and it does not seem to add any microphonics to the sound.
From its seashell shaped ear pieces to its cable, FH5 shows a consistence in its high level construction quality. I can even say a person acquainted with IEMs would probably rate FH5’s price much higher simply by looking at its overall build and box content.
It definitely punches above its class of $250.
Good work Fiio.
The fit of FH5 is good enough, if not the best. It follows the current popular trend of “custom-like universals” having some twists on its ear pieces to better accomodate with the shape of the average human ear.
However, there are some users who complained about the length of the nozzle. Actually, I had no problem on that matter, yet a slightly longer nozzle would probably contribute to better sealing, and thereby a few more decibels of isolation. Together with above-average fit, the isolation it provides is decent.
Sound
a) Signature
It is obvious from the first few seconds of listen that the company aims not for a very neutral, analytical, reference type of sound with FH5.
In fact, the sound of FH5 is quite far from that.
FH5 actually has a colourful sound ; it is lush, warm and musical. It is reminiscent more of a Grado (but without the high frequency aggressiveness) than a studio monitor type of sound.
In terms of frequency response, (as some other reviewers pointed out) FH5 presents a “W-shaped” sound, where we see some certain elevation especially on sub-bass and upper midrange regions. However, despite being far from “razor-flat”, FH5 presents a relatively balanced sound signature among bass – mid – treble frequencies. None of these frequencies jump from the record to your face on the expense of others.
b) Bass
Impactful, deep, fast and reasonably detailed.
10mm proprietary dynamic driver handles the low frequencies very well. No apparent bleed to midrange area thanks to slightly pulled back midbass and Fiio’s S.Turbo tech, which is supposed to “silence” the higher frequencies other than bass, produced by the dynamic driver. “The kick” of the bass drum is one of the first places throughout the frequency spectrum of FH5 that attracts attention.
I always have a tendency to prefer headphones to IEMs in that department (and I still do), as their simulation of “the impact” (that the bass drum supposed to produce) tend to be more realistic, considering the huge driver size difference between those two types of phones. (I probably lost so many neurons due to the ruthless damage that Sony Z1R and Fostex TH900 left in my skull)
Yet, FH5 left me more than impressed here, as I found its bass performance very good in terms of quantity and tonality.
During commute, I remember listening to Led Zeppelin’s “All My Love” over and over, enjoying the depth of “kick” in John Bonham’s (rip) bass drum. A quite unusual but a welcome trait for an IEM!
As I mentioned before, the midbass of FH5 is very slightly pulled back in the frequency spectrum preventing it from any feeling of bloatedness. But it is present enough still to be enjoyable and to give instruments the necessary thickness for accurate timbre.
c) Midrange
Another strong area for FH5.
Warm, clear, well separated with decent instrumental detail. It is neither dark or bright here, so slightly neutral on that sense with a lovely touch of musicality. Instrument timbre is very accurate for $250 price level.
Despite having an intimate Grado-like staging, the instruments are separated properly, each are easily visible in their spaces without any noticeable congestion of sounds.
Especially nice presentation of string instruments. It was most easy to feel the “pull” of string of double bass in Sting’s “All Would Envy” from his “Live in Berlin” album. Wind instruments have some realistic “bite” on them ; so FH5 scores very nicely for it’s price point in the quality of timbre.
Upper-mid to lower-treble transition is tuned properly, helping midrange focused sounds (like keyboards, synths) to sound with “bite” and some extra clarity.
This actually may give some “wow factor” to listeners.
d) Treble
Smooth, crisp, lively with nice level of detail and rolled-off at high treble area.
And it is no way sharp or piercing.
Though it rolls at the very top end, treble has some decent air and FH5 here has a very nice portrayal and articulation thereby creating a realistic performance.
I really liked how FH5 make the cymbals sounded ; like a drum stick hitting metal (as it should be). The nice thing is that you can actually hear the “impact” of the drum stick over the cymbal which is quite a rare quality for an IEM (and for a headphone).
Despite it’s not-so-promising soundstage, FH5 also presents some nice air among instruments enabling the listener to capture a nice level of ambient detail for its price. And the smoothness of FH5 also helps easing any fatigue that occur after long listening sessions.
e) Soundstage & Imaging
Shortly, average sized width and averge sized depth.
Soundstage of FH5 is not very small and is not colossal either. As I’ve said, it is more of a Grado-like experience rather than one with a high-end Sennheiser. However, it is nicely shaped and proportionate both in terms of width and depth creating (an albeit smaller scale) 3D feeling.
With its slightly intimate presentation, FH5 is not very suitable for classical recordings requiring more-than-average stage size.
Imaging and layering of FH5 is good with instruments defined well in their places. Strong layering also contributes to the separation of sounds & instruments in FH5’s limited soundstage.
f) Drivability & Synergy
FH5 is an easy-to-drive IEM with and impedance of 19 ohms and sensitivity of 112 db / mW. Your phones would be more than enough to get these IEMs to sound “loud”, but as you may expect, an IEM in this price range would also look for a dedicated music player to sound “better” as well as loud.
With its generally balanced sound signature, I believe FH5 would probably sound well with a variety of sources.
However, I recommend matching FH5 with a player that has some control on higher frequencies, as FH5 can exhibit harshness and sibilance quite easily if you pair it with sub-par quality smartphones / digital audio players.
FH5 sounded “good” to “excellent” with most of my setup and with some additional players I gave a listen to. It paired excellent with Sony devices, my desktop setup, and decent (though not spectacular) with Aune M1S.
Through Fiio’s own child X3 Mark III, it sounded good through single-ended connection where I detected some flaws in sound (like some harshness in mids and occasional loss of control in the treble section), and yet it sounded gourgeous through X3’s balanced out!
So yeah, X3 Mark III matches very well through balanced with FH5.
(For owners of Fiio X3 Mark III in general, I should say that switching from 3.5 mm single-ended to 2.5 mm balanced brings a “very” nice upgrade in sound ; using X3 in single-end can even be considered as a waste of this players potential)
Lastly : Fiio FH5 : Who Is It For?
Soundstage guys. A no go.
FH5 will definitely not make you claustorphobic, but it only presents an average sized soundstage as said before. Do not expect it to deliver a massive-open-headphone-like experience or the ones you get from premium IEMs that cost a good deal more than $500.
FH5 can fare well with small chamber music with its accurate timbre and technical prowess, but it is not the ideal guy for large orchestral music. As said, it plays like a Grado on that matter. No more, no less.
FH5 sounds decent with smartphones which carry a good sound chip, but nonetheless, I recommend a dedicated dap for FH5 to reach its potential. (Even with Fiio’s own X3 Mark III, which can be found for like $170, FH5 sounds very good through balanced).
FH5 goes well with popular music, rocks on rock music and is pretty good for jazz and enjoyable with electronic music thanks to its slightly elevated subbass, sound clarity and crisp (but not aggressive) treble.
Other than that, I think FH5 can find a place in any music lovers collection of gear as it presents a highly enjoyable sound. As a company, I have a positive predisposition against Fiio, as all my past experiences with them since I bought my Fiio X3 Gen. 1 in 2013 were more than good ; as a customer and as a reviewer of their products.
I wish them more success, as James and all the Fiio family ; as far as I’ve seen, are really nice people. I have used half a bunch of Fiio products to that day, and I feel quite happy to say that FH5 probably has one of the best price / performance ratios among them.
Nice job Fiio both on FH5 and on raising our expectations for your future products!
I am here to share my findings & impressions about Fiio FH5 through our 10-day-long listening journey together. Months ago, I saw the European tour for the new FH5, and out of curiosity I applied to join it. From here, I want to thank Fiio for providing the review unit to me, thus making this review possible.
Similar to my other reviews which are about some popular devices, I will deliberately omit some very general and basic info about FH5, since they were already mentioned like a hundred times in the previous reviews. I will try to be as brief and precise as possible, and do my best to produce an easily readable review.
Hope it would help the readers.
Testing Methodology
As a general method in reviewing products, I listen to equipments with many other devices, and then try to reach an “overall performance of the product”.
The different sources I used for listening to FH5 contain Fiio’s own X3 3rd Gen. Aune M1S, Hifiman SuperMini, Sony WM1A, ZX100, A45 Walkmans, and my trustworthy JDS Labs OL DAC + Objective2 combo. I also tested FH5’s performance over half a bunch of smartphones.
I listened to FH5 with Fiio X3 and Aune M1S through both balanced and single-ended outputs of these devices. Other listening sessions were carried single ended. As cables, I very much liked to try Fiio’s new, performance series cables of LC-B and (especially) LC-C through balanced connection, yet they were unavailable for my purchase at the 10-day-period I had FH5 with me. So in addition to the included 3.5mm cable (LC-3.5B) I bought and used Ibasso’s CB12s ($99) and CB13 ($199).
For listening material, I throw in a large group of testing tracks of different musical genres ranging from well-recorded / well-mastered / well-encoded tracks (like the Brothers of Arms (1985) album of Dire Straits in DSD128) with natural dynamic ranges to ones very inferior and even problematic on these aspects (like Muse’s Absolution (2003)).
I also used tracks encoded in lossless formate, containing very high levels of musical data (even on RedBook audio with 16 bits of resolution) and then compress them to low bitrate mp3 to see how much of this “sonic downgrade” i.e. the data loss in music would be reflected to my ears by FH5.
This can be considered as a general resolution / forgivingness test.
To start with, it can be said that Fiio is actually a new kid in town in the midrange in-ear-monitor department. Like the other product evolutions on their portfolio, they generally start with basic products meeting basic needs with introductory level feature sets and then they continually develop these products on newer models towards meeting the demands from customers.
This might be one of the things I like about Fiio. They seem to give a listen to the community, especially the ones of Head-fi.
In 2013, Fiio released their first DAP, “X3” (of which I was one of the first buyers at that time!), and through that 5 years they evolved their first audio player (which has a number of shortcomings) to their current flagship X7 Mark II by using better parts and newer, more ambitious designs. Each new design or “renewal”, brought more sophisticated, higher quality products than before and some extra refinement over the previous ones.
We can see they’re following the same path in their amplifiers, DACs and - the topic of this review – IEMs. The company started with products in this class like F5, EX1, and then continued with the likes of F9, F9 Pro and FH1, experimenting to a degree on each step.
(Introductory Note : Recently, it seems that Fiio is following a two-sided approach with its familiar “FH” and new “FA” series IEMs. (Currently there is just one member of the FA series, namely the “FA7”)
As far as I have seen, FH stands for “Fiio-Hybrid” which comprises IEMs having both dynamic and balanced armature drivers, whereas “FA” – “Fiio-Armature” series utilize balanced armatures without the dynamic driver. Other than design differences, it seems that Fiio is trying to appeal to a wider scale of listeners with these two different lines ; as according to the company, these two series are tuned for different sound signatures.
FH aims toward lush, musical presentation and is supposedly for casual, “easier listening”, whereas FA(7) seems to be less coloured & more neutral and is more focused on technical performance according to Fiio's description. And after listening to FH5, I became quite anxious to give a try to FA7!!)
The latest of these (that I’ve tried) FH5 for that matter, is a product of continuous maturation from companies previous efforts in that regard. And as a reviewer, I can gladly say that it might be the first Fiio IEM that does not have a major shortcoming in any department of evaluation.
But for now, let’s leave these subjective thoughts for the conclusion of the review and get on with more specific & objective impressions.
Package & Accessories & Build
FH5 comes with a classy black box.
It is actually a bit big for an IEM box on average, but there is more than enough accessories inside to worth it.
Inside, there are the IEMs (as expected) with a nice cable, a familiar, pelican style hard case together with a very well thought soft case, both Fiio branded. Especially the availability of the soft case can prove handy in daily use, where it may not be very convenient to carry the bigger hard case.
Well played.
From the box, jumps out a rich selection of tips, too. I especially liked the classification of tips on their presumed effect on the sound signature. (Balanced, vocal and bass tips included of S / M / L sizes as well as 3 pairs of foams.)
Last but not least, there is a brush for cleaning, and that usual manuals stuff that I suspect anyone is reading : )
In short, Fiio seems to repeat its consistent approach in “filling the box” with accessories. (I was quite amazed by the plethora of accessories when I recieved X3 Mark III last year – for a player of $200 value).
The cable included is “LC-3.5B” of Fiio that can be purchased separately. LC-3.5B has 4 stranded cores of OCC construction and its street price is around $40. It has silver-plated copper with semi-transparent TPU coating.
It looks very sturdy (especially the jack), and well-built. I came across no memory effect and it does not seem to add any microphonics to the sound.
From its seashell shaped ear pieces to its cable, FH5 shows a consistence in its high level construction quality. I can even say a person acquainted with IEMs would probably rate FH5’s price much higher simply by looking at its overall build and box content.
It definitely punches above its class of $250.
Good work Fiio.
The fit of FH5 is good enough, if not the best. It follows the current popular trend of “custom-like universals” having some twists on its ear pieces to better accomodate with the shape of the average human ear.
However, there are some users who complained about the length of the nozzle. Actually, I had no problem on that matter, yet a slightly longer nozzle would probably contribute to better sealing, and thereby a few more decibels of isolation. Together with above-average fit, the isolation it provides is decent.
Sound
a) Signature
It is obvious from the first few seconds of listen that the company aims not for a very neutral, analytical, reference type of sound with FH5.
In fact, the sound of FH5 is quite far from that.
FH5 actually has a colourful sound ; it is lush, warm and musical. It is reminiscent more of a Grado (but without the high frequency aggressiveness) than a studio monitor type of sound.
In terms of frequency response, (as some other reviewers pointed out) FH5 presents a “W-shaped” sound, where we see some certain elevation especially on sub-bass and upper midrange regions. However, despite being far from “razor-flat”, FH5 presents a relatively balanced sound signature among bass – mid – treble frequencies. None of these frequencies jump from the record to your face on the expense of others.
b) Bass
Impactful, deep, fast and reasonably detailed.
10mm proprietary dynamic driver handles the low frequencies very well. No apparent bleed to midrange area thanks to slightly pulled back midbass and Fiio’s S.Turbo tech, which is supposed to “silence” the higher frequencies other than bass, produced by the dynamic driver. “The kick” of the bass drum is one of the first places throughout the frequency spectrum of FH5 that attracts attention.
I always have a tendency to prefer headphones to IEMs in that department (and I still do), as their simulation of “the impact” (that the bass drum supposed to produce) tend to be more realistic, considering the huge driver size difference between those two types of phones. (I probably lost so many neurons due to the ruthless damage that Sony Z1R and Fostex TH900 left in my skull)
Yet, FH5 left me more than impressed here, as I found its bass performance very good in terms of quantity and tonality.
During commute, I remember listening to Led Zeppelin’s “All My Love” over and over, enjoying the depth of “kick” in John Bonham’s (rip) bass drum. A quite unusual but a welcome trait for an IEM!
As I mentioned before, the midbass of FH5 is very slightly pulled back in the frequency spectrum preventing it from any feeling of bloatedness. But it is present enough still to be enjoyable and to give instruments the necessary thickness for accurate timbre.
c) Midrange
Another strong area for FH5.
Warm, clear, well separated with decent instrumental detail. It is neither dark or bright here, so slightly neutral on that sense with a lovely touch of musicality. Instrument timbre is very accurate for $250 price level.
Despite having an intimate Grado-like staging, the instruments are separated properly, each are easily visible in their spaces without any noticeable congestion of sounds.
Especially nice presentation of string instruments. It was most easy to feel the “pull” of string of double bass in Sting’s “All Would Envy” from his “Live in Berlin” album. Wind instruments have some realistic “bite” on them ; so FH5 scores very nicely for it’s price point in the quality of timbre.
Upper-mid to lower-treble transition is tuned properly, helping midrange focused sounds (like keyboards, synths) to sound with “bite” and some extra clarity.
This actually may give some “wow factor” to listeners.
d) Treble
Smooth, crisp, lively with nice level of detail and rolled-off at high treble area.
And it is no way sharp or piercing.
Though it rolls at the very top end, treble has some decent air and FH5 here has a very nice portrayal and articulation thereby creating a realistic performance.
I really liked how FH5 make the cymbals sounded ; like a drum stick hitting metal (as it should be). The nice thing is that you can actually hear the “impact” of the drum stick over the cymbal which is quite a rare quality for an IEM (and for a headphone).
Despite it’s not-so-promising soundstage, FH5 also presents some nice air among instruments enabling the listener to capture a nice level of ambient detail for its price. And the smoothness of FH5 also helps easing any fatigue that occur after long listening sessions.
e) Soundstage & Imaging
Shortly, average sized width and averge sized depth.
Soundstage of FH5 is not very small and is not colossal either. As I’ve said, it is more of a Grado-like experience rather than one with a high-end Sennheiser. However, it is nicely shaped and proportionate both in terms of width and depth creating (an albeit smaller scale) 3D feeling.
With its slightly intimate presentation, FH5 is not very suitable for classical recordings requiring more-than-average stage size.
Imaging and layering of FH5 is good with instruments defined well in their places. Strong layering also contributes to the separation of sounds & instruments in FH5’s limited soundstage.
f) Drivability & Synergy
FH5 is an easy-to-drive IEM with and impedance of 19 ohms and sensitivity of 112 db / mW. Your phones would be more than enough to get these IEMs to sound “loud”, but as you may expect, an IEM in this price range would also look for a dedicated music player to sound “better” as well as loud.
With its generally balanced sound signature, I believe FH5 would probably sound well with a variety of sources.
However, I recommend matching FH5 with a player that has some control on higher frequencies, as FH5 can exhibit harshness and sibilance quite easily if you pair it with sub-par quality smartphones / digital audio players.
FH5 sounded “good” to “excellent” with most of my setup and with some additional players I gave a listen to. It paired excellent with Sony devices, my desktop setup, and decent (though not spectacular) with Aune M1S.
Through Fiio’s own child X3 Mark III, it sounded good through single-ended connection where I detected some flaws in sound (like some harshness in mids and occasional loss of control in the treble section), and yet it sounded gourgeous through X3’s balanced out!
So yeah, X3 Mark III matches very well through balanced with FH5.
(For owners of Fiio X3 Mark III in general, I should say that switching from 3.5 mm single-ended to 2.5 mm balanced brings a “very” nice upgrade in sound ; using X3 in single-end can even be considered as a waste of this players potential)
Lastly : Fiio FH5 : Who Is It For?
Soundstage guys. A no go.
FH5 will definitely not make you claustorphobic, but it only presents an average sized soundstage as said before. Do not expect it to deliver a massive-open-headphone-like experience or the ones you get from premium IEMs that cost a good deal more than $500.
FH5 can fare well with small chamber music with its accurate timbre and technical prowess, but it is not the ideal guy for large orchestral music. As said, it plays like a Grado on that matter. No more, no less.
FH5 sounds decent with smartphones which carry a good sound chip, but nonetheless, I recommend a dedicated dap for FH5 to reach its potential. (Even with Fiio’s own X3 Mark III, which can be found for like $170, FH5 sounds very good through balanced).
FH5 goes well with popular music, rocks on rock music and is pretty good for jazz and enjoyable with electronic music thanks to its slightly elevated subbass, sound clarity and crisp (but not aggressive) treble.
Other than that, I think FH5 can find a place in any music lovers collection of gear as it presents a highly enjoyable sound. As a company, I have a positive predisposition against Fiio, as all my past experiences with them since I bought my Fiio X3 Gen. 1 in 2013 were more than good ; as a customer and as a reviewer of their products.
I wish them more success, as James and all the Fiio family ; as far as I’ve seen, are really nice people. I have used half a bunch of Fiio products to that day, and I feel quite happy to say that FH5 probably has one of the best price / performance ratios among them.
Nice job Fiio both on FH5 and on raising our expectations for your future products!
Organ-Man
I find that the LG V20, which I use only for playing music, works well with the FH5.
Hello to all Head-Fiers!
As a long-time audiophile equipment hobbyist, I probably used more than 60 headphones from different brands after 2001, ranging from open / closed to on-ears / full sized over-ears ; and from dynamics to planar magnetics. I enjoyed using lots and lots of different headphones during these 16 years.
Very much.
And I should say that HIFIMAN Edition S with its "convertibility" claim is quite unique among those.
There are quite a number of extensive reviews of this widely known headphone, so I'll try to be as brief as possible and I am going to do my best to present the readers of these lines my general impressions about this highly interesting headphone.
I will put my emphasis on describing especially the sound of Edition S, and at the end I am going to state my own rating for the headphones' overall performance and try to evaluate how much of my findings reflect HIFIMAN’s claims about Edition S.
In short, I’ll try to assess this headphones value on it’s current street price of $129 on the conditions of June 2018, after nearly two years following it’s release.
The Edition S unit was sent to me in purpose of a Turkey review tour, and following the end of the tour I believe it would be beneficial to write an additional (and fresh!) review here of these cans.
So, that’s why I’m here.
From here, I want to thank Mark from HIFIMAN for sending me a review unit of Edition S and thus making this review possible.
Burn-in & Source Equipment
Hifiman recommended a period of 100 hours for Edition S to reach its optimal performance. And I gave up to 250 hours of play intermittently, just to be sure.
Whether you find the effect of burn-in process real or only "a listeners myth", I can suggest people to take a closer look at Edition S.
Out of the box, there was some stridency in the treble section of the phones, which was open to causing a bit of a fatigue after some extended listening sessions.
After giving the headphone some play time, the upper frequencies became more relaxed.
So believe in burn-in or not, I suggest you to give a listen to the wisdom of Shia LaBeouf and :
For testing, I used various different players with Edition S like Sony ZX2, WM1A, A35, A45, Aune M1S, Fiio X3 Mark III, Hifiman's own little wonder SuperMini and half a bunch of smartphones.
I also gave a listen through Objective2 as one of my trustworthy desktop amplifiers, and that $100 amp squeezed the most from Edition S. (will talk more of this later)
And I had the chance to compare the sound performance of Edition S with headphones like Grado HF-1, PS500e, half a bunch of closed Sony headphones ranging from $150 to $2200 flagship Z1R, Meze 99 Neo and Sennheiser HD600 & 650.
Design & Build (4 stars over 5)
I find the design of Edition S highly authentic. Having a medium-sized head, the headphones take the shape of my head with its padding and distribute the clamping force quite evenly.
I never felt discomfort during my listens that sometimes lasted for some couple of hours.
Good job on that.
However, I should state that though the headband does its job decently in distributing pressure over a large area, it feels quite plasticky and of average build quality.
This is an issue HIFIMAN should address in their future designs.
On the other hand, the cups seemed to have near perfect build. The shiny gray frames in the cups are made of sturdy metal, the logo caps are decent, and the pleather pads with velour surface are very comfortable as well as being of high quality.
The covers with "H" logo can easily be taken out, and they stick well with the frame of the cups after being sealed. Shortly, they do not fall down in any case unless you want to take them off.
The cable is quite soft and doesn't look very sturdy ; but it is easily replacable (for $30) and it has volume / play - pause controls on it for Android and IOS devices.
And as another nice thing, if your digital audio player supports remotes and in-line controls, you would be able to use these buttons also for your DAP. (For example, the buttons work beautifully with Fiio X3 3rd Generation)
The outer box of Hifiman is quite a big one, whispering "hey buddy, you'll see some serious headphone inside".
In fact, Edition S looks a bit small on photos over web ; it is actually a relatively large set of headphones. (Keep in mind that the cups of Edition S houses two very large 50 mm sized drivers. I mean, how small can it be?)
The carrying box that came with Edition S is a highly minimalistic one (it doesn't even have any "Hifiman" name on it). Yet it does an excellent job in protecting the phones, and it has a very small footprint.
In the box, there is also a plane adapter, a manual, 3.5 to 6.35 mm adapter and a warranty card. Nothing unusual or lacking here.
Kudos to HIFIMAN here.
So, lets go for the sound.
Sound Signature
In terms of its sound character, Edition S is a fairly neutral headphone having a similar tonality to its pricey (and some VERY pricey!) planar siblings, despite carrying a dynamic driver.
It does not sound dark, nor bright, and it is not a very warm or a "cold sounding" headphone with a sterile feeling coming from analytical emphasis.
Edition S is none of these. (However, some may consider it to have a touch of brightness due to the slightly elevated treble).
In fact, it carries a minimum level of coloration and I believe Edition S is probably the most neutral sounding headphone I've come across in the sub-$150 category.
In terms of balance, the presentation of Edition S can be considered a relatively balanced one.
It - of course - does not carry a reference level, razor-flat frequency response at $129, having some dips and peaks in it’s portrayal of the sound spectrum, but there is no apparent compression of one frequency by another.
(Meze 99 Neo presents a flatter, more reference-like frequency response at $199, only having a slight bloom in the bass).
So far so good.
Bass (4 / 5)
Deep with decent texture and detail. And the frequencies of lows is probably the most severely affected area of the sound spectrum through shifting between open / closed use.
With logo cups off, the bass of Edition S gives the overall sound a very slight amount of warmth while retaining much of its obvious neutral character.
Also in the open mode, the bass reaches its prominency in terms of its amount.
(Like a Grado. Users of Grado cans most probably tried closing the back of the phones with their hands at least once in their lifetimes, and experience a drop in the amount of bass. This rule works also for Edition S, but not to the extent of a Grado.)
It does not extend much to sub-bass (as expected from an open-back dynamic implemetation at this price range) but it provides some nice body and a hefty midbass presence.
(In fact, with some recordings the midbass of Edition S virtually becomes the center of attention among the other frequencies in the open mode.)
The speed of the bass is average ; neither very fast & thick, nor slow & fat. However, bass of Edition S responds well to good amplification, becoming thicker and more controlled.
In open mode, I found Edition S particularly enjoyable especially with pop and electronic music.
In this mode for example (over Sony WM1A) walking in the streets of the city and listening to The Weeknd's "I feel it coming" I found myself to be unintentionally smiling in a quite silly way : )
It was pure joy.
Resolution in the low frequencies is decent, but occassionally the prevalent midbass may show some slight signs of bleed into the lower mids.
In the closed mode with logo cups on, the main difference is the decrease in the presence of the midbass. These frequencies are pulled slightly back, though still being quite present, but not prevalent and towering over other frequencies by any means.
Mids (4.5 / 5)
Nicely detailed and VERY clear (in fact I've never come across a Hifiman phone with veiled sounding mids).
A real highlight of the phone.
In the open mode, the strong presence of midbass recesses the mids very slightly. However, thanks to the increased interaction with air on that mode, the timbre of the midrange instruments became more life-like and organic.
The closed mode brings a slight boost to the midrange clarity by pulling the midbass slightly back, and causing a slight elevation in the upper mids causing some nice attack and liveliness on the portrayal of keyboards.
At the other side of the coin, the cut of air interaction slightly degrades the realism of the timbre of instuments as can be expected in closed phones.
Besides, there is a slight drop in the lower mid frequencies of the sound of Edition S which sometimes cause some instruments to sound thinner than they should normally do.
This is observable both in open and closed use, slightly more apparent in closed mode.
Treble (4 / 5)
Precise, dynamic and nicely detailed, but rolled-off at the extreme top end.
The general neutrality of the headphone continues in here. The treble performance of Edition S is very good for it’s current $129 price level.
In addition to the one’s I mentioned above, it is also quite forgiving and not very open to sounding sibilant or shrill.
Besides, coupled with it’s spacious soundstage, you can hear some lovely “air” between instruments.
However, there is a slight peak on the low to mid treble transition which sounds quite obvious before burn-in at the first listen. This “peak” smoothens through use, but it is always there to a certain degree nonetheless.
It gives the sound of Edition S a nice dynamism, yet with the trade off of a tendency to give some fatigue after long listening sessions.
In case you use Edition S with some sub-par sounding smartphones, some splashiness and an uneven decay in cymbals may occur coupled with some congestion.
Mind you, these headphones sound good even with smartphones, yes ; but they sound definitely better with proper amplification.
Soundstage & Imaging & Separation (4.5 / 5)
In the open mode, shortly put, near full-size headphone level soundstaging.
It is not there on the level of, say, a Sennheiser HD600 (of course), but it is great to have a highly portable set of cans that can present a spacious stage as Edition S.
The placement of the stage is not very close or very far. In other words, Edition S neither presents a Grado-like in-your-face presentation, nor one that is laid-back as the premium grade Sennheiser’s do.
It is like between a Grado (with standard L-Cush pads) and a Sennheiser HD700.
It has some intimacy in it’s sound, but the soundstage is also pulled slightly back to give the sound and the instruments some space “to breathe”.
Overall it has a quite wide and deep staging that creates a 3-dimensional view of musical field, both in open and closed mode. Open mode mainly adds some more width to the stage.
Thanks to the spacious soundstage, instrument separation is decent, and it becomes even better with a good source like a dedicated audio player.
Isolation (3 / 5)
Probably the weakest link in the chain.
Edition S sounds excellent for its price, is portable and stylishly designed, yet in that regard, it's more like a "semi-open" headphone rather that a fully closed one.
The magnetic logo cups provide some isolation, yes ; they cut some of the direct sound waves aiming for your ears (and plenty of music that wants to go outside), but in overall performance of blocking outside noise, it is not up to the passive isolation level of a properly closed can.
Especially if you're a person who has her usual commute passing through a really crowded & noisy city environment, a serious level of outside sounds would interfere with especially the sub frequencies of your music.
Other than that, the existence of the logo cups really helps when there is mild outside noise.
And as putting the cups on & off changes the sound Edition S produces, one can additionally use them as a manual equalizer!
Portability & Driveability (5 / 5)
I should mention that Edition S looks quite a bit smaller in its photos over web.
It is not THAT small.
Trust me.
At the end, you should now that this headphone houses two massive-for-its-class, 50 mm dynamic drivers.See below :
(As an info for comparison, Sennheiser's HD6XX models and HD700 both utilize smaller 40 mm drivers whereas it's flagship HD800 uses 53 mm ones. So the size of the drivers of Edition S is nearly equal to the size of the ones used in HD 800. Fyi.)
However, thanks to it's ergonomically designed housing, excellent foldability and relatively low weight (of 248 grams), Edition S has some very decent portability.
I found it very easy to use Edition S during commute. Sometimes Edition S makes you forget it’s existence around your neck. (Much better than Meze 99 Neo on that matter)
It's carrying box is also very handy due to its small footprint. (Check from the photos)
Edition S is a highly easy to drive headphone.
It can be driven via any source with decent juice (That also explains why it has a smartphone-friendly cable).
But keep in mind that you're actually trying to feed two little speakers (of 50 mm size).
The sound quality of Edition S is decent with smartphones, but it would probably shine and show its abilities with better source, i.e. dedicated players and amps.
It has some really good potential.
And while it sounded well out of the portable players I used in testing, it sounded best with Objective2 fed by the DAC sections of these digital players through line-out.
In fact, the people I gave for a listen with this setup (Line-out from a random DAP + Objective2 + Edition S) reacted to the sound performance of this set with a nice amount of smile on their faces!
The second best pairings had been with Sony WM1A ($1100) and HIFIMAN’s own SuperMini ($199).
(It is lovely that HIFIMAN successfully matches the sound characters of it’s DAPs and headphones ; SuperMini and Edition S duo is a lovely budget audiophile package for $330 on the go)
Conclusion
So, what should the verdict of this review be?
I believe, despite its some shortcomings, Edition S is a highly innovative piece of engineering, and an excellent sonic performer at $129.
On the other hand, contrary to HIFIMAN's claims, you do not go from an open headphone to a “really closed" one with the switch of a pair of cups, no.
With logo cups, it becomes a semi-open headphone at best, cutting some outside noise that would distract you from enjoying your favourite songs, (and that may bother people around you with your music), but it is nowhere around the isolation of a properly sealed passive isolating cans.
But the isolation and the blocking of incoming / outgoing sounds you gain is definitely much better than nothing. Besides, I think cups also give the headphones quite a fancy look, in addition to working as an "analogue equalizer" for the sound Edition S produces.
In terms of sound, there are also some nicely detailed performers in this price range, but I believe Edition S is the most neutral sounding piece while still being a very detailed guy at it's current price of $129.
(As an example, Meze 99 Neo produces an overall better, more refined and punchy sound at $199, but it’s portability is nowhere near the one’s of Edition S).
And despite it’s giant drivers, Edition S took 5/5 on portability department from me, as being one of the best of it’s class.
In it's initial retail price of $249 of two years ago, it would be a pretty tough choice, but now at it's street price of $129, in terms of it's looks, portability, performance and features, I can easily recommend Hifiman Edition S to music lovers.
6.22.2018
As a long-time audiophile equipment hobbyist, I probably used more than 60 headphones from different brands after 2001, ranging from open / closed to on-ears / full sized over-ears ; and from dynamics to planar magnetics. I enjoyed using lots and lots of different headphones during these 16 years.
Very much.
And I should say that HIFIMAN Edition S with its "convertibility" claim is quite unique among those.
There are quite a number of extensive reviews of this widely known headphone, so I'll try to be as brief as possible and I am going to do my best to present the readers of these lines my general impressions about this highly interesting headphone.
I will put my emphasis on describing especially the sound of Edition S, and at the end I am going to state my own rating for the headphones' overall performance and try to evaluate how much of my findings reflect HIFIMAN’s claims about Edition S.
In short, I’ll try to assess this headphones value on it’s current street price of $129 on the conditions of June 2018, after nearly two years following it’s release.
The Edition S unit was sent to me in purpose of a Turkey review tour, and following the end of the tour I believe it would be beneficial to write an additional (and fresh!) review here of these cans.
So, that’s why I’m here.
From here, I want to thank Mark from HIFIMAN for sending me a review unit of Edition S and thus making this review possible.
Burn-in & Source Equipment
Hifiman recommended a period of 100 hours for Edition S to reach its optimal performance. And I gave up to 250 hours of play intermittently, just to be sure.
Whether you find the effect of burn-in process real or only "a listeners myth", I can suggest people to take a closer look at Edition S.
Out of the box, there was some stridency in the treble section of the phones, which was open to causing a bit of a fatigue after some extended listening sessions.
After giving the headphone some play time, the upper frequencies became more relaxed.
So believe in burn-in or not, I suggest you to give a listen to the wisdom of Shia LaBeouf and :
For testing, I used various different players with Edition S like Sony ZX2, WM1A, A35, A45, Aune M1S, Fiio X3 Mark III, Hifiman's own little wonder SuperMini and half a bunch of smartphones.
I also gave a listen through Objective2 as one of my trustworthy desktop amplifiers, and that $100 amp squeezed the most from Edition S. (will talk more of this later)
And I had the chance to compare the sound performance of Edition S with headphones like Grado HF-1, PS500e, half a bunch of closed Sony headphones ranging from $150 to $2200 flagship Z1R, Meze 99 Neo and Sennheiser HD600 & 650.
Design & Build (4 stars over 5)
I find the design of Edition S highly authentic. Having a medium-sized head, the headphones take the shape of my head with its padding and distribute the clamping force quite evenly.
I never felt discomfort during my listens that sometimes lasted for some couple of hours.
Good job on that.
However, I should state that though the headband does its job decently in distributing pressure over a large area, it feels quite plasticky and of average build quality.
This is an issue HIFIMAN should address in their future designs.
On the other hand, the cups seemed to have near perfect build. The shiny gray frames in the cups are made of sturdy metal, the logo caps are decent, and the pleather pads with velour surface are very comfortable as well as being of high quality.
The covers with "H" logo can easily be taken out, and they stick well with the frame of the cups after being sealed. Shortly, they do not fall down in any case unless you want to take them off.
The cable is quite soft and doesn't look very sturdy ; but it is easily replacable (for $30) and it has volume / play - pause controls on it for Android and IOS devices.
And as another nice thing, if your digital audio player supports remotes and in-line controls, you would be able to use these buttons also for your DAP. (For example, the buttons work beautifully with Fiio X3 3rd Generation)
The outer box of Hifiman is quite a big one, whispering "hey buddy, you'll see some serious headphone inside".
In fact, Edition S looks a bit small on photos over web ; it is actually a relatively large set of headphones. (Keep in mind that the cups of Edition S houses two very large 50 mm sized drivers. I mean, how small can it be?)
The carrying box that came with Edition S is a highly minimalistic one (it doesn't even have any "Hifiman" name on it). Yet it does an excellent job in protecting the phones, and it has a very small footprint.
In the box, there is also a plane adapter, a manual, 3.5 to 6.35 mm adapter and a warranty card. Nothing unusual or lacking here.
Kudos to HIFIMAN here.
So, lets go for the sound.
Sound Signature
In terms of its sound character, Edition S is a fairly neutral headphone having a similar tonality to its pricey (and some VERY pricey!) planar siblings, despite carrying a dynamic driver.
It does not sound dark, nor bright, and it is not a very warm or a "cold sounding" headphone with a sterile feeling coming from analytical emphasis.
Edition S is none of these. (However, some may consider it to have a touch of brightness due to the slightly elevated treble).
In fact, it carries a minimum level of coloration and I believe Edition S is probably the most neutral sounding headphone I've come across in the sub-$150 category.
In terms of balance, the presentation of Edition S can be considered a relatively balanced one.
It - of course - does not carry a reference level, razor-flat frequency response at $129, having some dips and peaks in it’s portrayal of the sound spectrum, but there is no apparent compression of one frequency by another.
(Meze 99 Neo presents a flatter, more reference-like frequency response at $199, only having a slight bloom in the bass).
So far so good.
Bass (4 / 5)
Deep with decent texture and detail. And the frequencies of lows is probably the most severely affected area of the sound spectrum through shifting between open / closed use.
With logo cups off, the bass of Edition S gives the overall sound a very slight amount of warmth while retaining much of its obvious neutral character.
Also in the open mode, the bass reaches its prominency in terms of its amount.
(Like a Grado. Users of Grado cans most probably tried closing the back of the phones with their hands at least once in their lifetimes, and experience a drop in the amount of bass. This rule works also for Edition S, but not to the extent of a Grado.)
It does not extend much to sub-bass (as expected from an open-back dynamic implemetation at this price range) but it provides some nice body and a hefty midbass presence.
(In fact, with some recordings the midbass of Edition S virtually becomes the center of attention among the other frequencies in the open mode.)
The speed of the bass is average ; neither very fast & thick, nor slow & fat. However, bass of Edition S responds well to good amplification, becoming thicker and more controlled.
In open mode, I found Edition S particularly enjoyable especially with pop and electronic music.
In this mode for example (over Sony WM1A) walking in the streets of the city and listening to The Weeknd's "I feel it coming" I found myself to be unintentionally smiling in a quite silly way : )
It was pure joy.
Resolution in the low frequencies is decent, but occassionally the prevalent midbass may show some slight signs of bleed into the lower mids.
In the closed mode with logo cups on, the main difference is the decrease in the presence of the midbass. These frequencies are pulled slightly back, though still being quite present, but not prevalent and towering over other frequencies by any means.
Mids (4.5 / 5)
Nicely detailed and VERY clear (in fact I've never come across a Hifiman phone with veiled sounding mids).
A real highlight of the phone.
In the open mode, the strong presence of midbass recesses the mids very slightly. However, thanks to the increased interaction with air on that mode, the timbre of the midrange instruments became more life-like and organic.
The closed mode brings a slight boost to the midrange clarity by pulling the midbass slightly back, and causing a slight elevation in the upper mids causing some nice attack and liveliness on the portrayal of keyboards.
At the other side of the coin, the cut of air interaction slightly degrades the realism of the timbre of instuments as can be expected in closed phones.
Besides, there is a slight drop in the lower mid frequencies of the sound of Edition S which sometimes cause some instruments to sound thinner than they should normally do.
This is observable both in open and closed use, slightly more apparent in closed mode.
Treble (4 / 5)
Precise, dynamic and nicely detailed, but rolled-off at the extreme top end.
The general neutrality of the headphone continues in here. The treble performance of Edition S is very good for it’s current $129 price level.
In addition to the one’s I mentioned above, it is also quite forgiving and not very open to sounding sibilant or shrill.
Besides, coupled with it’s spacious soundstage, you can hear some lovely “air” between instruments.
However, there is a slight peak on the low to mid treble transition which sounds quite obvious before burn-in at the first listen. This “peak” smoothens through use, but it is always there to a certain degree nonetheless.
It gives the sound of Edition S a nice dynamism, yet with the trade off of a tendency to give some fatigue after long listening sessions.
In case you use Edition S with some sub-par sounding smartphones, some splashiness and an uneven decay in cymbals may occur coupled with some congestion.
Mind you, these headphones sound good even with smartphones, yes ; but they sound definitely better with proper amplification.
Soundstage & Imaging & Separation (4.5 / 5)
In the open mode, shortly put, near full-size headphone level soundstaging.
It is not there on the level of, say, a Sennheiser HD600 (of course), but it is great to have a highly portable set of cans that can present a spacious stage as Edition S.
The placement of the stage is not very close or very far. In other words, Edition S neither presents a Grado-like in-your-face presentation, nor one that is laid-back as the premium grade Sennheiser’s do.
It is like between a Grado (with standard L-Cush pads) and a Sennheiser HD700.
It has some intimacy in it’s sound, but the soundstage is also pulled slightly back to give the sound and the instruments some space “to breathe”.
Overall it has a quite wide and deep staging that creates a 3-dimensional view of musical field, both in open and closed mode. Open mode mainly adds some more width to the stage.
Thanks to the spacious soundstage, instrument separation is decent, and it becomes even better with a good source like a dedicated audio player.
Isolation (3 / 5)
Probably the weakest link in the chain.
Edition S sounds excellent for its price, is portable and stylishly designed, yet in that regard, it's more like a "semi-open" headphone rather that a fully closed one.
The magnetic logo cups provide some isolation, yes ; they cut some of the direct sound waves aiming for your ears (and plenty of music that wants to go outside), but in overall performance of blocking outside noise, it is not up to the passive isolation level of a properly closed can.
Especially if you're a person who has her usual commute passing through a really crowded & noisy city environment, a serious level of outside sounds would interfere with especially the sub frequencies of your music.
Other than that, the existence of the logo cups really helps when there is mild outside noise.
And as putting the cups on & off changes the sound Edition S produces, one can additionally use them as a manual equalizer!
Portability & Driveability (5 / 5)
I should mention that Edition S looks quite a bit smaller in its photos over web.
It is not THAT small.
Trust me.
At the end, you should now that this headphone houses two massive-for-its-class, 50 mm dynamic drivers.See below :
(As an info for comparison, Sennheiser's HD6XX models and HD700 both utilize smaller 40 mm drivers whereas it's flagship HD800 uses 53 mm ones. So the size of the drivers of Edition S is nearly equal to the size of the ones used in HD 800. Fyi.)
However, thanks to it's ergonomically designed housing, excellent foldability and relatively low weight (of 248 grams), Edition S has some very decent portability.
I found it very easy to use Edition S during commute. Sometimes Edition S makes you forget it’s existence around your neck. (Much better than Meze 99 Neo on that matter)
It's carrying box is also very handy due to its small footprint. (Check from the photos)
Edition S is a highly easy to drive headphone.
It can be driven via any source with decent juice (That also explains why it has a smartphone-friendly cable).
But keep in mind that you're actually trying to feed two little speakers (of 50 mm size).
The sound quality of Edition S is decent with smartphones, but it would probably shine and show its abilities with better source, i.e. dedicated players and amps.
It has some really good potential.
And while it sounded well out of the portable players I used in testing, it sounded best with Objective2 fed by the DAC sections of these digital players through line-out.
In fact, the people I gave for a listen with this setup (Line-out from a random DAP + Objective2 + Edition S) reacted to the sound performance of this set with a nice amount of smile on their faces!
The second best pairings had been with Sony WM1A ($1100) and HIFIMAN’s own SuperMini ($199).
(It is lovely that HIFIMAN successfully matches the sound characters of it’s DAPs and headphones ; SuperMini and Edition S duo is a lovely budget audiophile package for $330 on the go)
Conclusion
So, what should the verdict of this review be?
I believe, despite its some shortcomings, Edition S is a highly innovative piece of engineering, and an excellent sonic performer at $129.
On the other hand, contrary to HIFIMAN's claims, you do not go from an open headphone to a “really closed" one with the switch of a pair of cups, no.
With logo cups, it becomes a semi-open headphone at best, cutting some outside noise that would distract you from enjoying your favourite songs, (and that may bother people around you with your music), but it is nowhere around the isolation of a properly sealed passive isolating cans.
But the isolation and the blocking of incoming / outgoing sounds you gain is definitely much better than nothing. Besides, I think cups also give the headphones quite a fancy look, in addition to working as an "analogue equalizer" for the sound Edition S produces.
In terms of sound, there are also some nicely detailed performers in this price range, but I believe Edition S is the most neutral sounding piece while still being a very detailed guy at it's current price of $129.
(As an example, Meze 99 Neo produces an overall better, more refined and punchy sound at $199, but it’s portability is nowhere near the one’s of Edition S).
And despite it’s giant drivers, Edition S took 5/5 on portability department from me, as being one of the best of it’s class.
In it's initial retail price of $249 of two years ago, it would be a pretty tough choice, but now at it's street price of $129, in terms of it's looks, portability, performance and features, I can easily recommend Hifiman Edition S to music lovers.
6.22.2018
Hi to all fellow Head-Fi'ers!
I am here to write my impressions about Aune's (still) popular high resolution audio player M1S. I should state that the player was provided to me with confidence by Aune free of charge in exchange of my honest opinion.
So I'll try to do my best on that.
It's been quite a while since M1S was released, and I will try to add some comparisons with some recent strong competitors of M1S (like Sony A35 Walkman and Fiio X3 3rd Gen.) as of December 2017.
This is a frequently reviewed player on Head-Fi, so I'll try not to repeat the highly accessible info about M1S (that other reviewers already mentioned); rather I'll focus more on its most highlighted feature :
Sound quality.
But first things first. My setup :
I used M1S with as many headphones and IEM's to reach an overall evaluation of its sound performance. In the listening tests I used Grado HF-1, PS500e, Sony Mdr-1abt, Sony Z1R, Audio Technica MSR-7, Hifiman Edition S, Hifiman RE400 and RE600, 1More Triple Driver, Custom Art Fibae 1 & 2 and Mee Audio Pinnacle P1.
(Due to their bright nature, I first thought that M1S would not sound good with Grado's, yet the only cans in the group that did not match well with M1S had been the Audio Technica MSR-7 and MeeAudio Pinnacle P1 duo. Both presented an overly prevalent treble with M1S. )
Design, Build and Use
Let me go over the design, build, ergonomics and usability briefly.
Aune M1S has an aluminium chassis and it feels quite sturdy. My sample came with two screen protectors. Besides, silicon cases of three colours were added.
The screen is glass (not plastic) and the side buttons are accessible / usable in pocket.
The 2.5mm balanced and 3.5mm single-ended ports are placed on the bottom (as I prefer), and they seem to be made of high quality.
I especially liked their grip which prevents easy rotation of headphone jacks and in turn contributing to the durability of them.
The build quality is decent for the price of $249.
One point of criticism I have is about the design of the center buttons. The one in the middle is for play / pause and it has a circular, scroll-like one around it. However, as well as being wonky and making strange sounds during use, this circular button has no scrolling function and is actually a D-pad with four buttons for up-down and left-right.
As well as being an unnecessary complication (and a deceiving one) it degrades the usability of the player in pocket on the go.
I think it would have been simpler and better if Aune design team placed four independent buttons for D-pad.
Concerning use, this is probably the fastest booting DAP I've ever seen. After pressing the on / off button at the right side, it takes like 3 to 4 seconds for you to get to the main menu screen.
Impressive.
Initially after boot, there is a slight lag after pressing the play button until the playback starts, but other than that operation is instant.
The user interface is highly simple (that is also one of the reasons why it is so fast), but it does the job, and it goes well with a minimalist DAP like M1S.
I am also quite happy to say that I've experienced like zero crashes in user interface during three months of use.
Sometimes simplicity is bliss.
Here are the options in the simple the menu of M1S :
One thing I didn't like about in M1S' menu is the gain switch(ing) of the player.
Aune M1S has 3 levels of gain as low / mid / high, selectable through software from the main menu. That's alright.
However, in case you have sensitive ears and also use sensitive cans (especially low impendance / high sensitivity IEM's), one should be careful when switching gain, since the jump between those gain steps is instant and you can go from "low" to "high" with one press of a button, and that jump in output may be problematic for some.
The output of M1S is not that powerful even in balanced mode (2 x 180mW @ 32 ohm), however it might have been better if Aune implemented a volume limit system when switching gain. (A good example is on Sony WM series Walkmans in which volume is lowered to half when you switch gain.)
I believe Aune can add something like that in the next firmware or in the successor models of M1S.
During use M1S gets quite warm, even in low gain. However, it does not become "hot" and I didn't find that warmth as disturbing even in a hot Turkish summer.
As many have noted, M1S has no equalizer & sound enhancements whatsoever. For modifying the sound of the player (in case of need), there are the three built-in filters of the ES9018K2M DAC.
The filter "FAST" has the most dynamic, airy and extended presentation. However, for the likes of people who may find it a little bit aggressive, there are "SLOW" and "MP" filters which smoothen up the upper frequencies a bit.
I should state that these filters do not alter the base sound of M1S dramatically.
So you should use M1S with a headphone / IEM that would match the sonic characteristic of the player, as it offers virtually no options of altering its sound. I'll talk more about this in the sound section below.
This is one of the primary limitations of this player.
Sound Signature
(Note : I don't have a headphone with balanced 2.5mm plug at the moment, so I made my listening over the standard 3.5 mm jack. I'll update my impressions after I get one. Balanced performance of M1S is highly praised by listeners, so I'm curious.)
- Generally (and very superficially) speaking, two mainstream approaches to the tuning of digital audio players are being followed in the market.
One that is warmer and more fun-oriented (hi Sony and Fiio!) tuning and the other being less colored / more sterile or analytical sounding.
Ibasso DX90 or Hifiman's HM901U can be considered two nice examples of the latter approach.
In terms of sound signature, I might say Aune M1S can be considered closer to the second camp.
The sound M1S produces can be said to be neutral with very little coloration or warmth. Due to that, it is possible that some might find the player as a bit cold sounding.
It has a quite even balance across the spectrum with a little elevation in the treble region.
So it is possible that some may find M1S a tad bit bright due to that peak.
Besides, there is no mid-bass emphasis on the sound of M1s (which is more or less present on many of the DAPs to a degree). Because of that and the slight treble elevation, some may find M1S slightly bass-light (Though I am not one of them).
Other than that, I didn't notice any particular emphasis on any part of base / mid or high frequencies.
M1S has a relatively flat and balanced sound presentation.
Bass
Deep with decent impact, clean and very fast.
Without any exaggeration, I can say that Aune M1S has one of the tightest bass I've ever seen in a portable player.
It hits quite hard and decays in a short time.
I've even been able to get some decent "kick" from my relatively bass-light Grado's.
However, as I've said above, because of the flat-like bass presentation of M1S (that does not show any mid-bass emphasis), it may feel slightly bass-light with some headphones.
I am not very fond of using equalizer, but it would be nice if the player has some bass boost option for ones that seek more prominent bass.
I believe even a rudimentary one (like the very lovely hardware bass equalizer in Fiio X3 1st Gen.) would have added some more value to the player.
Mids
Very clean and transparent, textured, well separated.
I can easily say that in the transparency department, M1S can rival even some flagship daps that cost more than a grand.
The instruments are placed nicely in the horizontal X-axis creating an enfolding image. I didn't feel any recession or harshness in mids.
Thanks to the decent layering, it was especially enjoyable for me to listen to the keyboards in the back of the vocals and main instruments in pop / rock music records.
Well done, nice job again in here.
Treble
Slightly elevated, airy, extended, dynamic, precise with some sharpness and decent attack (typical for an ESS Sabre ES9018K2M DAC) and interestingly at the same time having some smoothness to it.
Despite having some prevalent treble, I didn't hear any harshness or hotness in the treble presentation of M1S.
In terms of signature, it resembles the one of Ibasso DX90 (which I rate highly in technical capability). They share the same Sabre DAC chip (though DX90 has two of those), yet these two have some differences in presentation.
DX90 has a slight V-shape signature with laid-back mids whereas the mids of M1S are more forward, clearer and more transparent. Apart from that, soundstage of M1S is also wider than that of DX90, producing a more intense and roomy presentation with a more enfolding stereo image.
And strangely (in a beautiful way), M1S has less of the "Sabre glare" in its sound, making it an easier DAP to listen compared to DX90.
Both have very similar treble character, yet DX90 virtually show no smoothness in the upper frequencies, producing a sound more open to cause fatigue due to it's sharp treble.
M1S on the other hand, while retaining the detailed, airy, highly dynamic and precise treble performance of DX90, also has some smoothness to it's sound preventing it from sounding "too aggressive".
Aune engineers must have done some nice tuning here.
Well done.
Soundstage and Imaging
One more strong point for the player.
I should state again that these impressions are from the 3.5 mm single-ended output of the player, but even at that condition, the stage of M1S is excellent for it's price point.
It is wide from left to right, and also it has some depth together with a very decent performance on layering.
Imaging has good accuracy and it is positively affected by the amount of air between the instruments.
The staging of the player is widely said to improve through balanced, and I will update my findings after I get a 2.5 mm balanced cable for my phones.
Power
Shortly : M1S has a moderately powerful amplifier section.
It produces 110 mW @ 32 ohm single-ended, and 180 mW @ 32 ohm through balanced.
M1S would probably drive your phones to a highly satisfactory level provided that they have low impedance & high sensitivity.
But within these numbers, do not expect M1S to feed enough juice for, say a Sennheiser HD6XX.
Hissing
M1S has a beautiful black background. I wish that I had the chance to try it with some sensitive IEMs, but among the ones I used, M1S presented a pitch-black background. So you can trust its really high SNR ratio in that.
In fact in some cans, I felt that it even introduced less hiss to the recording than the already quite silent, Top-Of-The-Line Sony WM1A which costs $1100.
Battery
I usually reached around 10 hours of use on mixed 16 & 24 bit flac files on mid and high gain. So it lives up to the specs stated by Aune.
Some Comparisons
At the moment, I have Sony A35 and Fiio X3 3rd Gen. in my hands besides Aune M1s. So I gave some A / B listening to these daps.
In terms of sound, the biggest difference between the trio is the sound signature.
M1S is, as I've said before, the less-coloured sounding of the three whereas A35 has slight warmth in its sound, and X3 Mark III is the warmest sounding of the group.
Compared to A35, M1S has more airy and crisp treble, better dynamics, clearer overall sound and a blacker background.
It also offers slightly faster operation, balanced output and thus a more powerful amplifier.
The sound quality of M1S has some edge over that of A35 via single-ended connection, and I assume that the difference would grow bigger in favor of M1S through balanced.
On the other side, A35 has its own strenghts.
It has a very small footprint with a good and a more sophisticated user interface compared to M1S and more than double the battery life on one charge.
And despite being inferior in sound in terms of technical capabilities, A35 presents a slightly more organic timbre than that of M1S, which can also be tailored to one's needs via a nice equalizer and sound enhancements.
A35 can also send wireless signal to Bluetooth devices like headphones, speakers etc.
It is rumoured by some listeners for the newer A45 to be better sounding than A35, and I will post here my findings after I got a Sony A45 Walkman.
Fiio X3 3rd Generation is the latest product coming from Fiio's first digital audio player line of X3 released four years ago. The product was lent to me with confidence by Fiio. So I would like to thank them also from here.
I'll be posting a full review of Fiio X3 Mark III in a short while here on Head-Fi.
X3 3rd Gen. has a pretty more coloured and warmer sound compared to the more neutral and analytical sound of M1S.
In comparison of the two daps both from their 3.5 mm single-ended out, M1S again has the slight edge in terms of technical capabilities, resolution and extension in both ends.
However, X3 III also presents nice staging, detail, separation over a balanced sound signature. Yet, its top end is more smoothened up compared to M1S, which makes X3 an ideal player for long listening sessions.
X3 1st Generation of 2013 was way too polite in the upper registers when it was released, thus it was definitely a non-ideal player for music with high dynamic content (like rock and metal). And I thought that was a flaw.
X3 3rd Gen. that I'm holding in my hands right now still continues that Fiio "politeness" in sound, but I can say that it can also rock when it needs to rock.
What it doesn't have is the aggressive bite and sparkle of M1S in the treble section.
So I think that's a matter of choice.
In terms of user interface, X3 III definitely has many more options (including a working equalizer) to offer than the rudimentary menu of system of M1S. However, accessing these options in X3 III can be a pain sometimes due to the slightly slower operation and button arrangement system of the player.
So the usability of M1S is better than X3 III probably thanks to its simple menu system.
Conclusion
It has been nearly a year after M1S' release in the beginning of 2017.
However, I believe M1S is still a strong competitor for the price of $249, in terms of its sound, balanced out option and fluid usability.
And I think a listener who prefers the less coloured, more neutral and "studio-like" sound signature compared to the warmer and more coloured one would still be delighted by the performance M1S offers.
It has its limitations (and it may not be the most "handsome" player indeed
), yet as a "music player" it is definitely a credit to the Aune brand.
Good job Aune!
I am here to write my impressions about Aune's (still) popular high resolution audio player M1S. I should state that the player was provided to me with confidence by Aune free of charge in exchange of my honest opinion.
So I'll try to do my best on that.
It's been quite a while since M1S was released, and I will try to add some comparisons with some recent strong competitors of M1S (like Sony A35 Walkman and Fiio X3 3rd Gen.) as of December 2017.
This is a frequently reviewed player on Head-Fi, so I'll try not to repeat the highly accessible info about M1S (that other reviewers already mentioned); rather I'll focus more on its most highlighted feature :
Sound quality.
But first things first. My setup :
I used M1S with as many headphones and IEM's to reach an overall evaluation of its sound performance. In the listening tests I used Grado HF-1, PS500e, Sony Mdr-1abt, Sony Z1R, Audio Technica MSR-7, Hifiman Edition S, Hifiman RE400 and RE600, 1More Triple Driver, Custom Art Fibae 1 & 2 and Mee Audio Pinnacle P1.
(Due to their bright nature, I first thought that M1S would not sound good with Grado's, yet the only cans in the group that did not match well with M1S had been the Audio Technica MSR-7 and MeeAudio Pinnacle P1 duo. Both presented an overly prevalent treble with M1S. )
Design, Build and Use
Let me go over the design, build, ergonomics and usability briefly.
Aune M1S has an aluminium chassis and it feels quite sturdy. My sample came with two screen protectors. Besides, silicon cases of three colours were added.
The screen is glass (not plastic) and the side buttons are accessible / usable in pocket.
The 2.5mm balanced and 3.5mm single-ended ports are placed on the bottom (as I prefer), and they seem to be made of high quality.
I especially liked their grip which prevents easy rotation of headphone jacks and in turn contributing to the durability of them.
The build quality is decent for the price of $249.
One point of criticism I have is about the design of the center buttons. The one in the middle is for play / pause and it has a circular, scroll-like one around it. However, as well as being wonky and making strange sounds during use, this circular button has no scrolling function and is actually a D-pad with four buttons for up-down and left-right.
As well as being an unnecessary complication (and a deceiving one) it degrades the usability of the player in pocket on the go.
I think it would have been simpler and better if Aune design team placed four independent buttons for D-pad.
Concerning use, this is probably the fastest booting DAP I've ever seen. After pressing the on / off button at the right side, it takes like 3 to 4 seconds for you to get to the main menu screen.
Impressive.
Initially after boot, there is a slight lag after pressing the play button until the playback starts, but other than that operation is instant.
The user interface is highly simple (that is also one of the reasons why it is so fast), but it does the job, and it goes well with a minimalist DAP like M1S.
I am also quite happy to say that I've experienced like zero crashes in user interface during three months of use.
Sometimes simplicity is bliss.
Here are the options in the simple the menu of M1S :
One thing I didn't like about in M1S' menu is the gain switch(ing) of the player.
Aune M1S has 3 levels of gain as low / mid / high, selectable through software from the main menu. That's alright.
However, in case you have sensitive ears and also use sensitive cans (especially low impendance / high sensitivity IEM's), one should be careful when switching gain, since the jump between those gain steps is instant and you can go from "low" to "high" with one press of a button, and that jump in output may be problematic for some.
The output of M1S is not that powerful even in balanced mode (2 x 180mW @ 32 ohm), however it might have been better if Aune implemented a volume limit system when switching gain. (A good example is on Sony WM series Walkmans in which volume is lowered to half when you switch gain.)
I believe Aune can add something like that in the next firmware or in the successor models of M1S.
During use M1S gets quite warm, even in low gain. However, it does not become "hot" and I didn't find that warmth as disturbing even in a hot Turkish summer.
As many have noted, M1S has no equalizer & sound enhancements whatsoever. For modifying the sound of the player (in case of need), there are the three built-in filters of the ES9018K2M DAC.
The filter "FAST" has the most dynamic, airy and extended presentation. However, for the likes of people who may find it a little bit aggressive, there are "SLOW" and "MP" filters which smoothen up the upper frequencies a bit.
I should state that these filters do not alter the base sound of M1S dramatically.
So you should use M1S with a headphone / IEM that would match the sonic characteristic of the player, as it offers virtually no options of altering its sound. I'll talk more about this in the sound section below.
This is one of the primary limitations of this player.
Sound Signature
(Note : I don't have a headphone with balanced 2.5mm plug at the moment, so I made my listening over the standard 3.5 mm jack. I'll update my impressions after I get one. Balanced performance of M1S is highly praised by listeners, so I'm curious.)
- Generally (and very superficially) speaking, two mainstream approaches to the tuning of digital audio players are being followed in the market.
One that is warmer and more fun-oriented (hi Sony and Fiio!) tuning and the other being less colored / more sterile or analytical sounding.
Ibasso DX90 or Hifiman's HM901U can be considered two nice examples of the latter approach.
In terms of sound signature, I might say Aune M1S can be considered closer to the second camp.
The sound M1S produces can be said to be neutral with very little coloration or warmth. Due to that, it is possible that some might find the player as a bit cold sounding.
It has a quite even balance across the spectrum with a little elevation in the treble region.
So it is possible that some may find M1S a tad bit bright due to that peak.
Besides, there is no mid-bass emphasis on the sound of M1s (which is more or less present on many of the DAPs to a degree). Because of that and the slight treble elevation, some may find M1S slightly bass-light (Though I am not one of them).
Other than that, I didn't notice any particular emphasis on any part of base / mid or high frequencies.
M1S has a relatively flat and balanced sound presentation.
Bass
Deep with decent impact, clean and very fast.
Without any exaggeration, I can say that Aune M1S has one of the tightest bass I've ever seen in a portable player.
It hits quite hard and decays in a short time.
I've even been able to get some decent "kick" from my relatively bass-light Grado's.
However, as I've said above, because of the flat-like bass presentation of M1S (that does not show any mid-bass emphasis), it may feel slightly bass-light with some headphones.
I am not very fond of using equalizer, but it would be nice if the player has some bass boost option for ones that seek more prominent bass.
I believe even a rudimentary one (like the very lovely hardware bass equalizer in Fiio X3 1st Gen.) would have added some more value to the player.
Mids
Very clean and transparent, textured, well separated.
I can easily say that in the transparency department, M1S can rival even some flagship daps that cost more than a grand.
The instruments are placed nicely in the horizontal X-axis creating an enfolding image. I didn't feel any recession or harshness in mids.
Thanks to the decent layering, it was especially enjoyable for me to listen to the keyboards in the back of the vocals and main instruments in pop / rock music records.
Well done, nice job again in here.
Treble
Slightly elevated, airy, extended, dynamic, precise with some sharpness and decent attack (typical for an ESS Sabre ES9018K2M DAC) and interestingly at the same time having some smoothness to it.
Despite having some prevalent treble, I didn't hear any harshness or hotness in the treble presentation of M1S.
In terms of signature, it resembles the one of Ibasso DX90 (which I rate highly in technical capability). They share the same Sabre DAC chip (though DX90 has two of those), yet these two have some differences in presentation.
DX90 has a slight V-shape signature with laid-back mids whereas the mids of M1S are more forward, clearer and more transparent. Apart from that, soundstage of M1S is also wider than that of DX90, producing a more intense and roomy presentation with a more enfolding stereo image.
And strangely (in a beautiful way), M1S has less of the "Sabre glare" in its sound, making it an easier DAP to listen compared to DX90.
Both have very similar treble character, yet DX90 virtually show no smoothness in the upper frequencies, producing a sound more open to cause fatigue due to it's sharp treble.
M1S on the other hand, while retaining the detailed, airy, highly dynamic and precise treble performance of DX90, also has some smoothness to it's sound preventing it from sounding "too aggressive".
Aune engineers must have done some nice tuning here.
Well done.
Soundstage and Imaging
One more strong point for the player.
I should state again that these impressions are from the 3.5 mm single-ended output of the player, but even at that condition, the stage of M1S is excellent for it's price point.
It is wide from left to right, and also it has some depth together with a very decent performance on layering.
Imaging has good accuracy and it is positively affected by the amount of air between the instruments.
The staging of the player is widely said to improve through balanced, and I will update my findings after I get a 2.5 mm balanced cable for my phones.
Power
Shortly : M1S has a moderately powerful amplifier section.
It produces 110 mW @ 32 ohm single-ended, and 180 mW @ 32 ohm through balanced.
M1S would probably drive your phones to a highly satisfactory level provided that they have low impedance & high sensitivity.
But within these numbers, do not expect M1S to feed enough juice for, say a Sennheiser HD6XX.
Hissing
M1S has a beautiful black background. I wish that I had the chance to try it with some sensitive IEMs, but among the ones I used, M1S presented a pitch-black background. So you can trust its really high SNR ratio in that.
In fact in some cans, I felt that it even introduced less hiss to the recording than the already quite silent, Top-Of-The-Line Sony WM1A which costs $1100.
Battery
I usually reached around 10 hours of use on mixed 16 & 24 bit flac files on mid and high gain. So it lives up to the specs stated by Aune.
Some Comparisons
At the moment, I have Sony A35 and Fiio X3 3rd Gen. in my hands besides Aune M1s. So I gave some A / B listening to these daps.
In terms of sound, the biggest difference between the trio is the sound signature.
M1S is, as I've said before, the less-coloured sounding of the three whereas A35 has slight warmth in its sound, and X3 Mark III is the warmest sounding of the group.
Compared to A35, M1S has more airy and crisp treble, better dynamics, clearer overall sound and a blacker background.
It also offers slightly faster operation, balanced output and thus a more powerful amplifier.
The sound quality of M1S has some edge over that of A35 via single-ended connection, and I assume that the difference would grow bigger in favor of M1S through balanced.
On the other side, A35 has its own strenghts.
It has a very small footprint with a good and a more sophisticated user interface compared to M1S and more than double the battery life on one charge.
And despite being inferior in sound in terms of technical capabilities, A35 presents a slightly more organic timbre than that of M1S, which can also be tailored to one's needs via a nice equalizer and sound enhancements.
A35 can also send wireless signal to Bluetooth devices like headphones, speakers etc.
It is rumoured by some listeners for the newer A45 to be better sounding than A35, and I will post here my findings after I got a Sony A45 Walkman.
Fiio X3 3rd Generation is the latest product coming from Fiio's first digital audio player line of X3 released four years ago. The product was lent to me with confidence by Fiio. So I would like to thank them also from here.
I'll be posting a full review of Fiio X3 Mark III in a short while here on Head-Fi.
X3 3rd Gen. has a pretty more coloured and warmer sound compared to the more neutral and analytical sound of M1S.
In comparison of the two daps both from their 3.5 mm single-ended out, M1S again has the slight edge in terms of technical capabilities, resolution and extension in both ends.
However, X3 III also presents nice staging, detail, separation over a balanced sound signature. Yet, its top end is more smoothened up compared to M1S, which makes X3 an ideal player for long listening sessions.
X3 1st Generation of 2013 was way too polite in the upper registers when it was released, thus it was definitely a non-ideal player for music with high dynamic content (like rock and metal). And I thought that was a flaw.
X3 3rd Gen. that I'm holding in my hands right now still continues that Fiio "politeness" in sound, but I can say that it can also rock when it needs to rock.
What it doesn't have is the aggressive bite and sparkle of M1S in the treble section.
So I think that's a matter of choice.
In terms of user interface, X3 III definitely has many more options (including a working equalizer) to offer than the rudimentary menu of system of M1S. However, accessing these options in X3 III can be a pain sometimes due to the slightly slower operation and button arrangement system of the player.
So the usability of M1S is better than X3 III probably thanks to its simple menu system.
Conclusion
It has been nearly a year after M1S' release in the beginning of 2017.
However, I believe M1S is still a strong competitor for the price of $249, in terms of its sound, balanced out option and fluid usability.
And I think a listener who prefers the less coloured, more neutral and "studio-like" sound signature compared to the warmer and more coloured one would still be delighted by the performance M1S offers.
It has its limitations (and it may not be the most "handsome" player indeed
), yet as a "music player" it is definitely a credit to the Aune brand.Good job Aune!
For enjoying my tunes better, should I buy an integrated DAC/amp, or a DAC and an amp separately? What should be the first step?
I come across these questions very often among music listeners.
About DACs and amps, I can't say that I am a fan of all-in-one designs. When you wish to upgrade your DAC or throw in a beefier sounding amp, integrated solutions decrease flexibilty.
Swapping DACs, amps, preamps is much more easier in separate designs.
For that, I’ve always been a fan of modular designs through which a music enthusiast can experience & taste & experiment on different combinations.
Choosing a DAC, adding an amp, a preamp, headphones, rolling op-amps and tubes accordingly with one’s own tastes all form the path to creating “the ultimate setup” that pleases a music lover most.
That highly enjoyable “journey” might vary for each of us ; but a good, dependable and hiss-free DAC is a nice place to start.
A couple of months ago, as a past time admirer of the good-old ODAC, I bumped into the new DAC design by JDS Labs while searching the web. And compared to ODAC, the word “upgrade” in the description of the new OL DAC grabbed my attention.
Instantly.
Mr. Seaber and Mr. Hopper from JDS Labs, generously offered me to review OL DAC with full confidence on their product, in exchange of my honest opinion.
And here are my impressions of this little DAC.
At first, I should state that OL DAC is tiny in its aluminium housing.
Photos of this DAC in the web do not do justice, it is that small with virtually negligible footprint.
Let’s say, if you’re short on space in your desk, then you should benefit highly from the size(lessness) of OL DAC.
Yet interestingly, even with pull of the various cable attached at the back, it is quite hard to move it, thanks to the very nicely added silicone feet at the bottom.
Well thought.
At the back, OL DAC has two gold-plated RCA outputs, an optical input (to plug OL DAC to various home entertainment devices), a USB Type-B socket, and a socket for its 15V AC adapter.
However, it lacks coaxial input, which is present on most of the competing products like Schiit Modi Uber 2 or Topping D30. (Coaxial input is available in the pricier EL DAC)
I should say the adapter may look a little bit big compared to the tiny size of the device. A tiny little big, but nothing extraordinary.
For the external design, OL DAC reminded me of a fully function-oriented product from Soviet industrial art with little emphasis on the “cosmetic appearance” of the outer look. (Much like it’s sister design Objective 2 amp)
And for those who are old enough to know the famous durability of old Soviet products, OL DAC really seems to be made to last.
One thing not often taken into consideration about these devices by reviewers (and that I strictly pay attention in DACs and other electronic equipments in general sense) is their thermal design.
Proper heat dissipation can sometimes be a must in electronic devices for stable operation and also durability in the long run.
On that matter, OL DAC passes the test easily.
I am writing these lines right now in Istanbul, in a classical hot Turkish summer weather with an average of 28 to 30°C (something like 85°F) room temparature.
In that condition, OL DAC gets slightly warm during use, but never ‘hot’ unlike what I’ve observed in some other DACs.
This would positively contribute to the longevity of the product for sure.
I can’t say that I succeeded on finding a flaw on the build department.
Well played.
Sound
I gave several listens to OL DAC intermittently in various setups over a period longer than a month.
For comparison, I tried to find the popular Topping D30 and SMSL M8 DAC’s, in order to get a more coherent picture about the performance of OL DAC at it’s price of $139.
I succeeded in accessing the latter, so in the following part of the review, I’ll state my impressions about OL DAC and SMSL M8.
In my reviews, I usually try products through different setups and combinations to reach an overall estimation of their average performance.
I did the same for OL DAC, matching it with an O2 amp, connecting it to my Yamaha HS7 reference monitors, and using it as a sound card with my PC through Logitech home theater speakers in 2 channels mode.
With O2 amp, I used the duo to power some low impedance Sony headphones (MDR1-ABT, 1000x) and Grado PS500e as well as an 300 ohm Sennheiser HD650.
The sound with this stack is strikingly clean with virtually zero grain as well carrying a balanced presentation across the frequency range.
Yamaha HS7's helped to show the strengths of OL DAC better, as they are designed to reveal the characteristics of the source material / devices.
Even through HS7's, which show any coloration, warmth or brightness of the source quite easily, I found OL DAC to be very neutral with a tiny bit of warmth that prevents me from describing it as "cold / clinical sounding".
Compared to the sound card in my computer (with Realtek ALC887 sound chip) I observed some differences even through my Logitech speakers which are not one of the most revealing speaker sets as one may expect.
Through that setup, I found the Realtek chip to sound definitely more coloured and "fun" sounding with some dips and elevations in the frequency and to sound more processed / veiled with inferior resolution.
The difference is not day and night as you may expect, however, OL DAC's superiority in measured performance easily shows itself to trained ears.
Finally, the comparison with SMSL M8 was a mixed bag.
Through pairing each of these DACs with O2 to power the headphones I mentioned above, I found a very small difference in sound, while in "sound card mode" with Logitech speakers, I've heard no difference in overall sound aside from the very slightly sharper treble on SMSL M8.
Over Yamaha HS7's, the difference between OL DAC and SMSL M8 became a tad bit more percievable though still being very small.
Through that setup, SMSL M8 sounded even more clear than the already very clear sounding OL DAC with slightly more transparency and air & sparkle in the treble region while OL DAC presented a slightly smoother sound.
However, this "difference" of SMSL comes with two potential problems, first being a slight "digital feeling" in sound, and latter being the diminished matchability with brighter headphones.
Besides, SMSL M8 became almost too hot during operation as well as having slightly inferior build quality compared to OL DAC.
However, I should state that the one I used for test was the standard / old M8 version, not the newest update M8A. This overheating issue might have been solved with the newer one.
OL DAC : So who is it for?
Let me say it first :
OL DAC is not for people looking for the extreme levels of "clinical" detail that are buried deep in the recordings (DACs costing +$1000 can do attain that actually - and not all of them).
OL DAC is not for people who want to do native DSD.
As a USB Audio Class 1 device, it supports up to 24/96kHz over USB, and 24/192Hz over optical input.
OL DAC presents a "best bang for the buck" sound and features for those who do not need fancy features or support for formats (like native DSD) of more expensive DAC's in the market.
It produces a very clean, flat, dynamic sound with an excellent noise floor (as a DAC should do) and decent soundstaging. And with OL DAC, one could get a great deal of the sound of much pricier DAC's in a very compact package and at a fraction of their costs.
My observation is that for each dollar spent after $150 you would get increasingly smaller increments in sound department.
(Besides, one can check the "B-Stock sales" in the JDS Labs site. From there it is possible to get an OL DAC with minor cosmetic imperfections over an even better $124 price.)
For people, who seek budget-friendly audiophile solutions, or ones that do not want to mess with fancy formats etc. OL DAC is a very good and mature DAC.
As I've stated in the header, OL DAC seems to be "A Perfect Start For The Minimalist Audiophile".
I come across these questions very often among music listeners.
About DACs and amps, I can't say that I am a fan of all-in-one designs. When you wish to upgrade your DAC or throw in a beefier sounding amp, integrated solutions decrease flexibilty.
Swapping DACs, amps, preamps is much more easier in separate designs.
For that, I’ve always been a fan of modular designs through which a music enthusiast can experience & taste & experiment on different combinations.
Choosing a DAC, adding an amp, a preamp, headphones, rolling op-amps and tubes accordingly with one’s own tastes all form the path to creating “the ultimate setup” that pleases a music lover most.
That highly enjoyable “journey” might vary for each of us ; but a good, dependable and hiss-free DAC is a nice place to start.
A couple of months ago, as a past time admirer of the good-old ODAC, I bumped into the new DAC design by JDS Labs while searching the web. And compared to ODAC, the word “upgrade” in the description of the new OL DAC grabbed my attention.
Instantly.
Mr. Seaber and Mr. Hopper from JDS Labs, generously offered me to review OL DAC with full confidence on their product, in exchange of my honest opinion.
And here are my impressions of this little DAC.
At first, I should state that OL DAC is tiny in its aluminium housing.
Photos of this DAC in the web do not do justice, it is that small with virtually negligible footprint.
Let’s say, if you’re short on space in your desk, then you should benefit highly from the size(lessness) of OL DAC.
Yet interestingly, even with pull of the various cable attached at the back, it is quite hard to move it, thanks to the very nicely added silicone feet at the bottom.
Well thought.
At the back, OL DAC has two gold-plated RCA outputs, an optical input (to plug OL DAC to various home entertainment devices), a USB Type-B socket, and a socket for its 15V AC adapter.
However, it lacks coaxial input, which is present on most of the competing products like Schiit Modi Uber 2 or Topping D30. (Coaxial input is available in the pricier EL DAC)
I should say the adapter may look a little bit big compared to the tiny size of the device. A tiny little big, but nothing extraordinary.
For the external design, OL DAC reminded me of a fully function-oriented product from Soviet industrial art with little emphasis on the “cosmetic appearance” of the outer look. (Much like it’s sister design Objective 2 amp)
And for those who are old enough to know the famous durability of old Soviet products, OL DAC really seems to be made to last.
One thing not often taken into consideration about these devices by reviewers (and that I strictly pay attention in DACs and other electronic equipments in general sense) is their thermal design.
Proper heat dissipation can sometimes be a must in electronic devices for stable operation and also durability in the long run.
On that matter, OL DAC passes the test easily.
I am writing these lines right now in Istanbul, in a classical hot Turkish summer weather with an average of 28 to 30°C (something like 85°F) room temparature.
In that condition, OL DAC gets slightly warm during use, but never ‘hot’ unlike what I’ve observed in some other DACs.
This would positively contribute to the longevity of the product for sure.
I can’t say that I succeeded on finding a flaw on the build department.
Well played.
Sound
I gave several listens to OL DAC intermittently in various setups over a period longer than a month.
For comparison, I tried to find the popular Topping D30 and SMSL M8 DAC’s, in order to get a more coherent picture about the performance of OL DAC at it’s price of $139.
I succeeded in accessing the latter, so in the following part of the review, I’ll state my impressions about OL DAC and SMSL M8.
In my reviews, I usually try products through different setups and combinations to reach an overall estimation of their average performance.
I did the same for OL DAC, matching it with an O2 amp, connecting it to my Yamaha HS7 reference monitors, and using it as a sound card with my PC through Logitech home theater speakers in 2 channels mode.
With O2 amp, I used the duo to power some low impedance Sony headphones (MDR1-ABT, 1000x) and Grado PS500e as well as an 300 ohm Sennheiser HD650.
The sound with this stack is strikingly clean with virtually zero grain as well carrying a balanced presentation across the frequency range.
Yamaha HS7's helped to show the strengths of OL DAC better, as they are designed to reveal the characteristics of the source material / devices.
Even through HS7's, which show any coloration, warmth or brightness of the source quite easily, I found OL DAC to be very neutral with a tiny bit of warmth that prevents me from describing it as "cold / clinical sounding".
Compared to the sound card in my computer (with Realtek ALC887 sound chip) I observed some differences even through my Logitech speakers which are not one of the most revealing speaker sets as one may expect.
Through that setup, I found the Realtek chip to sound definitely more coloured and "fun" sounding with some dips and elevations in the frequency and to sound more processed / veiled with inferior resolution.
The difference is not day and night as you may expect, however, OL DAC's superiority in measured performance easily shows itself to trained ears.
Finally, the comparison with SMSL M8 was a mixed bag.
Through pairing each of these DACs with O2 to power the headphones I mentioned above, I found a very small difference in sound, while in "sound card mode" with Logitech speakers, I've heard no difference in overall sound aside from the very slightly sharper treble on SMSL M8.
Over Yamaha HS7's, the difference between OL DAC and SMSL M8 became a tad bit more percievable though still being very small.
Through that setup, SMSL M8 sounded even more clear than the already very clear sounding OL DAC with slightly more transparency and air & sparkle in the treble region while OL DAC presented a slightly smoother sound.
However, this "difference" of SMSL comes with two potential problems, first being a slight "digital feeling" in sound, and latter being the diminished matchability with brighter headphones.
Besides, SMSL M8 became almost too hot during operation as well as having slightly inferior build quality compared to OL DAC.
However, I should state that the one I used for test was the standard / old M8 version, not the newest update M8A. This overheating issue might have been solved with the newer one.
OL DAC : So who is it for?
Let me say it first :
OL DAC is not for people looking for the extreme levels of "clinical" detail that are buried deep in the recordings (DACs costing +$1000 can do attain that actually - and not all of them).
OL DAC is not for people who want to do native DSD.
As a USB Audio Class 1 device, it supports up to 24/96kHz over USB, and 24/192Hz over optical input.
OL DAC presents a "best bang for the buck" sound and features for those who do not need fancy features or support for formats (like native DSD) of more expensive DAC's in the market.
It produces a very clean, flat, dynamic sound with an excellent noise floor (as a DAC should do) and decent soundstaging. And with OL DAC, one could get a great deal of the sound of much pricier DAC's in a very compact package and at a fraction of their costs.
My observation is that for each dollar spent after $150 you would get increasingly smaller increments in sound department.
(Besides, one can check the "B-Stock sales" in the JDS Labs site. From there it is possible to get an OL DAC with minor cosmetic imperfections over an even better $124 price.)
For people, who seek budget-friendly audiophile solutions, or ones that do not want to mess with fancy formats etc. OL DAC is a very good and mature DAC.
As I've stated in the header, OL DAC seems to be "A Perfect Start For The Minimalist Audiophile".
Hi Head-Fi’ers!
I’ve waited quite a bit long to use SuperMini and obtain its possible rival players at the same time (like Sony A15 and the new A35).
I came across SuperMini a few months ago, and only by looking its specs and “promises”, I instantly wanted to give a try to it. So I volunteered for a review that you are reading right now.
I want to thank from here to Hifiman for the review sample.
In the previous reviews, many Head-Fi’ers shared beautiful photos of the device with some satisfactory descriptions of the players user interface. So to not to repeat some obvious things about the player, in my review, I’ll focus more on the sound performance of SuperMini.
First things first ; let’s take a look at the presentation and “offerings” of SuperMini, by its creator who is also the CEO and founder of Hifiman, Dr. Fang Bian :
“We spent years on a crazy project: SuperMini. We selected a low power consumption controller chip with a DAC built-in. After heavily modifying firmware and drivers of decoding/Audio/DAC, we have changed its original sound signature and achieved an amazing result: a sound signature similar to our flagship hi-fi music player HM901. That is why SuperMini sounds transparent, warm, sweet and punchy. It is one of the smallest portable hi-fi devices. Its battery life is 22hrs. Full Size headphones? Not even a challenge. The swing of output voltage is 4.2V peak to peak, capable of driving most full size headphones.”
From one point, this review would be an evaluation of how the performance of SuperMini measures up to the companies claims.
Introduction :
In the recent years, I have used more than 30 players from different brands (including Fiio, Ibasso, Sony, Astell & Kern, Hifiman etc.) with various different headphones and iems.
Four years ago, eras popular player Hifiman 601 had been my first Hifiman device. Though I liked the devices sound signature, lovely mid-bass, detail and separation performance, 601 was weak in measurements ; especially in distortion levels.
Despite it's weakness in measured performance, I considered Hifiman 601, as my first portable “Hi-Fi” player.
Following that, I’ve used lots and lots of players ranging from $100 to $3500 and most of them utilized some fancy discrete DACs like the ones of Texas Inst. PCM 1792A, Wolfson WM8740, ESS Sabre 9018S, Asahi Kasei AKM4490 or Cirrus Logic CS4398.
These DAC’s, while elevating the sound quality of daps above the ones built-in DAC’s provide, come with a considerable drop in the players battery life.
And with my experience, I came to the thought that, in practical terms, it was the implementation of the amp section that contributes to the sound performance more obviously than the DAC section. That observation brought me to the idea that power hungry flagship DAC’s were more or less extravagant on entry to mid range portable players.
Thinking about that, incidentally I came across SuperMini.
The idea of a highly modified built-in DAC supported with a strong amplifier section instantly grabbed my attention. The following are my findings about this little player.
So let’s hit the road.
a) Design, Build, User Interface
The SuperMini is super small. If you have some chance the hold a Sony A17, you should know that SuperMini occupies roughly the same space. Apart from the glass on the screen and plastic buttons, it is all metal. It has a very fine build quality, especially for its class. Definitely better than Sony A17.
The screen is real glass (not a popular “glass-looking plastic”) and it looks one-piece as its corners are not highlighted. Very stylish.
The monochrome OLED display (reminds me of atari graphics of the past) performs nicely even under direct sunlight. And a screen-protector comes with the player. Yet, I would rather prefer if the screen protector was attached. It may be cumbersome for many users to attach these screen protectors properly.
In the past, I’ve used several players from Chinese brands, and I can easily say that the user interface of SuperMini is the slickest and most bug-free one among them. (Well, very occasionally, the player exhibits some bugs / freezes, but it is not a big deal. Even Sony players can freeze sometimes)
As a little bug, the player sometimes skips the first like 0.5 seconds of some songs, but it is occasional.
The players buttons respond quite swiftly, and overall operation is fast. It took me like one minute to get used to the players interface.
I tested the player with various Sandisk Ultra and Samsung Evo micro sd cards with capacities from 16 to 64gb, and encountered no big problem with them. In case of a failure, I resetted the device and the cards were read correctly.
SuperMini has no equalizer or any kind of sound tweaks. It may upset some people, but if you match the player with a headphone of balanced sound signature I would doubt that you would need any equalizer. Yet still, it would be a nice thing if the player has some sort of bass control option.
Besides, the playback screen does not show the duration of songs. That would be a nice addition.
When the screen is off, the first button you press would turn the screen on, then you can do whatever you want to do. I believe, that is a good thing in general principle, but volume buttons could have been added as an exception to that.
In other words, in order to adjust volume, you first press a button and turn on the screen, then you adjust it. Changing volume without turning on the screen would have been more convenient in terms of user experience. Maybe in the following firmwares, Hifiman can address this issue.
b) Sound :
Character :
I tested SuperMini more than a dozen of headphones to reach a generalizable average on sound and output power.
Besides, as a trustworthy indicator of sound signature, I plugged SuperMini directly into my Yamaha HS7 Reference Monitor.
Through Yamaha HS7, the player exhibited a little bit of warmth as it was suggested while retaining it’s clarity.
However, on most of the headphones I used, the player showed to have a quite neutral sound signature.
It is not a dark or bright sounding player having no easily noticeable “colour” in sound. However, I should say that it may sound a bit "flat" for people who got used to coloured sounding devices (like Sony's).
There are some slight bumps in the frequency response of the player, but overall I can easily say that SuperMini is a balanced sounding device.
Bass :
Nice and textured bass with good control and tightness. Does not show any bleed into the mids. I felt a little bump in the mid-bass section, but it does not present any muddiness or overpowering.
The bass is not shallow, definitely, but it may sound a bit "flat" for some. Besides, due to lacking a bass equalizer, you would not be able to make any adjustments.
Midrange :
Neutral, very clean, defined and well separated.
Instruments have weight in their sound and they’re portrayed with a pleasing level of accuracy. Timbre is impressive and on spot.
Varying on headphones, vocals can sometimes sound a bit upfront, which can slightly affect the balance of the sound. However I did not witness any hint of shoutiness.
Clarity is top notch. There is no veil between you and the instruments.
(This is one of the points where SuperMini performs considerably superior compared to Sony A15 which sounds veiled and a bit “simulated”.)
In fact, this can be the very point where SuperMini performs above its class.
Comparing SuperMini to Hifiman 901U (with balanced card), Astell & Kern AK380, Sony WM1A / WM1Z over Hifiman HE560 and Sennheiser HD700, I was surprised to see that in terms of clarity and transparency, SuperMini was very close to the above “flagship” devices that cost several times more.
Definitely impressive.
Treble :
Again, a strong point for SuperMini.
Resolving, very crisp, controlled and dynamic.
Not too aggressive (free of fatigue) and not too smooth (free of being boring) at the same time. Nice balance. Good job.
I noticed a treble roll-off, so the treble extension is not the best of its class ; but it is barely percievable, and it does not cripple the dynamics of the player. (This was a noticeable case for the past era players like Hifiman 601 or Fiio X3 1st Generation ; both of which presented a steep treble roll-off, causing the players to sound a bit dull without sparkle)
SuperMini is not the most airy sounding player in the market, but with its limited soundstage it does not give any feeling of boxiness. There is also some nice sensation of space between instruments. Imaging is decent.
Resolution :
SuperMini is not the most analytical player resolving every bits and nuances of a recording, yet it produces some decent level of instrumental detail easily matching its class, and these details are quite accessible by ear thanks to its high level of clarity and transparency.
Instrument Separation :
Hifiman SuperMini again does a good job on instrument separation and crosstalk performance. Not only in standart popular songs having four to five instruments, but also in complex musical passages, the instruments do not collapse over each other or give the feeling of any kind of congestion. Decent crosstalk performance.
Soundstage & Imaging :
In my opinion, probably the weakest link in the chain.
Despite the players mighty performance on many areas, soundstage size is just average It is not very wide nor deep, so I suggest a compensating headphone to be paired with this player (like Sennheiser HD600 which gives great soundstage virtually free of the source).
If you plan to use SuperMini with Grado’s, TTVJ Flat Pads do present a nice soundstage also with a balanced sound (for a Grado).
Noise Performance :
SuperMini has low distortion levels and quite a black background with a good signal to noise ratio. I did not hear a noticeable hiss on any headphones I’ve used. Nice job again.
Power :
SuperMini is one little beast when it comes to output power.
Let me state that in single-ended output comparison, it delivers more power to headphones compared to Sony’s new WM series Walkman’s.
Apart from some easier cans, I used SuperMini through various 300 ohm headphones (like Sennheiser HD600, 650 and 700), and the player drove these phones to a satisfactory level even in single-ended connection!
And as another plus, I was unable to perceive any extra audible distortion at maximum volume!
(However, the player can have more volume steps than its current number of 32, especially in the higher volumes. There is a great difference in volume from 30 to 32)
Through 3.5mm balanced connection, I believe what you would get will probably be better body and soundstaging.
It is such a surprising feat that Hifiman has achieved, delivering so much power from a tiny player weighing only 70grams.
Headphone Matching :
SuperMini has quite a neutral and balanced sound which makes it ideal for a variety of different phones. However, again a headphone with a balanced sound signature would most probably match SuperMini best.
I especially liked the match of Sennheiser HD600 and 650, and Hifiman He560 (though this one is stated as “challenging” in Hifiman’s chart).
On the other side, there had been one headphone whose synergy I disliked with SuperMini :
Audio Technica R70X Pro.
In SE, SuperMini again drove 470 ohm R70X Pro to a satistaftory volume level, but the sound was edgy, mids were harsh and treble roll-off just absorbed any energy in sound. Definitely a no-go.
Apart from that, SuperMini responded well to matching with other headphones.
Battery Performance :
Another exciting feature of SuperMini due to the clamied “22 hours of playback” by the company. However, this part may be the one that the player falls a little bit apart from Hifiman’s claims in real-life conditions.
If you use SuperMini with relatively easy-to-drive headphones, then you may reach a playback time of 20 hours. (I often use SuperMini with my Grado HF-1 outside, and battery lasts +15 hours – all files flac – very good)
But in other cases, in case you pump up the volume of the player, the battery life will fall considerably to ~10 hours level. (Yet even at that case, SuperMini is a clear winner with its tiny battery)
(One criticism I can mention is that the battery indicator should be more precise. The indicator can show a full battery when you actually have 4 to 5 hours of playback time, and then it drops swiftly.)
The bundled iem with SuperMini (that seems to be between RE400 and RE600 quality-wise) has 3.5 mm balanced connection, and sounds decent. As a listener (and lover) of headphones, the bundled iems bass sounded not quite the most enjoyable to me, but it is very clear in mids and treble with good soundstaging.
However, I believe SuperMini’s true potential would be revealed through matching it with a suitable high-end headphone in balanced connection ; otherwise it would be domesticated with the bundled iem.
Conclusion :
From the time I’ve seen its specs on the internet, I approached SuperMini with some great expectations, and I am here relieved to say that it is a highly worthy product.
With it’s serious sound quality and excellent price / performance ratio, I do not hesitate to recommend it to any music lover.
Good job Hifiman!
I’ve waited quite a bit long to use SuperMini and obtain its possible rival players at the same time (like Sony A15 and the new A35).
I came across SuperMini a few months ago, and only by looking its specs and “promises”, I instantly wanted to give a try to it. So I volunteered for a review that you are reading right now.
I want to thank from here to Hifiman for the review sample.
In the previous reviews, many Head-Fi’ers shared beautiful photos of the device with some satisfactory descriptions of the players user interface. So to not to repeat some obvious things about the player, in my review, I’ll focus more on the sound performance of SuperMini.
First things first ; let’s take a look at the presentation and “offerings” of SuperMini, by its creator who is also the CEO and founder of Hifiman, Dr. Fang Bian :
“We spent years on a crazy project: SuperMini. We selected a low power consumption controller chip with a DAC built-in. After heavily modifying firmware and drivers of decoding/Audio/DAC, we have changed its original sound signature and achieved an amazing result: a sound signature similar to our flagship hi-fi music player HM901. That is why SuperMini sounds transparent, warm, sweet and punchy. It is one of the smallest portable hi-fi devices. Its battery life is 22hrs. Full Size headphones? Not even a challenge. The swing of output voltage is 4.2V peak to peak, capable of driving most full size headphones.”
From one point, this review would be an evaluation of how the performance of SuperMini measures up to the companies claims.
Introduction :
In the recent years, I have used more than 30 players from different brands (including Fiio, Ibasso, Sony, Astell & Kern, Hifiman etc.) with various different headphones and iems.
Four years ago, eras popular player Hifiman 601 had been my first Hifiman device. Though I liked the devices sound signature, lovely mid-bass, detail and separation performance, 601 was weak in measurements ; especially in distortion levels.
Despite it's weakness in measured performance, I considered Hifiman 601, as my first portable “Hi-Fi” player.
Following that, I’ve used lots and lots of players ranging from $100 to $3500 and most of them utilized some fancy discrete DACs like the ones of Texas Inst. PCM 1792A, Wolfson WM8740, ESS Sabre 9018S, Asahi Kasei AKM4490 or Cirrus Logic CS4398.
These DAC’s, while elevating the sound quality of daps above the ones built-in DAC’s provide, come with a considerable drop in the players battery life.
And with my experience, I came to the thought that, in practical terms, it was the implementation of the amp section that contributes to the sound performance more obviously than the DAC section. That observation brought me to the idea that power hungry flagship DAC’s were more or less extravagant on entry to mid range portable players.
Thinking about that, incidentally I came across SuperMini.
The idea of a highly modified built-in DAC supported with a strong amplifier section instantly grabbed my attention. The following are my findings about this little player.
So let’s hit the road.
a) Design, Build, User Interface
The SuperMini is super small. If you have some chance the hold a Sony A17, you should know that SuperMini occupies roughly the same space. Apart from the glass on the screen and plastic buttons, it is all metal. It has a very fine build quality, especially for its class. Definitely better than Sony A17.
The screen is real glass (not a popular “glass-looking plastic”) and it looks one-piece as its corners are not highlighted. Very stylish.
The monochrome OLED display (reminds me of atari graphics of the past) performs nicely even under direct sunlight. And a screen-protector comes with the player. Yet, I would rather prefer if the screen protector was attached. It may be cumbersome for many users to attach these screen protectors properly.
In the past, I’ve used several players from Chinese brands, and I can easily say that the user interface of SuperMini is the slickest and most bug-free one among them. (Well, very occasionally, the player exhibits some bugs / freezes, but it is not a big deal. Even Sony players can freeze sometimes)
As a little bug, the player sometimes skips the first like 0.5 seconds of some songs, but it is occasional.
The players buttons respond quite swiftly, and overall operation is fast. It took me like one minute to get used to the players interface.
I tested the player with various Sandisk Ultra and Samsung Evo micro sd cards with capacities from 16 to 64gb, and encountered no big problem with them. In case of a failure, I resetted the device and the cards were read correctly.
SuperMini has no equalizer or any kind of sound tweaks. It may upset some people, but if you match the player with a headphone of balanced sound signature I would doubt that you would need any equalizer. Yet still, it would be a nice thing if the player has some sort of bass control option.
Besides, the playback screen does not show the duration of songs. That would be a nice addition.
When the screen is off, the first button you press would turn the screen on, then you can do whatever you want to do. I believe, that is a good thing in general principle, but volume buttons could have been added as an exception to that.
In other words, in order to adjust volume, you first press a button and turn on the screen, then you adjust it. Changing volume without turning on the screen would have been more convenient in terms of user experience. Maybe in the following firmwares, Hifiman can address this issue.
b) Sound :
Character :
I tested SuperMini more than a dozen of headphones to reach a generalizable average on sound and output power.
Besides, as a trustworthy indicator of sound signature, I plugged SuperMini directly into my Yamaha HS7 Reference Monitor.
Through Yamaha HS7, the player exhibited a little bit of warmth as it was suggested while retaining it’s clarity.
However, on most of the headphones I used, the player showed to have a quite neutral sound signature.
It is not a dark or bright sounding player having no easily noticeable “colour” in sound. However, I should say that it may sound a bit "flat" for people who got used to coloured sounding devices (like Sony's).
There are some slight bumps in the frequency response of the player, but overall I can easily say that SuperMini is a balanced sounding device.
Bass :
Nice and textured bass with good control and tightness. Does not show any bleed into the mids. I felt a little bump in the mid-bass section, but it does not present any muddiness or overpowering.
The bass is not shallow, definitely, but it may sound a bit "flat" for some. Besides, due to lacking a bass equalizer, you would not be able to make any adjustments.
Midrange :
Neutral, very clean, defined and well separated.
Instruments have weight in their sound and they’re portrayed with a pleasing level of accuracy. Timbre is impressive and on spot.
Varying on headphones, vocals can sometimes sound a bit upfront, which can slightly affect the balance of the sound. However I did not witness any hint of shoutiness.
Clarity is top notch. There is no veil between you and the instruments.
(This is one of the points where SuperMini performs considerably superior compared to Sony A15 which sounds veiled and a bit “simulated”.)
In fact, this can be the very point where SuperMini performs above its class.
Comparing SuperMini to Hifiman 901U (with balanced card), Astell & Kern AK380, Sony WM1A / WM1Z over Hifiman HE560 and Sennheiser HD700, I was surprised to see that in terms of clarity and transparency, SuperMini was very close to the above “flagship” devices that cost several times more.
Definitely impressive.
Treble :
Again, a strong point for SuperMini.
Resolving, very crisp, controlled and dynamic.
Not too aggressive (free of fatigue) and not too smooth (free of being boring) at the same time. Nice balance. Good job.
I noticed a treble roll-off, so the treble extension is not the best of its class ; but it is barely percievable, and it does not cripple the dynamics of the player. (This was a noticeable case for the past era players like Hifiman 601 or Fiio X3 1st Generation ; both of which presented a steep treble roll-off, causing the players to sound a bit dull without sparkle)
SuperMini is not the most airy sounding player in the market, but with its limited soundstage it does not give any feeling of boxiness. There is also some nice sensation of space between instruments. Imaging is decent.
Resolution :
SuperMini is not the most analytical player resolving every bits and nuances of a recording, yet it produces some decent level of instrumental detail easily matching its class, and these details are quite accessible by ear thanks to its high level of clarity and transparency.
Instrument Separation :
Hifiman SuperMini again does a good job on instrument separation and crosstalk performance. Not only in standart popular songs having four to five instruments, but also in complex musical passages, the instruments do not collapse over each other or give the feeling of any kind of congestion. Decent crosstalk performance.
Soundstage & Imaging :
In my opinion, probably the weakest link in the chain.
Despite the players mighty performance on many areas, soundstage size is just average It is not very wide nor deep, so I suggest a compensating headphone to be paired with this player (like Sennheiser HD600 which gives great soundstage virtually free of the source).
If you plan to use SuperMini with Grado’s, TTVJ Flat Pads do present a nice soundstage also with a balanced sound (for a Grado).
Noise Performance :
SuperMini has low distortion levels and quite a black background with a good signal to noise ratio. I did not hear a noticeable hiss on any headphones I’ve used. Nice job again.
Power :
SuperMini is one little beast when it comes to output power.
Let me state that in single-ended output comparison, it delivers more power to headphones compared to Sony’s new WM series Walkman’s.
Apart from some easier cans, I used SuperMini through various 300 ohm headphones (like Sennheiser HD600, 650 and 700), and the player drove these phones to a satisfactory level even in single-ended connection!
And as another plus, I was unable to perceive any extra audible distortion at maximum volume!
(However, the player can have more volume steps than its current number of 32, especially in the higher volumes. There is a great difference in volume from 30 to 32)
Through 3.5mm balanced connection, I believe what you would get will probably be better body and soundstaging.
It is such a surprising feat that Hifiman has achieved, delivering so much power from a tiny player weighing only 70grams.
Headphone Matching :
SuperMini has quite a neutral and balanced sound which makes it ideal for a variety of different phones. However, again a headphone with a balanced sound signature would most probably match SuperMini best.
I especially liked the match of Sennheiser HD600 and 650, and Hifiman He560 (though this one is stated as “challenging” in Hifiman’s chart).
On the other side, there had been one headphone whose synergy I disliked with SuperMini :
Audio Technica R70X Pro.
In SE, SuperMini again drove 470 ohm R70X Pro to a satistaftory volume level, but the sound was edgy, mids were harsh and treble roll-off just absorbed any energy in sound. Definitely a no-go.
Apart from that, SuperMini responded well to matching with other headphones.
Battery Performance :
Another exciting feature of SuperMini due to the clamied “22 hours of playback” by the company. However, this part may be the one that the player falls a little bit apart from Hifiman’s claims in real-life conditions.
If you use SuperMini with relatively easy-to-drive headphones, then you may reach a playback time of 20 hours. (I often use SuperMini with my Grado HF-1 outside, and battery lasts +15 hours – all files flac – very good)
But in other cases, in case you pump up the volume of the player, the battery life will fall considerably to ~10 hours level. (Yet even at that case, SuperMini is a clear winner with its tiny battery)
(One criticism I can mention is that the battery indicator should be more precise. The indicator can show a full battery when you actually have 4 to 5 hours of playback time, and then it drops swiftly.)
The bundled iem with SuperMini (that seems to be between RE400 and RE600 quality-wise) has 3.5 mm balanced connection, and sounds decent. As a listener (and lover) of headphones, the bundled iems bass sounded not quite the most enjoyable to me, but it is very clear in mids and treble with good soundstaging.
However, I believe SuperMini’s true potential would be revealed through matching it with a suitable high-end headphone in balanced connection ; otherwise it would be domesticated with the bundled iem.
Conclusion :
From the time I’ve seen its specs on the internet, I approached SuperMini with some great expectations, and I am here relieved to say that it is a highly worthy product.
With it’s serious sound quality and excellent price / performance ratio, I do not hesitate to recommend it to any music lover.
Good job Hifiman!
