1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice
  1. DocHoliday
    Punched With A Velvet Glove
    Written by DocHoliday
    Published Apr 30, 2019
    Pros - Warm, fatigue-free tuning
    Well-built aluminium housing
    2-pin detachable cables
    Price-to-performance ratio
    Fast becoming a trusted brand in the audio enthusiast community
    Cons - Not for trebleheads
    Strong mid-bass
    BQ3 TripInTrance.jpg

    Newcomer BQEYZ seems to be running on all cylinders at the moment. Thus far, all of their initial offerings (six different models) have been received well.






    and this BQ3.


    Of the four models I own I can tell you that I have difficulty picking a personal favorite. That said, the BQ3 is quite unlike the other three BQEYZ that I own.

    Before I get into the meat of the review I'd like to send my sincere thanks to Elle Zhou at BQEYZ for sending me the BQ3 for feedback purposes.

    Full disclosure:
    I've no affiliation with BQEYZ and I receive no remuneration for any links I may include but the review sample is mine to keep.

    Free stuff?


    Honest review?


    About me:
    I tend to prefer a relatively neutral sound signature with a slight emphasis in both bass and lower treble, which is basically a mild "U" shaped sound signature where midrange frequencies are left intact and unaffected. I find that an absolute neutral sound signature usually lacks enough energy for the genres I enjoy most, which are Classic Trance and Progressive (early Tiesto, Markus Schulz, Otello, DT8 Project), Chill Out, Breakbeat (Hybrid & Burufunk Remixes) and 80's & 90's (New Order, Secession, The Cure, Siouxie & The Banshees, Depeche Mode). Sure I listen to Verve Remixed, Sade, Bach, Ella Fitzgerald and everything in between, but as of late the bulk of my listening pleasure is focused on the aforementioned genres.

    About IEMs:
    Take note when you read IEM reviews that when the reviewer gives his/her opinion regarding the sound that there are many factors that shape the final sound an IEM delivers to one's ear.

    Those factors include:
    1 - Shape & size of reviewer's ear canals. (shallow/deep, wide/narrow)
    2 - Shape & size of eartips (round/cone, single, double or triple flange)
    3 - Materials of eartips (silicone/foam)
    4 - Shape of IEM (and/or angle of nozzle) can cause fitment issues for some.
    5 - Source (quality of DAC in smartphone, laptop, digital audio player)
    6 - Source (power rating) is it amplified/unamplified.
    7 - The IEM itself (driver flex/trapping air in canal causing muffled sound.
    8 - The Reviewers ability to hear all frequency ranges (age plays a factor).

    Most consumers are unaware of how much weight each of these factors hold in rendering a final verdict. This is why there is such a wide variance in not only ratings, but the description of an IEMs sound. An unaware consumer purchases a perfectly fine IEM but has difficulty keeping the IEM in the ear or he/she does not satisfactorily seal the ear canal with the included silicone eartips (this is a common occurrence) and the consumer summarily dismisses the IEM as sub par. Another consumer purchases the same IEM but experiences a perfect fit and seal and has nothing but praise for the same IEM. Sealing the ear canals AND HAVING THE EARTIP FIRMLY AFFIXED to the IEM nozzle is the only proper way to use in-ear monitors. I can think of no audio equipment that is subjected to such praise or ridicule as the in-ear monitor. As if that's not enough, there is no "one-size-fits-all" when it comes to IEM eartips.

    Materials (silicone/foam) have different dampening effects on final sound.
    Shape of the eartips (olive-shaped, cone-shaped or other-shaped) can have different dampening effects on final sound based on how much space is between the IEM nozzle and your eardrum and how well the eartip has sealed the ear canal.
    The aperture of the eartip's opening (wide-bore/narrow-bore) will have dampening effects on the final sound.

    The easiest way for you to experience the different effects I am discussing is to take your current on-ear headphones or over-ear headphones, pick a song full of energy, put the earphones on and let them sit naturally over or on your ears. Listen to the music for two minutes. After two minutes, using your hands, slightly press the headphones closer to your eardrums. Notice the change in the sound. Is there more/less bass? Is there more/less treble? Did the vocals slightly slip forward/back?

    Consider that on-ear and over-ear headphones have a driver that sits approximately 1 1/2 inches to 2 inches from your eardrums and by pressing the headphones 1/4" closer to your eardrums the sound changed. Now consider that an IEM driver sits anywhere from 3/4" to 1/4" from your eardrums and the slightest changes (angle, depth, shape, material) can have up to three times more of an effect due to the proximity of the IEM to the eardrum.

    For this reason, I think it is wise to invest a nominal dollar amount on different eartips to find an eartip that works well for your particular ear's anatomy. This way you experience everything the earphone tuner intended for you to experience. Some IEM manufacturers supply multiple sizes (S/M/L) and/or materials (silicone/foam) of eartips to increase the odds that the consumer achieves a satisfactory seal, but even this is not foolproof. If this information holds any interest for you, there are a plethora of aftermarket eartip brands to look into, such as "JVC Spiral Dots", "Spinfits", "Comply Foam Eartips" or "Znari Foam Eartips", "Creative Aurvana" and others. If you really want to fine tune things, then you might find yourself doing what I do, which is scouring Amazon for inexpensive earphones that appear to have silicone eartips that have a shape that typically work well with my ear's anatomy.

    My Ears:
    You should also know a little bit about my ears since yours may differ. Below I have included two images. One image of an ear canal of typical length and the other image showing a more shallow ear canal. My ear canals resemble the more shallow of the two.

    Keep this in mind when reading this review. I have no scientific evidence to back this up but I'd bet that ear canal length can play a part when it comes to resonance hotspots.


    The BQEYZ BQ3:

    I'll start off by telling you up front that the BQ3 is quite unlike its BQEYZ siblings that I own (K2, KC2 & KB100). The machined aluminum earpieces have an understated elegance about them but it's the BQ3's sound signature that sets it apart from its siblings. Let's get through the unboxing before we delve into sound signature.

    As usual, BQEYZ packaging is basic. No eventful unboxing experience or angelic choruses here but the BQ3 box is a little nicer than the K2, KC2 or KB100 box. I usually store my in-ears in zippered clamshell cases so as long as the contents of the box are safe during shipping I dont place much weight on packaging.

    The medium-bore eartips that BQEYZ included do seal well for me but be aware that a good seal is only part of the equation. I usually employ wide-bore eartips from my growing eartip collection so the earphone's presentation can breathe as much as possible. I have shallow ear canals so Tennmak whirlwinds work well for me. However, several years ago I purchased a package of 20 sets of a generic wide-bore brand (photo). Ordering said eartips when they were available turned out to be one of the best decisions I'd made considering how many earphones I've placed them on because they're very difficult to find now. These particular eartips are quite pliable but despite their wide-bore design the BQ3 still gave a relatively thick presentation, to my ears. BQEYZ's stock medium-bore eartips increased the BQ3's mid-bass, for my ears.

    2-pin Cable:
    The detachable cable that BQEYZ shipped with the BQ3 is a decent cable that is supple enough to avoid kinking and it is terminated with a well-designed 90° angle on the 3.5mm jack. In addition the cable is equipped with a sturdy aluminum strain relief at the "Y" and preformed earhooks with plastic housings for the .78mm 2-pin connectors. I've said this before but I'd like to see BQEYZ adopt or design rectangular aluminum housings for their 2-pin connectors. Plastic seems a bit low-rent for BQEYZ's well-designed earphones.

    Driver Housings:

    My BQ3's housings are finished in the same beautiful electrical blue that my KB100's are finished in. The machined aluminum earpieces are elegantly chamferred with aluminum trim on the faceplates. It fits well with the shape of my ears.


    The BQ3 has gotten a lot of positive feedback from several well-respected members of Head-Fi's Chi-Fi community. It is a 2DD (dynamic driver) + 3BA (balanced armature) configuration that, in typical BQEYZ fashion, is tuned for comfort. If there was one word to describe the BQ3 that word would be "smooth".

    In my opinion the BQ3 is an IEM for those who eschew earphones that deliver an analytical and/or "in your face" sound signature. In many ways the BQ3 is the polar opposite to BQEYZ's own KB100.

    Errrr....., that came out wrong. I'll be more specific.

    To my ears, the BQ3 keeps things comfortable by keeping everything at an arms length as opposed to being upfront and personal. Soundstage width is average and the BQ3 has average soundstage depth (as usual with all of BQEYZ initial offerings) but instruments and vocals have a rounded or softened presentation on the BQ3. To be more specific, if you are familiar with the difference between a silicone eartip presentation and a foam eartip presentation, the BQ3 sounds as if the presentation is delivered via foam eartips. Foam eartips are highly recommended when using balanced armature IEMs because they tend to soften the balanced armature's analytical nature, particularly in the upper midrange and treble regions. If you've been paying attention thus far you should be asking yourself "if foam earth is smooth an in-ears presentation then what happens when foam eartips further smooth an already smooth presentation?"

    Although the BQ3 is a 2+3 hybrid it doesn't sound like one. To my ears, you'd never guess that this is a hybrid in-ear because the balanced armatures seem tamed beyond recognition. I've never heard a hybrid this smooth. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the BQ3 will have better synergy with a bright-leaning audio source. I don't recommend using these with a DAP that has a velvet-like presentation (Fiio X5iii, etc.) because pairing a warm-leaning DAP and the warm-leaning BQ3, and perhaps foam eartips, will offer a presentation that is too smooth and almost dark. Most, if not all, of BQEYZ initial offerings have rolled off the upper-treble to keep things from getting dicey up top. The BQ3 is no exception and when you introduce more smoothness and more warmth you'll find that a bright-leaning audio source will offer the best synergy with the BQ3's sound signature.

    I use the BQ3 when I want to listen to some albums in my collection that have a tendency to push the envelope in the upper midrange and lower-treble. Rather than starting the breakdown with the treble let's start with the midrange.


    When discussing "pushing the envelope" in the midrange the two albums that immediately come to mind are Bruce Springsteen's "Born In The U.S.A" and Pat Benatar's "Crimes Of Passion". To my ears, both albums were recorded with most of the focus on the upper half of the frequency range. The BQ3 makes listening to these recordings a bit more inviting because it smooths things so you can get lost in the music or even crank the volume a bit.

    I usually listen to music at very modest volume levels but sometimes I do like to get my groove on. One of my favorite Springsteen songs is "Bobby Jean" but with most earphones I just can't increase volume due to the peaky characteristics of the recording. It's the same with Pat Benatar's "You Better Run". Enter the smooth BQ3. Problem solved. With the BQ3 I can crank the music up until I am thoroughly satisfied. No strident behavior interrupts my enjoying either of these albums.

    Another case in point is the very last song that Johnny Cash recorded before he passed. Cash (the "man in black") did a cover of Nine Inch Nails 1995 Grammy Award nominated single "Hurt". Trent Reznor, the original writer of the song, said that when he first heard Johnny Cash sing "Hurt" it actually made him cry. Cash's version really is an epic recording because Cash put his own stamp on such a somber song.

    The recording itself will exemplify why I choose to listen to recordings like this on the BQ3. If I listen to the track with the KB100, KC2, ZS6, BA10 or any other remotely analytical in-ear monitor I have a difficult time enjoying the latter half of the song. It starts off clean and clear but distortion is introduced as the song progresses. As the track's energy picks up so does the distortion. It sounds as though there is one microphone recording this session but the microphone just wasn't up to snuff.

    Cash unearthed.jpg

    This BQ3 is one of the few IEMs that I choose when I want to listen to less than stellar recordings. The BQ3 tends to smooth the presentation a bit more than any of my other IEMs.


    The BQ3 has a decidedly thick mid-bass response so kick and impact are front and center. As I mentioned in the KB100 review "Too much mid-bass tends to reduce clarity in IEMs; "air" between instruments just vanishes because elevated mid-bass or mid-bass that bleeds into upper frequencies fills the ear canal and then lingers a little too long. The BQ3's mid-bass is elevated and, truth be told, I am not particularly fond of elevated mid-bass.

    For bass impact I sampled the same tracks I used for the KB100:
    Julie Thompson's "What Will I Do" paying particular attention to the 44 second mark and then listening for the BQ3's extension and delivery during the drawdown at the 4:40 mark. The BQ3 hit those low notes hard and the impact at the drawdown was solid.

    My soft wide-bore silicone eartips seal exceptionally well.A For me the end result was that I found bass impact to be quite thick. You'll find that you can adjust bass impact and/or thickness by tip rolling; if anything you'd likely work toward reducing mid-bass presence by stepping down a size in eartips (Lrg to Med or Med to Sm)". Different eartips gave me different feedback but in general the word that defines the BQ3's bass is "thick". Bass is not as quick as BQEYZ own KB100. No, bass here is tuned to punch and linger a bit.

    With Basement Jaxx "Stay Close" I focused on the 54 second mark and 1:04 mark and once again the impact was solid and deep on both counts.

    Yep, the BQ3 is tuned for solid impact which is thicker than not only the KB100 but also the K2 which has slightly more bass than the KC2. The BQ3 has more impact than the K2 but the K2's bass doesn't disturb the midrange as much.

    Bottom line on bass: It digs deep and hits hard (with a proper seal) so you may find the BQ3 to be satisfactory if you're a "basshead". Again, I'd use wide-bore eartips and maybe even step down a size from your usual eartip size but be aware that this may very well effect isolation.


    Typical of the tuning on all of BQEYZ initial six offerings the upper-treble is rolled off to avoid discomfort/pierce. The lower treble is present but it is a "soft" presentation that is in keeping with the BQ3's overall presentation.

    The triangles that start at the 22 second mark of Toni Braxton's "He Wasn't Man Enough" are smoothed over and as a result the shimmer/sparkle that should be there is absent in the BQ3 presentation.

    In addition, with P.O.D.'s "Thinking About Forever" there is a waterfall-like shimmer in the first five seconds of the track, the 25 second mark and throughout the track. There is also a brief high pitch note at the 2:42 mark. On the ZS6 those notes give the track an almost ethereal effect. On the BQ3 the waterfall-like shimmer is smoothed over but there is some presence. Putting the BQ3 through these tests it appears that the BQ3 is all about "safe" and fatigue-free tuning.

    The lack of shimmer and sparkle trends to give the BQ3 a less "airy" presentation although the imaging is decent. The elevated mid-bass and rolled off upper-treble contribute to these having a smooth presentation but they also contribute to the BQ3 sounding somewhat average where separation is concerned. The mid-bass pilfers some sense of clarity and air. Nothing detrimental, just noticeable when comparing the BQ3 with its smooth but vivid siblings.

    Soundstage :

    With most of BQEYZ's initial offerings soundstage width is decent while soundstage depth is average. I'd like to see BQEYZ improve soundstage depth to improve imaging, separation and that sense of "air" that take an in-ear from being a very good IEM to being an exceptional IEM. The BQ3 is a very good IEM with a thick and comfortable delivery. More "air" would have made these exceptional. With the right eartips the BQ3 is eerily reminiscentof a comfortable over-the-ear headphone.

    The BQ3 soundstage has average width (edge of the ears or just slightly past the earlobes) and average depth. Again, the BQ3 does have good imaging but separation is somewhat average (mostly effected by the mid-bass) while layering is average due to the limited soundstage depth.

    I've been listening to my ZS6 for more than a year now and lately my preference leans more toward its more etched and vivid delivery but in the real world I can't use my ZS6 outdoors without putting my long term hearing at risk. The BQ3 with its "thick and comfortable delivery", on the other hand, won't put my long term hearing at risk so they will be very useful outdoors.

    For the past nine months I've been using my ZSR for on-the-go entertainment but last week instead of grabbing my ZSR I grabbed the BQ3 for outdoor use. On tracks that were mastered with a bass-heavy footprint the mid-bass was a bit much but the BQ3 performed very well indeed on everything else.

    I'll have to take both IEMs (ZSR & BQ3) with me next time and report back on which in-ear I prefer for outdoor use. The BQ3's aluminum housing is vastly superior to the ZSR's plastic housing but stay tuned for those results.

    TripInTrance BQ3.jpg

    In the end, the BQ3's fit, isolation and sound signature were almost ideal for
    on-the-go IEMs and I do recommend them if you're looking for a great set of IEMs for commuting (isolation for me was great). If your commute includes trains, planes or buses be sure to invest in a variety of eartips in order to find a set that will give you a complete seal.

    If you enjoy a warm-leaning and smooth presentation then you'll likely enjoy the BQ3 but I'd recommend swapping out the medium-bore eartips for wide-bore eartips and also pairing the BQ3 with a bright-leaning source. Take that recommendation with a grain of salt; I'm very particular about mid-bass. I enjoy mid-bass punch but I usually prefer a 50:50 (sub-:mid-) distribution in bass or at the very least a touch less mid-bass punch and a bit more sub-bass rumble. Your preferences may be very different from my own.

    I seem to be in the minority on the BQ3's overall presentation. I do like them but I enjoy a more vivid and etched presentation. That said, the BQ3 is growing on me.

    In closing, I did deduct one star for the elevated mid-bass but that's my only complaint. The BQ3 is a very good in-ear, just not my preferred sound signature.

    Abbey Rd.jpg

    Hope this was helpful.

      hakuzen, Otto Motor and eclein like this.
  2. NymPHONOmaniac
    Liquid sound that you'll want to swim in
    Written by NymPHONOmaniac
    Published Mar 30, 2019
    Pros - Great imaging, fast transient response, tigh bass, good clarity, great construction, good value
    Cons - thin sub bass, timbre lack richness, upper treble emphasis


    SOUND: 8/10
    DESIGN: 8.5/10
    VALUE: 8.5/10

    Even if the brand name look like a bad letters choice your stock with for an unlucky SCRABBLE game, you will be happy being stock with BQEYZ earphones in your ears.

    This company caming out of no where in China really got (half-underground) respect from budget audiophile around here, but is less known than KZ, Tinaudio, TRN or some other banned chi-fi brands. In fact, they have been around as OEM company since lot of time in audio world, but well, we just don’t know them and one day a dude from this place decide to create an earphones company and name it with the must unique letters composition he can find (no in fact, while he was searching for company name for hours looking at blank screen, he fall asleep on its keyboard and voilà! ) and create BQEYZ audio company with one idea in mind : multi drivers iem without bad transient response or harsh peaks, something that stand appart from the chi-fi crownd!


    Then the BQEYZ KB1 Dual dynamic drivers plus one balanced armature appear, then the KB100 2DD+1BA appear, then the KB2 2DD+2BA appear, and then the BQEYZ BQ3 Dual dynamic drivers plus 3 balanced armature appear.

    This multi drivers BQ3 isn’t a copy cat of any other earphones and this BQEYZ audio company deserve to be know better.

    This type of construction, tuning and overall quality is just too good to be hide in the shadow, and being able to achieve this balanced musicality for 55$ make the BQ3 a real dangerous competitors for the sub-100$ earphones.

    Let me try to show you why in this review.


    1. Product Name: In-ear Headphone

    2. Type: In-ear

    3. Impedance: 22Ω

    4. Headphone sensitivity:95db

    5. Frequency range: 7-40kHz

    6. Interface: 3.5mm

    7. Cable Length: 1.2m±5cm

    8. Color:black / blue

    9.Whether with Mic:with mic or no mic, you can choose

    10.Driver unit:3BA+2DD In Ear Earphone

    11. Weight:About 25g±5g

    12.Pin Type:0.78mm


    P1011002.JPG P1011003.JPG

    UNBOXING is minimalist, but we get a pouch as bonus gift. I wish there where more eartips included tough.

    P1011211.JPG P1011212.JPG P1011210.JPG P1011209.JPG

    CONSTRUCTION is excellent and refreshingly unique. Its half metal half hard plastic and the beautifully polished metal have nice sharp curve to it that give a fashionable yet elegant look. 2Pin connector are hide in the shell wich will benifit for durability and the connection is tigh, not slidy as some other 2pin connectors. All in all, construction look sturdy and make me confident about durability potential.


    Cable is basic but of nice quality, similar to the TRN cable, its a twisted 4 cores copper OFC, it have a metal L jack wich is nice too. Earhook is pre-curved but not too loose as memory earhook can be.

    P1011207.JPG P1011208.JPG

    DESIGN is quite nice too, but some may find the housing nozzle either too long or too large, yep, we have a big nozzle here wich guarantee secure fit but can be uncomfortable for ears with small hole. I find the BQ3 comfortable with the right tips, using large one instead of medium because with medium it was itching my ears and tend to strangely pop up as we have to push nozzle deep so the housing weight do not make the BQ3 be pull out of ears. Anyway, BQ3 are quite smale for number of drivers it have and most people will find them comfortable enough.



    Overall sound impression is rather impressive, but more I listen to the BQ3, more there a little something about timbre that do not feel enough rich to my ears, i mean here that they aren’t perfect that’s all.
    At first, it was the opposite. I really find the tuning mature and balanced, not overly bassy at all, it have punchy mid bass and rather liquid mids with upper treble sharpness that show micro details effortlessly.

    The BQ3 have very fast transient response and attack, its an agile and detailed earphones, timbre is more liquid than textured, as well, the upper treble emphasis, without sound harsh, can sometime make percussion feel to foward and a little metallic due to extra brilliance. This is quite a balanced and energic sound we get in they end, wich is sure not typical for chi-fi iem.

    SOUNDSIGNATURE is slightly U shape leaning towards neutral, only colouration here is mid bass and upper treble, mids without being recessed feel intimate and centered

    SOUDSTAGE is average in wideness wich do not help for precise layering when lot of isntrument play at same time, still it have good deep to it, but its more hearable with less crownded music. Its not a very airy or around your head presentation tough.

    LOWER BASS is thick, tigh and fast. Sub is well rounded but not particularly weighty. Timbre is smooth and have so so transparence, rumble is minimal and can mix a little with mid bass. Extension is average with little roll off that stole some body.

    MID BASS have enough punch and fast pace but timbre is liquid wich give soft texture and do not help definition. This isn’t very authoritative mid bass, so i do not suggest these for rock or acoustic drum, it will do well with electronic, rap or pop where kick do not need as much texture as with acoustic music.

    MIDS are clear and liquid, they have a smooth approach without upper mids emphasis, wich make them sibiliance free but lacking in grip and texture. Vocal feel enough fowards and barely not recessed, but instrument separation is just average so more there instrument, more the vocal became compressed and lack air. Female vocal sound transparent and appealing while male vocal lack a little lower mids and body.

    TREBLE is delicate and articulate with extra emphasis in lower and upper region around 12-16khz. Strangely, this give more brilliance than decay and sparkle. Upper region is where micro details pop up effortlessly, giving ultra clear and brilliant percussion that can sound too metallic sometime. This region is the sharper aspect of BQ3, and without beging overlly trebly, can perhaps be problematic for treble sensitive people. There a lack of mid treble that is surely responsible for thin timbre and lack of air.

    AMPING is suggested because of low 95db sensitivity, when properly drivin everything open up, especially soundstage, bass and mids.

    EARTIPS really inflict on sound rendering because of long nozzle, so i did not use stock one and choose longer silicone eartips wich help with bass control and soundstage.


    SUB : 7.5/10

    MIDS BASS : 8.5/10

    MIDS : 8/10

    TREBLE : 8/10

    TIMBRE : 7.5/10

    ATTACK : 8.5/10

    IMAGING : 9/10

    SOUNDSTAGE : 8/10


    VS CCA C10 (25-40$) :

    SOUNDSTAGE of C10 is more around your head and feel wider, taller and deeper than the more intimate BQ3.

    BASS is more emphased, have more sub rumble and slam while BQ3 have tigher, drier bass.

    MIDS of C10 are brighter and more fowards, they have richer timbre but the upper mids can sometime be sibilant, BQ3 have transparent and very clear mids, but they sound intimate and slightly thin and congested.

    TREBLE exstention is sharper with BQ3, having more upper highs emphasis, they have more brilliance and details than C10 but instrument separation is less good. C10 feel more natural and musical due to richer lower and mid treble.

    CONSTRUCTION of both earphones is excellent, but the half metal construction of BQ3 give a more high end look. Both are comfortable, but I prefer the C10 because of less long nozzle that we don’t need to insert as deep as the BQ3.

    VS KZ ZS10 (35-55$) :

    SOUNDSTAGE of ZS10 is a little wider but is less deep and airy than BQ3.

    BASS is thicker and have more sub presence, but its slower and less controled and more boomy than more agile and tigh sounding BQ3.

    MIDS are brighter, thicker and while they have richer timbre than BQ3 they sound strangely more artificial and congested. Its like if vocal are too opaque and lack separation compared to BQ3 crisper presentation that are better separated and more transparent.

    TREBLE is more grainy with ZS10, but can dig more details in 6-10khz range, still highs have less sparkle and decay. BQ3 have organic but inconsistant treble, with a mid drop that give place for air but stole some details too.

    CONSTRUCTION of ZS10 is a cheap bothersome mess, very uncomfortable for the ears as well as for they eyes because they are horrifious looking. They are so immense its litteraly a bad joke. The BQ3 do not feel like a joke and have serious top quality construction that hit above its price range.

    VS BRAINWAVZ KOEL (50-70$) :


    SOUNDSTAGE of KOEL is airier and about same wide of BQ3, but less holographic, deep and tall.

    BASS of BQ3 is more extended, have more weight and resolution and better attack than drier and thinner sounding Koel.

    MIDS of BQ3 have more body but are less texutured and presence than more mid centric Koel, wich have wider vocal presentation as well as brighter more detailed mid range.

    TREBLE of Koel is brighter but less extended than BQ3, but it feel more balanced and linear, and while BQ3 have more brilliance in upper range, Koel have more sparkle in mid treble. Anyway, layering of BQ3 is from another league and level of microdetails is better too.

    CONSTRUCTION of Koel look fragile and kinda ugly, while the BQ3 look sturdy and beautifull. Koel is less comfortable and can have problem to fit properly due to strange housing shape.



    BQEYZ BQ3 is a very capable and agile earphones that offer a smooth, liquid yet detailed sound experience. Here, instead of upper mids bump that can make vocal too bright, we have softened upper mids that permit sibilance free enjoyment. The fast transient response help to give an organic musicality that do as good with electronic than pop and jazz, making BQ3 a great all arounder due to its permissive soundsignature that do not tend to make bad recording sound too grainy or harsh.

    The construction being irreprochable as well make this budget earphones a great contender in sub-100$ over crownded chi-fi market and to me it stand appart due to its unique soundsignature.

    If you’re looking for an energic, slightly warm earphones offering great resolution without agressivness in mids but extra details in upper range, I really think BQEYZ BQ3 can be the iem you search.

    No doubt BQEYZ company deserve more praise by budget audiophile.


    1. P1011006.JPG
    2. P1011008.JPG
    3. P1011206.JPG
      trellus likes this.
  3. DallaPo
    BQEYZ BQ3 | 2*DD & 3*BA | rating: 8.9
    Written by DallaPo
    Published Mar 10, 2019
    Pros - fun tuning, deep bass, beautiful details and impressive three-dimensionality
    Cons - Bass slips into the midrange, at high volume the midrange loses presence
    There he is - the supposed showcase IEM of BQEYZ.
    2 dynamic drivers cooperate with 3 balanced armature drivers. So here we are in a league with the KZ ZS10 in terms of the number of drivers, if you stick with hybrids. But in this review the BQ3 will rather compete with the HILL AUDIO S8, which I have to beat at the moment.
    Both are extraordinary in-ears in the price range (50 €), but also fundamentally different.

    BQEYZ are only a few examples when it comes to workmanship, texture and design. Also the BQ3 is no exception but joins the fantastic series (KB1, K2, KC2) seamlessly.
    All of them are very comfortable to wear, even if not everyone will confirm this due to their size and have very good cables on board.

    The fact that the BQEYZ packaging didn't hold any great surprises should be known by now, but there is already a small one. You get a cloth bag for storage, next to the cable and the silicone attachments.

    Wearing comfort and isolation are also in the upper range.

    First of all, I haven't had a bass that plays so low for a long time. Even at 10 Hz you can still guess it. Generally the bass is fantastic. Here we are again with the bass virtuoso REVONEXT QT2 and little wishes remain open. However, the bass can also slip into the midrange. Nevertheless it is hardly beatable by its impact and I hear some bass lines and details from the music, which I didn't know before, but rather thought to be the same bass tone. With nieces!

    The mids only got one BA of the 5 drivers. This is really noticeable. If you turn up the full power, the bass and the treble will also turn up, so that the mids don't follow anymore. They become more opaque and the voices, especially in men, seem distant. If you remain at a moderate volume, however, you won't feel it. They are very dynamic and spray with energy in contrast to the KC2. Of course, the quite pronounced V signature is also noticeable here, but in a hearing-friendly volume we have a very good transparency, naturalness and resolution.

    What I haven't heard in the price range before is the stage in width and depth. I even feel a bit overwhelmed at times, because the positioning works quite well, even if not outstandingly, but there is simply an unusual amount going on in the music and it can also seem restless. For orchestral music etc. this is of course something very special, with rock music I like it a bit more intimate.
    Here, of course, the high notes also contribute a great deal to it. They are bright and have a lot to offer at the top. The brilliance cannot be denied and they have a great presence and attention to detail. But you shouldn't be afraid of highs either, because it can become a bit penetrating here and there and in rare cases the sibilants are taken along. But that's where the song has to go for. Otherwise they can be heard very well in the long run. Jazz is also very recommendable with the BQ3.

    Despite the number of drivers we get the strongest V signature in the BGEYZ series. It's a lot of fun, because the bass is more than just a brute, it's also very textured, even if it slips into the midrange and the treble rarely tends to be a strain. But a little bit too opaque, especially when it gets louder. At normal volume we have a clear, warm and well balanced sound, with great resolution. The more you turn it up, the more the signature comes to bear. To minimize this you need a stronger DAC than most mobile phones offer.

    Since I prefer the more pronounced and detailed midrange of the HILL AUDIO S8 and the bass, as well as the treble, are a bit too much in the foreground for me, the BQ3 can't get over it, but they are quite at eye level. This is where two worlds meet, which is why personal taste is so important. The BQ3 has an impressive stage and three-dimensionality. In addition a pumping bass and radiant highs that inspire.


    More reviews:
    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CHIFIEAR/
  4. Wiljen
    BQEYZ - BQ3 - A well tuned, well built Hybrid!
    Written by Wiljen
    Published Nov 27, 2018
    Pros - Great build quaility, good cable, very pleasant signature with good clarity and lots of detail.
    Cons - no lip on nozzles, kit is less than expected for flagship

    I purchased the BQEYZ BQ3 at a small discount in exchange for doing a review of it. My thoughts are purely my own and I have no financial interest in either the vendor or the manufacturer.

    Unboxing / Packaging:

    The BQ3 ships in a black slipcover style box with the front emblazoned with the logo, model name, the driver configuration, and picture of the earpieces. The reverse has the pertinent data. Inside the cover, a small manual covers the tray containing the earbuds and tips. SML tips are provided with the medium installed on the earpieces and the small and large resting in the foam tray. The tray takes up 2/3 of the box with the lower 1/3 having a small open-ended box with the cable, and carry bag inside. in the upper half and a small box holding the accessories below. The earpieces themselves are well protected from three sides as the foam is the full depth of the box. If there is a complaint, it is that for a flagship the kit is a bit sparse. It would be nice to see some foams, additional tip types, and a true soft case instead of the carry bag provided.

    bq3-bf.JPG bq3-br.JPG bq3-contents1.JPG


    Build quality is very good as has been the case with all the BQEYZ products I have tried to date. The shape of the earpieces is very similar to the k2 and kc2 but with a different design to the faceplate. The Faceplates are rounded rectangles with a dish at the bottom that nicely fits the curvature of my ear. The exterior of the shell is an almost electric blue with a silver band around the outer edge. The 2 pin connector is mounted centrally at the top of the faceplate with a 45º angle to the front. L and R are clearly marked on the outside of the Connector. The inside of the shell is flat black with a pair of vents behind the nozzle which is located at the leading edge of the earpiece. Nozzles have a very slight forward rake, are fairly shallow and lack a lip to hold tips in place. I didn't find any proclivity for tips to come off but I suppose if changed excessively or stretched this might become an issue.

    bq3-ears.JPG bq3-ears3.JPG


    The BQ3 is listed as a 3 driver with 2 dynamic drivers and 3 balanced armature drivers per shell. The pictures tell a slightly different story, a single housing with dual diaphragms is used for the dynamics, a dual package BA and a single BA make up the physical units inside the casing. This helps explain how a 5 driver in-ear can be made in the same size case as previous models with a single dynamic driver. The impedance is listed as 22Ω with a sensitivity of 95dB. I do find this iem benefits from a high powered source or an external amp. It will run directly from a cell phone but some details don't come through as cleanly as they do with a bit of additional power.

    BQEYZ3 Break out.jpg


    The cable supplied is the standard 3.5mm to .78mm bi-pin connector style supplied with all the BQEYZ products thus far. Starting from the jack, it is a 90º design with a black metal housing and a chrome ring to match the earpieces. Strain relief is excellent as the cable exits the jack. the cable is a 4 wire braid up to the splitter (matching matte black metal) and twisted pair above the splitter to the connectors. a chin slider is provided as well. At the upper end of the cable, pre-formed earhooks lead to the .78mm bi-pin connectors. L/R are clearly marked on the connectors. If I had one complaint about the cable, the pre-formed earhooks are overdone and want to wrap around the earpieces when not in use and make it a bit more effort when putting them on than usually is necessary. A few seconds with a heatgun or hair dryer will allow you to reshape the earhooks to your liking. (Just make sure to remove the earpieces first). Otherwise, it is an excellent cable.

    IMG_0283.JPG bq3-splitter.JPG bq3-jack.JPG


    All sound notes were taken with the supplied large tips. One of the things I noticed immediately about the BQ3 is that getting the best sound out of it is not nearly as volume dependent as some models and for those who like to listen at low volume levels, the BQ3 is a good option as it does not lose detail as volume drops as some others tend to.


    The BQ3 has good sub-bass rumble with roll-off beginning to be evident below mid 40Hz range. Mid-bass is slightly forward but overall well controlled with good texture and fairly good attack and decay. Because of this, I didn't hear much congestion in the lower range on tracks like "Blues hand me down" that can get muddy quickly if not well controlled. The BQ3 definitely has a bass emphasis, but unlike many big-V signatures, it does not bleed into the mids profusely, nor does it get murky or one dimensional in the lower registers.


    The BQ3 exhibits mildly recessed lower mids that build back up and plateau with the lower treble. There is some mid-bass bleed that provides a bit of warmth and fullness to the lower mids and gives male vocals a laid-back feel. As you move through the mids, the begin to move forward with the upper mids nearly at the same level as mid-bass. This gives female vocals a nice push forward without getting harsh.


    The lower treble continues the climb of the mids and helps with moving the vocals forward and giving them a bit of extra clarity and detail. True treble drops back to avoid harshness with a bit of a bump at 6kHz and 12kHz to add some sparkle and air back in without sibilance or stridency. The good news is the BQ3 is bright and detailed without being harsh or aggressive like other similar offerings in the class.

    Soundstage / Imaging:

    Soundstage is well shaped with good dimensionality and some sense of height. I did find the BQ3 to be somewhat deceptive as stage is very much a function of source material and the BQ3 can seem rather intimate at times. Layering is very good as is instrument separation which makes it easy to close one's eyes and picture the orchestra seated on the stage. Imaging is also fairly good with movements on the stage being easily evident. I am not a gamer so can't speak to imaging for gaming use. I did not find any congestion unless it was recorded into the source material.


    TRN v80

    To me the TRN v80 is very good right up to the lower treble where it falls apart. The v80 has a grainy aggressive treble that ruins an otherwise good signature. The BQ3 shares a similar V shape and low end with the v80. Both have similar punch and bass depth, but control is a bit better on the BQ3. The Treble on the two is similar in that both are forward and fairly bright but again control is better on the BQ3 and the grain is much less evident than on the v80. I think treble extension may be slightly better on the v80 but not by enough to make the BQ3 to feel closed or lacking.

    Revonext QT3

    Here again, both share a similar low end, but the QT3 has an overly aggressive treble where the BQ3 is much less so. To me, the QT3 is only usable for short periods due to fatigue while the BQ3 is an all-day option with its much more polite nature.

    TFZ Series 2

    Again another V signature at roughly the same price point but this time a bit more different. The TFZ is plastic and nowhere near the build quality of the BQ3, cable is a tossup here. Signature wise, both are a V but the mids on the Series 2 are further recessed and considerably thinner than the BQ3 and the treble is more aggressive with a tendency to get a bit harsh on the Series 2 by comparison.


    Thoughts / Conclusion:

    Its not everyday you can buy a five driver per side flagship for less than $50. It is an even rarer day when that 5 driver per side sub-$50 flagship is very competently tuned and extremely well built. To say that BQEYZ came out swinging is an absolute understatement. I have five different models from BQEYZ now and all of them are best in class or very nearly so which is amazing considering the fact that 6 months ago they were not on the market. The BQ3 is the best Chi-fi hybrid I have tried to date for less than $200 and competes very favorably against a number of models costing well more than it does. If you like a V signature with plenty of detail, good control, and enough air to feel open without any tendency toward harshness, you should have already bought the BQ3 by now. If you are not a big fan of a V signature, you should still give the BQ3 an audition. It manages to pull enough detail (even in the mids) to make you forget its a V and it is just plain a fun listen.


    1. bq3-nozzle.JPG
      Luchyres, BadReligionPunk and earplug like this.
    1. View previous replies...
    2. raghav20
      Thanks man, i was looking for a good neutral iem around $50 one, so will go with kb100
      raghav20, Apr 12, 2019
    3. harry501501
      Hi Wiljen, I saw the your similar review on Audiofool too. i think you do them a bit of an injustice with your scores out of 10, especially with such a very positive conclusion on their sound. An overall 5.9/10 if i was researching them would put me off. I know that wasn't just down to sound, but mids 6/10 and treble 6.5/10, soundstage 6/10 are very average. i say this with respect as your reviews are great.
      harry501501, May 14, 2019
    4. Wiljen
      I understand that, but I try to be as realistic as possible about where they fit in the grand scheme of things. Compared to Something Like the Campfire Solaris or Empire Legend X, I think the score is about right. I recently reviewed the Hifiman He6se and it didnt break a 9 so you can imagine what it will take to get a 10 on my scale. 5.9 is almost a full point above average (5) which for a sub-$100 headphone is really pretty amazing when you think about it in that regard.
      Wiljen, May 14, 2019