Preamble:
Founded in February 1994 originally as an OEM manufacturer, the Chinese audio company DUNU has grown in the past few years and launched many in audiophile circles highly appreciated in-ears, whereof the Titan 1, an in-ear with semi-open design that reminds me more or less of an “earbud with a nozzle”, was one of their most appreciated and discussed in-ears in the last time, next to the fabulous hybrid DN-2000J that I also really like myself except for the sometimes too bright upper mids and middle highs.
Lately, DUNU’s Vivian approached me, telling me the first model of new hybrid in-ears that were unveiled a few months back, were ready. So without further ado, just little time later, the postman showed up with a package containing the hybrid quad-driver DN-2002 in-ears that feature two dynamic drivers for the low frequencies and each a Balanced Armature for the midrange and treble, aligned in a three-way design.
The MSRP is $379, so it is just little more expensive than their objectively excellent DN-2000J. Just adding $30 more for an in-ear with one more driver and replaceable cables is really fair in my opinion.
How does the DN-2002 compete against the DN-2000J and other hybrid in-ears? Let’s find it out together!
Technical Specifications:
MSRP: $379
Drivers: 4 (2x dynamic, 2x BA)
Frequency Response: 10 Hz – 40 kHz
SPL: 106 +/- 2 dB
Impedance: 10 Ohms
Cable length: 1.2 m
About Hybrid In-Ears:
As you can read from the technical specifications and mentioned multiple times in the preamble, the DN-2002 is a little different from most In-Ears and doesn’t only use dynamic or Balanced Armature transducers, but combines both in one shell.
Most In-Ears use dynamic transducers for audio playback which have the advantage of covering the whole audible spectrum and achieving a strong bass emphasis without much effort. Valuable dynamic drivers are often said to have a more bodied and musical bass that has a more soft impact and decay and lacks of the analytical character that BA transducers are known for. On the downside, in contrast to headphones with other driver principles, dynamic transducers often have a lower resolution.
Higher-priced and professional IEMs mostly use Balanced Armature transducers, which usually have got a higher resolution than dynamic drivers, are faster, more precise and have got the better high-level stability, which is important for stage musicians that often require higher than average listening levels. On the downside, it is quite hard to cover the whole audible spectrum with just a single BA transducer and strongly emphasised bass is only possible with multiple or big drivers. Some people also find In-Ears with BA transducers to sound too analytical, clinical or cold (in several active years in a German audio community where I wrote multiple reviews, gave dozens of purchase advice and help, from time to time I heard people that got into BA earphones for the first time using these attributes for describing BA earphones, especially their lower frequencies).
Hybrid IEMs unite the positive aspects of both driver principles and use one dynamic transducer for lows reproduction and at least one BA driver for covering mids and highs, wherefore the often as “musical” described bass character remains and the BA transducers add resolution and precision to the mids and highs – and that’s what the DN-2002 does with its technology. It is addressed to those people who perceive the clinically-fast character of BA transducers as unnatural, but want to keep the mids’ and highs’ resolution, speed and precision.
Delivery Content:
What you will probably notice if you are familiar with DUNU’s more recent previous products is that the DN-2002’s packaging varies a little, now having a printed cardboard slipcase with a sturdy black cardboard book-style package box underneath.
The slipcase sleeve is designed not unlike their previous products, showing a large picture of the in-ears on the front (along with the Comply Foam and SpinFit logos – yes, DUNU is now a SpinFit partner). The back is, typically for DUNU, really nicely arranged, showing and explaining all features with little pictures and text on the upper two thirds and giving information about the technical specifications in the lower third.
The actual packaging/container can now be slid out, is entirely black with just a silver DUNU logo on the magnetically attached book-style lid that can be opened up. Inside, one will then see the in-ears and a new Peli-Case-style carrying case that contains a 6.3 to 3.5 mm adapter, a shirt clip, two ear guides, one pair of Comply Foam tips, three pairs of white silicone tips and last but not least a bag with three pairs of SpinFit tips (a fourth pair/size is already installed on the in-ears).
The delivery content is not bad but DN-2000J’s was much more impressive.
Looks, Feels, Build Quality:
Honestly speaking, I personally don’t find the design of the DN-2002 appealing. The DN-2000J is elegant and sleek, the DN-2002 is rather averagely looking. Not particularly cheap at all but not special either. Its form language somewhat reminds me of Audio Technica’s older models. Not a bad thing but I personally dislike the bodies being halfway silver and halfway black; I would have preferred either entirely black or silver shells. Sure, the large cylindrical shape was used for the two dynamic woofers, but I personally don’t like the colour choice – I much prefer the looks of the DN-2000J, Titan series and the design renders of the DK-3001 and DK-4001.
But as you know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so let’s move away from that irrelevant digression.
The actual bodies that contain the drivers are cylindrically shaped and rather on the large side. The front segment is made of CNC-milled steel, the rear one of high quality matte black plastic and features a DUNU logo on the faceplate.
The cables are attached to a cylindrical bridge on the sides and feature rotation-locked and very firmly sitting MMCX connectors to drastically minimise wear – a really good thing. What I find quite handy is that the right earpiece sports a nice glossy red ring for easy side recognition next to the classical side-marker letters.
The in-ears are really well built and feel very sturdy.
The cable is of very high quality and one of the most flexible and best seeming non-twisted/-braided cables besides the one Jays is using for their q-JAYS. It is basically identical to the one that is used for the DN-2000J but has got rotation-locked MMCX connectors. The angled 3.5 mm connector (that is made of metal) shows the serial number; the y-split and cable cinch are made of metal as well. For sure, the DN-2002 has also got DUNU’s patent-pending silicone cable management tool.
The cables above the y-split have got an air canal on the inside and can be squeezed which should improve durability – the cable of the DN-2000J has got the same air canal. Though, I would still wish an additional, real strain relief directly at the in-ear bodies near the MMCY connectors, as despite the air canals, the cable might still get stressed near that part.
The carrying case looks and feels rather cheap compared to DN-2000J’s superb aluminium case but is nicely bolstered on the inside and if it helped to keep the price down, I don’t see it as a too negative aspect, nonetheless a DUNU logo on the lid would be desirable.
A cool addition is that the white silicone tips are branded with the DUNU logo.
Comfort, Isolation:
The in-ears are relatively large – overall together with the bridge, they are larger than the DN-2000J, so one shouldn’t have the smallest ears for a good fit and seal. In my large ears, I don’t have any fit or comfort issues at all, but the lower section of the cylindrical bridge touches my conchas when wearing the in-ears with the cables over the ears which is however not the intended wearing style (a workaround is turning the in-ears by 90 or 180° (the latter would be actually wearing them down but guiding the cables over the ears), then the bridges don’t touch my ears anymore and comfort is excellent).
The in-ears are actually intended to be worn with the cables down. The more professional “around the ears” style that is also the industry standard for higher priced and professional in-ears, as it improves fit/comfort and highly reduces microphonics, is not as easy because of the large bridges, however it is possible but depends on one’s ears (or can be done if the sides are swapped, but then the red ring is on the “wrong” side). The best method for me is to insert these in-ears regularly “cable-down” and then to guide the cables around my ears.
I’m wearing the DN-2002 with the cables around the ears. I do so with about all in-ears (and even some earbuds). Microphonics are then close to nothing.
Isolation is actually not bad for vented in-ears – it is somewhat above average, about on-par with the DN-2000J but doesn’t yet reach closed models’ levels.
Sound:
Although I am no real long-period burn-in believer with headphones, I let the DN-2002 burn in with noise and sine signals for 100 hours before the brain-in period started – just in case.
For listening, I mainly used the iBasso DX80, DX90 and LH Labs Geek Out IEM 100. The tips that I used were mainly the largest white silicone tips but also the largest included SpinFit tips (just for comparing them to the regular tips). No other tips than the included were used.
Tonality:
White Silicone Tips:
Let’s have a closer look (more precisely listen) at the white silicone tips, as the SpinFit tips didn’t work out for me as advertised (more about that further below).
The sound with the white silicone tips still reminds me of the DN-2000J however with more bass, somewhat gentler treble and less thin mids. So the (upper) highs are still somewhat on the brighter side but the bass is meatier. Mids take a slight step back but not too much. Some v-shaped tendency? Yes, but with less concentration on the sub- but more on the midbass, not unlike the DN-2000J but with more impact and meat.
Without much vent covering, the DN-2000J was more on the leaner, brighter side. Compared to the super flat Etymotic ER-4S, it had 5 dB more bass than neutral. Compared to the UERM that is also considered as a neutral in-ear, it had just about 2 dB more bass (actually a bit less). It was an overall rather bright in-ear with just slight v-shaped tendency. With more vent covering or installed sub-bass rings, the bass increased somewhat, became fuller. Sitting in my ears, the vent wasn’t covered much, so it was a quite balanced in-ear with more closeness to the bright and lean side in the midrange and middle highs. The DN-2002 is different: it is meatier, bassier, more impactful. The highs are somewhat on the bright side but clearly less lean. Vocals are flatter, not lean anymore. It was definitely designed for those who found the DN-2000J too shy in the bass and too lean and strident in the vocal and treble range. It also sounds a bit bassier and less lean than the DN-2000J with attached bass rings.
The DN-2002 has approximately 7 dB more bass than the ER-4S and ca. 4 dB more than the UERM, nonetheless it sounds not just a little bassier than the DN-2000J (ca. 5 dB more bass than the ER-4S) – why? Simply because the DN-2002 has a bit more upper bass and lower root than the DN-2000J, which is already responsible for most of the perception of bass heft and impact. Then of course, the DN-2002 is not as lean in the midrange and has less middle plus lower treble quantity that compensated for the DN-2000J’s modest bass elevation. I’ve double- and triple-checked it with an equalizer – the DN-2002 doesn’t have that much more bass quantity but does not sound just a little bassier (lowering the DN-2000J’s treble and upper mids by about 4 dB, it becomes obvious that it sounds subjectively not just a little less bassy because of the treble that compensates for the lows – and increasing DN-2002’s treble, it is suddenly perceived as less bassy as before).
Let’s see what I am hearing, listening to music and using an equalizer (to check for the intensity of emphasises) as well as sine generator (the DAC-Amp I used for the sweeps was the HiFime 9018d because of its super low output impedance):
The lows’ emphasis starts rising down from about 650 Hz in the upper middle root, the climax is being reached at 180 Hz. Level then remains stable from there on down to 50 Hz. After that, in the sub-bass, it rolls evenly off with just little presence below 30 Hz. As the climax is already being reached quite high, the weight on low notes is somewhat heavier and thicker compared to in-ears that have their bass’s climax set at lower frequencies. With that emphasis being more of a humped than straight lined shape, the fundamental range gains some warmth and weight as well as upper bass kick (for my very personal preference, the climax could be set somewhat lower with just a little less fundamental warmth and upper bass kick or with more sub-bass quantity as compensation).
Midrange is quite flat and takes a step back after 1.5 kHz in the lower treble/presence area. Vocals therefore sound neutral and neither thin nor warm and appear natural although there is slight warmth on very low voices – but without skewing tonal midrange balance at all. I then hear a broad-banded peak at 4 kHz that is however still slightly below the ground-line, afterwards in the middle treble between 5 and 6 kHz, level is somewhat recessed and adds enough headroom for a broad-banded emphasis between 7.5 and 10 kHz (EQ experiments show around 4 dB). Super treble past 10 doesn’t have much less level and is surprisingly flat and high extending past 16 kHz.
The DN-2002 works excellent with most genres and sounds natural (though, if you don’t like a forward upper treble and want a leaner, neutral bass, these still might be probably not the best choice for you). Rock, Metal, Pop, Acoustic, Instrumental, Country, D&B, Classical, Rap, Hip Hop and Jazz as well work really nice. Tonal balance is natural with some weight to the lower notes. Trumpets, violins and cymbals sound realistic. However, I find Electronical music with high treble density and generally tracks with high treble density or when a note hits exactly the peak frequency to be somewhat strident at times because of the upper highs’ emphasis – way less often than with the DN-2000J but more than with the UPQ Q-music QE80 which has audibly even more upper treble energy but sounds smoother to me with tracks that have high treble density.
The DN-2002 is not for the ones who want a lean, flat, low quantity bass. Although it is definitely no basshead in-ear at all and not particularly really bassy, it has a firm upper plus midbass and lower plus lower middle fundamental range, giving the sound good weight and kick when called upon. The added weight also comes in handy in noisy and bass-masking environment such as public places in larger cities.
SpinFit Tips:
As mentioned earlier, the SpinFit tips didn’t work for me as advertised. I guess it could be because of my ear canals that are quite wide and straight. I am able to get a good fit and insertion angle with about all in-ears and there are just few exceptions that are different. With the vast majority of in-ears, the SpinFit tips reduce the (especially upper) treble in my ears, which is the total opposite of what the measurements I made indicated. With most in-ears, my measurements actually show increased treble quantity with the SpinFit tips compared to the standard ones – which is quite strange, as I hear it as the exact opposite. There are just very few exceptions that when the in-ears don’t fit well in my ears and don’t have a sufficient angle, the SpinFit tips then work as intended/advertised, increasing treble energy and extension in my ears.
And well, with the DN-2002, it is the first case: measuring the frequency response with the SpinFit tips, the graphs actually show that treble levels increase – in my ears however, I hear it all differently: the bass gains some level, the upper treble decreases. The upper frequencies in general are less prominent, are more in the background but also sound less edgy, smoother. This might probably vary among individuals with different ear canal shapes, as I have read that for many people, the SpinFit tips work as intended with most in-ears.
As a result and personal preference, I used the regular white silicone tips for further listening and comparisons instead.
Resolution:
The DN-2002 adapts one of the DN-2000J’s great strengths – detail retrieval.
Just as with the DN-2000J, I see the amount of details to be somewhere between the UE900 and Westone W4R of which I find the latter to be one of the highest resolving sub-$1k UIEM (but everything else about the Westone is not really suiting my subjective taste at all, honestly speaking).
Speech intelligibility is excellent, with good retrieval of singers’ variances, the overall density of fine details is really good, the upper range is pretty refined and very detailed and clear (even slightly more refined and differentiated than DN-2000J’s).
The bass is superbly controlled, pretty fast and nonetheless with a really nice and tactile body. The body is somewhat less present than the DN-2000J’s but as compensation, decay is quicker and the bass therefore appears a little more arid (at the cost of slightly less tactility) – do you remember my DN-2000J review where I wanted the bass to be a little bit more arid/quicker at times? I think DUNU has nailed it with the DN-2002. The bass doesn’t reach the level of details and speed of a good closed BA woofer but is quite well comparable to a vented BA bass and superbly suits those who don’t like the dry, clinical BA character but want more musicality and body without having to give speed as well as control a miss. Attack is quick. Multiple bass lines and quick double- and triple-kicks and punches are no mud but precisely separated from each other. Decay is a little slower than with better closed-back BA woofer but not slow at all – it is somewhat quicker than the already fast DN-2000J’s bass and almost as quick as FLC8s’ woofer; it’s the magic of DUNU: a really high quality dynamic bass with some nice body but excellent control and really good speed.
Soundstage:
As I perceive the soundstage to be identical to DN-2000J’s, I decided to just copy and paste my thoughts on the triple-driver, as I don’t really have much more to add: “
Soundstage and spaciousness are two of the DUNU’s greatest strength and top notch. [DN-2002’s]
spaciousness is [almost]
as easy-going, roomily and effortless as the UERM’s, which means that there are no real perceptible borders to the sides and that the soundstage varies in expansion, depending on the track.
Lateral expansion as well as depth are very well and extensively marked, but luckily don’t sound artificially stretched.
Instrument placement on the imaginary stage is very precise and instruments have got a very good separation from each other, without bleeding into each other. Also layering is very homogeneous and without any gaps.
Hats off, that’s pretty nice.”
It has a good expansion both in terms of width and depth. It is not the largest overall soundstage and does not reach full-sized headphones’ levels but is quite spacious, of good quality and especially precise.
---------
In Comparison with other Hybrid In-Ears:
ORIVETI PRIMACY:
The PRIMACY has got less upper bass and lower root, therefore sounding slightly less bassy. The PRIMACY extends deeper in the bass and has more sub-bass without roll-off. PRIMACY’s mids are a little brighter. In the treble, it is smoother in at least 90% of the time and only comes more obtrusive if a note hits its exact, narrow peak frequency in the upper highs.
Regarding resolution, both aren’t far apart at all but the DN-2002 sounds overall somewhat more refined and differentiated in the mids and treble. Bass speed and control are pretty similar, but here the DN-2002’s “DUNU-magic” kicks in where the bass is super controlled and fast as well but has still a nice body and level of detail.
The DUNU’s soundstage is wider but especially deeper and with the more precise instrument placement, separation as well as layering.
UPQ Q-music QE80 (Fidue A83 OEM):
The DUNU has got slightly more bass. QE80’s mids sound a bit brighter and more distant. The UPQ has got more level in the presence area and is therefore a bit more critical with bad recordings. In the treble, the QE80 is more forward, also in the upper treble, and therefore thinner sounding than the DN-2002. The DUNU has the more realistic upper end timbre, especially audible with violins. Although the UPQ has got more upper treble quantity, it sounds a bit smoother and less edgy with music that features a dense treble.
The QE80 has the better tactile, more liquid bass body. With fast recordings however, the DUNU shows its supremacy as it has got the better controlled and faster plus more arid bass. In the midrange, I wouldn’t be able to say whether one in-ear is better to the other – they are just differently tuned here, with about similar details. In the treble however, the DN-2002 unveils more details and sounds more differentiated.
Soundstage width is identical but the DN-2002 has got more spatial depth and better instrument separation, portrayal of emptiness and layering.
FLC Technology FLC8s (red-black-green/gunmetal filter combination most of the time for the comparison):
The FLC8s has got somewhat less upper bass and lower fundamental range with these filter combinations, about similar midbass quantity and (much) more sub-bass (DN-2002’s is rolled off in the lowest registers below 50 Hz). Mids are about similar with the FLC’s being minimally brighter by a hairbreadth and a little more distant with these filter combinations. In the middle highs, the FLC is somewhat more relaxed. Depending on the used nozzle filters, FLC8s’ upper treble is either about comparably present (gunmetal) or somewhat more emphasised (green). While the FLC’s upper treble emphasis is narrow, DN-2002’s is broad-banded. With both in-ears however, upper treble realism is identical.
The FLC is overall slightly more refined and detailed. We’re speaking about nuances and no worlds, though. What the DN-2002 doesn’t reach is the FLC8s’ super detailed and liquid, UERM-like midrange. The DUNU doesn’t lack much behind but the FLC reveals more fine nuances in the mids. In the treble, both are almost identically detailed and the FLC is probably just minimally more revealing by a razorblade’s thickness. In the bass, the FLC’s dynamic woofer is minimally quicker and more arid. However, the DUNU has got the nicer, more magical body and is just slightly “slower”.
FLC8s’ soundstage is a little wider than the DUNU’s, however less deep. In terms of spatial precision and instrument separation, the FLC is slightly more precise, with instruments that are very cleanly placed and sharply separated from each other – even slightly more than the DUNU’s. The DUNU has the somewhat nicer layering though.
It is a very close call overall with the FLC being just slightly better.
DUNU DN-2000J (grey silicone tips, no spacers, no sub-bass ring):
The DN-2002 doesn’t have much more bass (just about 2 dB more) but sounds not just a little bassier – how can that be? It’s actually quite simple to explain: the DN-2000J is brighter in the midrange, lower as well as middle treble, whereas the DN-2002 has less bright mids and shows less level in the lower and middle treble. As a result, the upper bass and lower plus middle root appear more present, which is also because DN-2002’s lows blend a little more into the upper root/lower mids.
The DN-2000J sounds thinner and brighter, the DN-20002 is bassier and less bright. The quad-driver model also has less present upper mids/presence area and is therefore a bit more forgiving with bad recordings.
There is just a minor difference in resolution: the DN-20002 has got slightly better separated and more refined seeming highs wherefore it sounds a bit more natural in the treble. It also has the somewhat quicker decay wherefore the bass has a little less body but is a bit more arid.
Soundstage is spot-on similar in my ears.
I’d call it more a side-grade to minor upgrade on the technical side.
---------
I know the biggest questions some probably have is whether the DN-2002 is an upgrade over the DN-2000J. Firstly, it depends on one’s sonic preferences – the DN-2000J is brighter, leaner, has got a lower quantity bass and the brighter mids and middle highs. On the technical side, sound preferences excluded, I would say the DN-2002 falls somewhere between a side-grade and a small upgrade. Treble refinement and differentiation seem to have improved a little, bass decay is slightly quicker. There are no major differences on the technical side, just small updates. If one has the DN-2000J and really likes it, I see no real reason to get the DN-2002. However, if one finds the DN-2000J’s mids a bit too lean and middle treble too strident at times and wants a somewhat higher quantity, meatier low-end with a more kicking bass, the DN-2002 seems like a good way to go.
Conclusion:
DUNU has done a great job with the DN-2002: it is addressed to all who find the DN-2000J to be too thin, bright and weak on low notes. Bass is strong, especially in the upper bass and therefore firmly kicking, however not suppressing the other frequencies. The soundstage is identical to their triple-driver flagship and really nice. My slight disfavour of the DN-2000J that I sometimes find a little bit too bright and lean in the midrange as well as middle highs has been resolved with the DN-2002. It keeps DUNU’s special bass character with excellent control and speed, however slightly less body than the DN-2000J. As compensation, DN-2002’s lows are a bit quicker and more arid – and its treble seems a slight bit more differentiated.
Is the very slight clarity/differentiation increase along with the slightly more arid bass worth the upgrade from the DN-2000J if you already have one? No. Is it worth getting the DN-2002 if the things mentioned in the review sound appealing to you and you found the DN-2000J too bright, lean and shy in the bass but liked it otherwise? Then definitely yes.
Personally, I would wish a bit less upper bass but instead more sub-bass quantity. This doesn’t influence my rating as it is my preference and yours might differ. What is objectively better is the midrange balance – DN-2000J’s was a little too bright at times.
All in all and for the price, I would go slightly up in sound quality rating for the price and hybrid in-ears compared to the DN-2000J (94%), giving the DN-2002 overall 95.5% for the price and performance as a hybrid in-ear (possible improvement as with most in-ears: somewhat more natural upper treble with tracks that have a high upper frequency density). What could be improved a little (regarding non-sound-related things) would be probably a better native over the ear fit by using a shorter bridge, better strain relief directly at the MMCX connectors, a nicer looking carrying case (get a DUNU logo on it at least) and different looks (inner and outer body parts with the same instead of different colour).
With a 70% sound/price to 30% build/fit rating, I get to an overall rating of 4.6775 out of 5 possible stars.
