InEar ProMission X

Price: € 2089.

Available in 3 color themes and 2 shell sizes options, standard and small.

Official ProMission X page

The review is based on a demo unit arranged by InEar company.



The box presentation is elegant and discreet. It may not be meant to amaze as seen on other flagship products but it is also different. It arrives in a large black wood box with a soft magnetic closure. The upper level holds the leather case with the ‘InEar’ writing on it carrying the ProMission X earphones themselves inside. Beneath the foam there is an extra paper box with all the accessories. The package includes a selection of standard silicone tips in 4 sizes, a pack of SpinFit CP100 (the new version) also in 4 sizes and 3 sets of Comply Foam TS400 tips. There are also 3 cleaning cloths and a 6.35mm adapter. Lastly, the cerumen filter H3 set, one set for each right and left nozzles colored in red and blue, respectively. These filters are to replace the one installed in case wax gets in the nozzle, but I had no need to try them.



Design

Like all the InEar models the ProMission X (PMX) follows their very unique design. There are many universal fit in-ear sets that intend to offer a more custom-like design, some better achieved than others. However, the InEar’s housings could hold a category by their own being the closest design to real custom IEM shells. These make options like the iBasso IT03 and IT04 or the qdc feel much like another standard universal IEM. As for build quality, well, at first look the PMX may seem cheaper than what they really are and the reason might be the very lightweight shells. However, InEar already introduced the use of wood within their previous models, and now with the ProMission they offer a new mix of resin and wood. It is not just a faceplate ‘wood’ design that you may choose on some CIEM, but real wood material mixed with the acrylic resin. This so called ‘hybrid wood’ mix is finally covered by a glossy coating giving the whole earpieces a very shiny and smooth finish. All of this contributes into a striking colorful and exotic design, unique for each single piece. There are 3 color options to choose, and the one here is the “resin blue” which I also find to be the nicest among them (lucky!).



The shells are completely smooth with zero sharp corners to be spotted. You can still see they are made of two pieces and look very solidly assembled as a single unit. With all the so custom-like shape, the nozzle is quite short. The length itself is fine considering the whole earpieces will be covering all the outer ear part, but missing the proper angle to achieve an even more natural fit into the ear canal, and with this kind of shape there is no room to adjust the shells any further.



Of course, this will strongly vary between different users. Even after testing hundreds of ear shapes to find a most accurate universal custom fit there is still no guarantee it will fit everyone. In fact, the fit and comfort are probably a ‘hit or miss’ with the PMX shells. The earpieces are quite large too. Fortunately, the PMX now also arrives in a ‘small’ version, more suited for smaller ears, and personally, I found the shape to be quite correct with my ears, but not the size. They fit too snugly and the whole contour of the shells can add too much pressure after not a long listening time. I guess the ‘small’ versions should had fit much better. Those with larger than average ears could pick the standard size, but otherwise for small to medium ears the smaller shape will be a safer bet.



For the inner side of the earphones, the selection of the right ear tips is most critical, much more than any other universal IEM. The very fixed fit and the nozzle length/angle can be also a challenge to find the proper seal and comfort. The included standard silicone tips didn’t work at all for me. The new SpinFit CP100 were right in comfort but cannot keep a seal. Comply Foam tips are very good, though they tend to affect the overall sound and are not durable as silicone tips. Instead, the SpinFit CP145 are much better match, and ultimately I opted for dual flange tips (see photos). These dual tips have a softer texture, longer body and wider bore so not only they provide the best fit, comfort and almost immediate perfect seal with the PMX but also the best sound quality.



Passive noise isolation, is probably the highest I’ve tried with universal IEMs, which is not surprising having the uniquely shaped and very large shells. Unlike real custom IEM with a deep fit, the fit on the PMX is normal to a bit shallow.

Lastly, the cable is quite simple. It looks plain and somehow underwhelming for a high priced IEM, especially when compared to the included cables by other brands that include more customized and attractive cables. On the good side, the cable is quite compact and soft with a 4-wire twisted design, very light and has no noise. (Cannot comment much about durability due the limited time with the ProMission X). The 2-pin connectors are standard 0.78mm. and there is memory wire to act as guides. 3.5mm plug and y-split have a rubber coating. The curious part is the plug unusual shape. It is 90º terminated but with very compact round shape.



Sound Quality

For the audio section, this new flagship sets a round number of 10 drivers per side. It is an all balanced armature drivers’ setup like the previous models released by InEar. It may sound not as fancy as the mixed hybrid offers from other companies which have recently included electro/magneto-static drivers, but there is still no prove that multi-BA configurations had been outdated yet. Moreover, a pure armature IEM still has its advantages next to hybrid sets, and anyways it is not the type or number of drivers used, but the quality and final tuning what makes a good earphone.



Primary sources used here were the iBasso DX220 (with stock AMP1 Mk2) and the Shanling M6, which personally I find the most accurate and favorable for the PMX or testing earphones in general. Other DAPs (from HiBy, iBasso, Fiio, Shanling) were tried as well. Also, the stock 3.5mm cable was mainly used.

As for the Pro Mission X own sound, it follows a very neutral, uncolored tuning with a ‘monitor’ reference kind of response. Undoubtedly, the overall balance is a strong suit of the PMX and it is very technically strong, well weighted for being flat to neutral and shows very high refinement and clear detail all the time on its whole frequency.



For an earphone focused in neutrality and detail the low end on the PMX won’t offer great power or depth, but as result of that won’t show any unwanted mid-bass bloat. Even so, the amount of 10 drivers per channel is not for nothing. There is a slight hint of added warmth that prevents the lows of sounding too sterile, and being all BA units the PMX offers a punchy and fast bass response. The bass control is top-notch and extremely accurate. I don’t find it yet to be the fastest earphone so far, however it can be seen as a plus here as the low end sounds more realistic in attack and natural in decay. Still, it is not an alternative to dynamic based drivers used for lows as it lacks the fullness on notes and texture. Quantity wise while soft in character and without not much of impact, the PMX would still rate as slightly above neutral. A good thing, being not completely flat making it more competitive for what a top-tier IEM should rank. The extension is a bit limited with a small roll-off not reaching the lowest sub-bass range. Interestingly, it is not a source picky set but yet responds nicely to different DAPs in sub to mid-bass amount and overall balance. (For instance, with the HiBy R5 there is more sub-bass feel and with the DX160 a greater mid-bass power what coincides with the general impressions of these players; a good sign of the transparency of the ProMission X.)

The whole midrange is completely balanced. If the bass could carry a soft sense of warmth, the midrange on the other hand is even more neutral. Pretty much flat; never sounding distant but not forward either. There is no sense of coloration and leans to being cold and more analytical. The detail is very impressive capable of showing the micro nuances with much ease. It is not presented in an aggressive way as it manages to keep a degree of musicality despite the too neutral approach. As with many good balanced armature drivers, the mids are liquid and very accurate; dynamics, however, are kind of missing for what could be expected at this high price point. Instruments are quite equally weighted, just having a bias to upper instruments due the brighter tonality, with a sharp separation and coherent positioning. The cooler tonality is also accompanied with some dry texture, which is clearly noticed with vocal oriented music genres. They are very clear and detailed but just missing the sweetness and emotion to make them shine.

Treble performance is amazing. Easy to say it is one of the best things of the PMX if not the best. It performs at top-tier level as should be expected of a flagship earphone at this high price point. Quality is simply excellent and it is rivaling another TOTL model (and favorite), the Anole VX from qdc. Could not care much about the number or type of drivers used for highs as long as there is quality, and the PMX has that. The treble presentation on the PMX is on the bright side of things. While the lows and mids are fairly neutral, the highs are always forward and very prominent. Despite the greater amount of treble it remains impressively controlled without being unpleasantly sibilant or harsh. Balance is excellent too, lacking a lower-treble/upper mids peak to avoid being ‘hot’, and very even with the upper treble region. Still, the bright nature and amount can be tiring after some time, but those who have a bright treble preference will sure be enjoying the PMX. Sparkle and attack are everywhere and in a rather natural way. The top-end extension is superb as well, unlike the low-end part. I think the custom-like fit blocking lot of outer noise and increasing isolation level allows the PMX to perform very comfortable at lower volume levels.

Detail retrieval is top-notch. It may not escape from having a bit of analytical tilt on it, and if considering its ‘monitor’ kind of tuning it should be expected. Nevertheless, the PMX is capable of showing all the minimal tiny details and in a so effortless and precise way. My preferred synergy is with the Shanling M6 even over the DX220. With the M6 it is capable of a more vivid and realistic treble. The presentation is very airy and open. It is spacious but the soundstage is not too large having a more oval shape with greater width than depth or height, and while imaging is accurate it is still missing in overall dynamics for what a TOTL may perform. Even switching to balanced mode changes are still minor to boast about and the extra power is not something needed for the full BA ProMission X low impedance anyway. It does perform noticeably greater with mid to high sources, but finding the correct ear tips is more critical here.



Comparisons

I have not listened to the other InEar products before, but comparisons were done with other flagships (and previous flagships).

qdc Anole VX (10 BA)

A direct rival of the InEar ProMission X would be the qdc Anole VX. They both retail for $/€ 2000+ and carry an all multi-BA setup of 10BA units per side and are considered the current flagships of each company (well, there is a new 10K+ Limited qdc IEM, but that’s out of reach). The qdc VX does hold a semi-custom like shell, but the PMX is still beyond that being the closest to a real CIEM could be. However, the VX has an extra feature, 3 switches that allow to change the impedance for the different frequencies and can give a some extra sound tuning; probably something similar the own InEar ProPhile 8 applied, now missing on the PMX. In terms of design and built, both have flashy appearance, though the qdc VX feels more solid with thicker shells. The 2-pin on the PMX will be more comfortable when choosing extra cables over the proprietary qdc sockets. The qdc is not really a small earphone, and yet looks more compact next to the InEar large shells (standard size version). Fit is simply more ‘universal’ for the qdc and ear tips rolling is much easier too, while isolation goes for the PMX.
As for what sound quality goes, they both perform on top-tier levels with excellent resolution, accuracy and incredible micro detail everywhere. Do note that the lower impedance rate of 10Ω on the PMX means a lower volume need to match the more standard 15~19Ω from the VX. In their technical abilities, both IEMs perform on about the same level. Speed (mainly in bass) is a higher on the VX, and so the extension in the bass, capable of reaching a more natural and solid sub-bass impression. It is more about their tuning where they differ. Even taking the qdc with all switches off it has a more even bass performance, more equal sub to mid-bass response, whereas the PMX shows an earlier roll-off and more focus in its mid-bass impact, though about the same in pure quantities as the qdc mid-bass. The qdc sounds still fuller in overall note, especially when reaching the midrange adding more body and natural texture, much sweeter vocals and generally forward mids. The PMX is more neutral and colder, leaner, less favorable for vocal genres but yet has a very sharp instrument separation. In the treble area, the qdc maintains more neutrality while the PMX boosts a brighter treble, more aggressive and greater in attack. Treble extension is still about the same. VX is more natural, and even presents a bit more air and open sound over the PMX. Soundstage feels wider on the PMX with less depth and height, while the qdc VX offers a similar width along with a more surrounding 3D effect.
Ultimately, my preference goes for the qdc over the PMX, though considering having used the Anole VX for a much longer time may not be completely fair against the PMX. However, depending on synergy results the PMX pairs much better with the Shanling M6, while the qdc VX is less favorable with it but less demanding with any other sources.



Dita Twins – Feality & Fidelity

Between the two Dita Twins, the Fidelity is the one that shares a very similar signature with the PMX, linear, neutral to bright. There are certain differences that some may address to the dynamic (single) driver vs. the all BA on them. In pure bass quantities they are very close, nothing much above just neutral, though the PMX can have a bit more punch (BA type of), while the Fidelity a more even response. Also, the extension is more natural on the Fidelity reaching a more realistic sub-bass texture. The PMX has more speed; however, the Fidelity can benefit from some extra amplification power and reach great dynamics. In the midrange, both are rather flat with a cool tonality. The PMX is more liquid and clear, more open and effortless. It is also more forward when presenting all the tiny details. In the highs both go for a bright, forward and aggressive treble. The Fidelity can sound harsh and too sharp, and while the PMX is also large in treble amounts it manages a much better control and comfortable to listen presentation, much rarely showing signs of sibilance. The detail is also superior on the ProMission X, higher in resolution, definition and precision.



On non-sound comparison, these are too different. An all metal shell, very shallow fit in a kind of half-in-ear shape and much simpler design on the Dita earphones. A plus on the Dita models is the special cable with its popular exchangeable plug system.



Hifiman RE-2000

The RE-2000 may not be a direct contender to the ProMission. The retail price of the first RE-2000 (gold) was of ~$2000 but then lowered and with the cheaper Silver RE-2000 that now is even below the $1000 mark. The one I tried is the Silver RE-2000 anyway. The RE2000 has a very wide U-shaped response. Neither of the two are more than slightly above neutral in the low-end, soft in impact yet very accurate. Despite being a dynamic driver (whatever that “topology” tech adds), there isn’t any more or better sub-bass reach on the RE2000 over the BA drivers of the PMX. The PMX may even show a hint of warmer tilt and extra mid-bass punch when called for. Midrange is closer to the above Fidelity than it is to the PMX, and can just have a nicer texture for upper vocals (in the not unusual Hifiman fashion), while the PMX is more precise and analytical in nature. The main problem with the RE2000 is a treble peak usually at the 2~4kHz region giving some unevenness and grain to the treble performance. It is somehow fixable changing tips (and even a better cable can help; my preference, the PW Audio No.10), while the PMX despite being bright enough it retains its control all the way making it a more refined earphone. The PMX is always more effortless and more micro detailed. For music genres, the RE2000 can excel with acoustics music, where the PMX suits better to electronic types.


Hyla Sarda

Comparing to the Hyla Sarda is much easier than any of the above. Reason is quite simple, they sound completely different. The Sarda uses a triple driver hybrid (dynamic, BA, piezoelectric) combination and presents a very pronounced V-shaped signature. Even the Hyla is priced ~$1000 lower it still can offer things that the ProMission X cannot. The dynamic driver on the Hyla is tuned for a very powerful and engaging low-end. The mid-bass lift is nothing unusual, but where it excels is in the sub-bass extension, texture and depth. Of course, the PMX wins in speed and accuracy being a multi-BA. Soundstage is greater on Hyla, and not just against the PMX, but among many other in-ear sets. Midrange is warmer on the Hyla but more distant with its v-shaped curve. PMX sounds neutral and very balanced. Treble quality goes for the PMX for sure; the Hyla is energetic and similar in just quantities but lacks the air, openness and treble dynamics of the ProMission X.