π Audio - "Pai Audio"

Sep 18, 2015 at 9:50 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 449

HiFiChris

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Posts
4,678
Likes
10,737
Location


(image source: made-in-china.com)
 

 
Company website: http://www.paiaudio.com/indexEn.asp
 
Pai Audio on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paiaudio/
Pai Audio on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PaiaudioSZ
 


Web-stores:

ebay: http://stores.ebay.com/paiaudio
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aag/main/ref=olp_merch_name_1?ie=UTF8&asin=B00ZU89S6E&isAmazonFulfilled=0&seller=A4X08XUDEJ1P3
AliExpress: http://www.aliexpress.com/store/1738335
Penon Audio: http://penonaudio.com/Paiaudio-all-models
 

 
 
There are many IEMs that perform much better for the price than one would expect and there are many threads for those, but there was one company I couldn't find on Head-Fi: π Audio, also called "3.14 Audio" and "Pai Audio" (as there is already another existing company with the name "PI Audio").

The company is located in Shenzhen, China, and was founded in late 2014, with a total of 13 employees and offers currently 6 earphones (one dynamic IEM, four BA IEMs with (one to four drivers) and one dynamic earbud) through direct distribution on
 ebay, Amazon and AliExpress, though they are also expanding their international retailer and sales network.
 
 
The PR1 is an earbud with one 13 mm dynamic driver per side.
 
The DR1 is a dynamic in-ear with one dynamic driver per side.

The MR1 is a Balanced Armature in-ear with one BA driver per side.

The MR2 is a Balanced Armature in-ear with two BA drivers per side in two-way configuration.

The MR3 is a Balanced Armature in-ear with three BA drivers per side in two-way configuration.

The MR4 is a Balanced Armature in-ear with four BA drivers per side in three-way configuration.
 

I didn't know what to expect when I got their entry level and (former) flagship models, as there were no real reviews or impressions yet (at least not in English, I don't know if there are any in Chinese), and so I thought I would make the start and be the guinea pig.

I got their former flagship, the MR3, for $136 + shipping (the price has been updated since then and increased in the meantime because of production and part cost increments which is however still a very fair price given the sound performance). It features three drivers (actually two, as the mids-low drivers is a composite unit with two diaphragms, sharing the same enclosure and tube; but it is a commonly used principle for dual lows transducers), with two for the lows and one for the highs (it features a three drivers, two ways implementation).

I'll try to finish the reviews for the MR3 and 3.14 Flat (earbuds) this weekend or some time in the next week, but what I can say now is that [I finished the reviews and updated the post with the links.] [T]he MR3 really surprised me in a positive way, with a very balanced tuning (though it is rather on the v-shaped to bright side of neutral) and resolution that is clearly beyond the price (I'd say it is somewhere between the Shure SE425 and Westone W4R). It is really nothing for people who are looking for a warm/bassy IEM, but a neutral-ish to bright one.

 

Stay tuned.


/edit 09/19/2015: MR3 Review added
/edit 09/19/2015: 3.14 Flat Review added
/edit 12/14/2015: MR2 Review added
/edit 12/14/2015: DR1 Review added
/edit 06/01/2016: updated the introduction with added information about their new products
/edit 06/29/2016: MR4 Review added
/edit 07/09/2016: MR1 Review added
/edit 07/21/2016: Penon Audio added to the store list
 
Sep 18, 2015 at 9:50 AM Post #2 of 449
Reviewed: http://www.head-fi.org/products/3-14-mr3-music-headphones-ba-balanced-armature-headphones-with-3-moving-iron-units/reviews/14042
 


Pros: very neutral to bright-ish, great soundstage, MMCX connectors, resolution, audio quality beyond the price
Cons: cable not completely tangle-free, no hard case/zippered case, fit could be problematic for very small ears, no chin slider

 

Introduction:

Disclaimer: I got the MR3 myself directly from PaiAudio for the full retail price of $136. I am not affiliated to the company in any way and this review represents my honest opinion. Meanwhile, the price has been increased, but is (in my opinion) still very fair given the sound performance.

PaiAudio is a rather young company founded in 2014 and based in Shenzhen, China and has specialised in manufacturing In-Ear monitors. According to their information, the company that consists of totally 13 people has got national elite audio developers in their team.
The yet young company has currently four earphones in their product range, of these one is an earbud, one a dynamic In-Ear and two are Balanced Armature-based In-Ear Monitors, whereby all models except for the earbuds feature replaceable cables.

The company backs on direct distribution through ebay (http://stores.ebay.com/paiaudio), Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aag/main/ref=olp_merch_name_1?ie=UTF8&asin=B00ZU89S6E&isAmazonFulfilled=0&seller=A4X08XUDEJ1P3) and AliExpress (http://www.aliexpress.com/store/1738335).

In my review below, you can read how their flagship model, the MR3, sounds for the comparatively low price.

Make sure you also check out the PaiAudio thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/781399/audio-pai-audio#post_11926956


Technical Specifications:

Transducer Type: Balanced Armature, Knowles
Transducers per Side: 3
Acoustic Ways: 2
Sensitivity: 120 dB
Frequency Range: 20 – 20000 kHz
Impedance: 32 Ohms
Cable: 120 cm; L-shaped 3.5 mm connector
Colours: redblue or tan


Delivery Content:

The triple-driver MR3 comes in a plain black packing with a paper sleeve that has got a huge white “π” on top, which is PaiAudio’s signature feature. The actual packing underneath the paper sleeve is just entirely black and has got a magnetic flap that unveils the In-Ear monitors when one opens it. Apart from the In-Ears, a user manual, three pairs of white silicone eartips in different sizes (S/M/L) and a velvet travel pouch are included. I’d preferred to see a sturdy hard case or zipper case instead, but regarding the price for a triple-driver IEM, the velvet pouch is okay and aftermarket cases aren't expensive at all.
 


 
 
 
 



Looks, Feels, Build Quality:

The IEMs’ shells are relatively big and ergonomically shaped, but it generally doesn’t matter for me as my ears’ conchas are pretty big either.
Build quality is flawless as it seems and both halves of the shells are glued together very sturdily and pristine. Overall, the IEMs’ bodies seem valuable and convey the impression of being very sturdy.
For this price range rather unusual, the MR3 uses an MMCX coaxial connectors system for its detachable cables, just as Shure does for example.
The flexible cable is greyish, semi-transparent and seems thick, sturdy and very durable, although it doesn’t have strain reliefs. The only thing I’m missing is a chin slider, but as the cable is replaceable, it isn’t a real flaw at all.

The blue-coloured shells are translucent and one can see the three Balanced Armature transducers with their crossover and internal wiring, what I personally really like.

Taking a closer look at the cable, I noticed that the cables were swapped (left cable on the right shell and vice versa), but it seems to be a singular instance and is easily and quickly solvable.
 


 
 
 
 

 

 
 

Comfort, Isolation:

As I already mentioned, the IEMs bodies kind of resemble the size of the ears’ conchas and are rather big, which is not a problem for my large outer ears, but it may be too big for people with very small ears.
In the beginning, I couldn’t manage to get a good seal with the MR3, but it changed with time, as I found out that I have to gently turn the IEMs forwards, which is due to a rather unconventional angle of the rather short nozzle. Then, seal is pretty decent for me.
Comfort-wise, I find the MR3 to be very pleasant, and the cable has got close to zero microphonics, which is very nice.

As the shells are closed, which is typical for Balanced Armature earphones, isolation is on a high level, though of slightly lesser amount than extremely noise-isolating earphones like the models from Shure or Westone, but it’s still very high and on the same level as the UE900.


Sound:

Before I started critical listening, the MR3 got at least 50 hours of burn-in (just in case).
Listening tests mainly took place with my iBasso DX90 as source device and with FLACs (44.1 kHz, 16 bit) and MP3s (320 kbps cbr) as music files.

Tonality:

As there are no reviews or impressions of these In-Ear Monitors yet, I was eager for getting to find out MR3’s tonality myself and had different assumptions on how it could be. The result then hit me in a very positive way:
The IEMs are tuned to be very neutral sounding, with a moderate slope towards the bright side. Who’s looking for a warm or even nuancedly bassy sound is in the wrong thread.
Lows are very even and flat, only subbass gently rolls off in its lowest registers below 30 Hz. It could probably be that there is a very slight “emphasis” in the upper bass and lower fundamental tone area, but it is so minor and lows are extremely flat, so that it doesn’t matter at all.
Fundamental tone area is free of any emphasis, wherefore there is not even a slight sign of warmness – yeah, baby!
Mids are present (and probably even just a tad in the background) and in my ears tonally surprisingly correct, without any dark or bright tendency, which is an indicative of very clean and accurate tuning and adjustment work in the middle frequencies.
As lower treble and presence area aren’t recessed at all unlike many other In-Ears, the MR3 has an analytical character and reveals bad recordings almost like the Etymotic ER-4S or UERM.
Except for two emphasises at 4 and 6.6 kHz and a small dip at 8 kHz, highs are very even and have got a good extension of ca. 15 kHz, which is a good acoustic value for BA earphones.

Some would probably say the MR3 lacks bass, but it isn’t true, as the PaiAudio’s sound is very neutral with a bright tendency, but oh well, some people also find the ER-4S and UERM to lack bass, which just isn’t true.

Resolution:

Typically for In-Ears with Balanced Armature transducers, resolution is on a very high level.
Micro details are revealed very well, bass is arid, solid and fast, voices have got a very high level of details, although they slightly lack body and fleshiness. Treble is very detailed and clean, but has a very slight tendency to sounding metallic, although that is criticism on a very high level and often due to the recording, as in most cases treble is present, but lacks any sharpness.
Acoustic instruments’ and cymbals’ decay as well as trumpets sound very realistic and precise, although they have a minorly artificial attack due to the 4 kHz peak.

Regarding resolution, one doesn’t think that this is a sub $140 IEM that even features replaceable cables with MMCX connectors. Sound is very harmonic, coherent and overall natural with a neutral tonality.

Soundstage:

The next positive surprise for me was the MR3’s spatial presentation which is very spacious and airy.
Expansion to the sides is somewhat wider than at the Logitech UE 900, but in contrast to it the MR3 has got a nice and well-marked spatial depth. Take the UE900’s width, stretch it a little to the sides, add the Shure SE425’s spatial depth and voilà, you’ve got the MR3’s excellent soundstage. Brilliant!
Instrument placement and separation are on a very high level and even exceed the Shure SE425’s; overall soundstage is very harmonic, plastic and is almost as good as the Etymotic ER-4S’, which has got the slightly better instrument separation.


Conclusion:

At first listening, the PaiAudio MR3 might sound boring and unspectacular to some, just like neutral In-Ears typically do. As I’m a fan of neutral and bright sound, there was not much brain-adjusting time needed and I got used to the neutral/bright signature very quick.
Detail resolution and soundstage reproduction are far above what one could expect for the price and there is not really anything to complain about in terms of sound, probably except for the slightly subbass roll-off and the minimally metallic Hi-Hats attack, which however have got an excellent and realistic decay.
That PaiAudio uses high quality In-Ear bodies and MMCX connectors is another highlight of the great overall package.
My only real criticism is concerning the lack of a chin slider and a hard-case or zipper case, but that was basically it.

Therefore, the MR3 is a “neutralo’s and treble-head’s delight” with a very well price-to-performance ratio and an IEM I personally really like myself.
 
 
- Editor's note -
 
I want to slightly adjust my tonal description of the MR3. While it still sounds very balanced overall, I was facing some minor issues that led to a not entirely ideal insertion angle. Now knowing what the best insertion method is in my ears, the MR3 gains a little more bass and root while still remaining balanced (not unlike the UE900 and InEar Stage-Diver SD-2). Compared to the all-time neutrality reference, the Etymotic ER-4S, the MR3 has got 4.5 dB more bass and lower fundamental range. Compared to the UERM that is also considered as very neutral, the Pai has got 1.5 dB more bass and fundamental tone, wherefore its amount of bass is 100% identical to the InEar StageDiver SD-2 (the Westone W2(0) and Audio Technica ATH-IM02 feature similar sound as the more expensive SD-2) which is also considered as subjectively quite balanced sounding (and remember, neutrality in the bass with in-ears/headphones in general is still an individual thing and even some experts have deviant opinions on that).
So while the MR3 doesn't sound as neutral according to Etymotic Research's diffuse-field compensation target, it just features a little more impact than the UERM and is an overall still very balanced and natural but not boring sounding in-ear (people who like a bit more bass impact might still find the Pai too lean) with really quick, arid and controlled bass response. And its resolution is excellent for the price (other sub $300 BA in-ears don't deliver the same amount of resolution, naturalness and imaging precision).

 
Sep 18, 2015 at 9:51 AM Post #3 of 449
Reviewed: http://www.head-fi.org/products/3-14-paiaudio-flat-earbuds/reviews/14043
 


Pros: bass not muddy or bloated but relatively solid, fit, comfort, soundstage, good bass extension for earbuds
Cons: mids too warm, can't compete with similarly priced In-Ears, no chin slider, no traveling pouch

 

Preamble:

Disclaimer: I got the 3.14 Flat myself directly from PaiAudio for the full retail price of $20. I am not affiliated to the company in any way and this review represents my honest opinion.

PaiAudio is a rather young company founded in 2014 and based in Shenzhen, China and has specialised in making In-Ear monitors. According to their information, the company that consists of totally 13 people has got national elite audio developers in their team.
The yet young company has currently four earphones in their product range, of these one is an earbud, one a dynamic In-Ear and two are Balanced Armature-based In-Ear Monitors, whereby all models except for the earbuds feature replaceable cables.

The company backs on direct distribution through ebay (http://stores.ebay.com/paiaudio), Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aag/main/ref=olp_merch_name_1?ie=UTF8&asin=B00ZU89S6E&isAmazonFulfilled=0&seller=A4X08XUDEJ1P3) and AliExpress (http://www.aliexpress.com/store/1738335).

In my review below, you can read how their entry-level model, the 3.14 flat, sounds.

Make sure you also check out the PaiAudio thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/781399/audio-pai-audio#post_11926956


Technical Specifications:

Transducer: 13 mm dynamic
Sensitivity: 110 dB (@ 500 Hz)
Range: 20 – 20000 Hz
Distortion: < 3% (@ 500 Hz)
Impedance: 32 Ohms
Rated Power: 10 mW
Maximum Power: 30 mW
Cable: 125 cm; straight 3.5 mm gold-plated connector


Delivery Content:

The earbuds come in a small, cylindrical, translucent plastic box that features the model designation and the technical specifications printed on a paper wrapper that is inside the box.
The earbuds are stuck in a block of foam, underneath are a shirt clip, two pairs of black sponge tips and one pair of red sponge tips that just differ in terms of colour but have the same density and sound exactly as the black ones, as listening tests later showed.
A carrying pouch or something similar is not included, but the translucent cylindrical plastic box can also be used for that purpose.
 


 
 
 
 



Looks, Feels, Build Quality:

The red cable seems quite sturdy and has got an excellent strain relief near the straight 3.5 mm audio jack. Something I somehow miss is a chin slider.
The transparent earbuds’ bodies feel extremely sturdy and are rear-vented; the large driver’s back can be seen through.
The side that is facing towards the ear canals has got a generously perforated metal disc to protect the driver and is bordered by a black plastic ring.
There are no flaws in build quality and zero sharp edges.
 


 
 
 
 



Comfort, Isolation:

As I have got fairly large conchas (= auricles), earbuds often don’t fit as good as expected, but the 3.14 Flat fits perfectly, just as the SoundMagic ES10. Due to the large diaphragm diameter and the black plastic ring, the earbuds sit very firm, just as if they were glued, and I can even do a handstand and they still stay in place, that’s how securely they sit in my ears. Due to this, I can guide the cables over the ears, which reduces microphonics, but they aren’t that much loud either when worn straight down.

With attached foam tips, fit is just as perfect as without, but identifying the sides is easier as one can attach the red sponge tip to the right side.

I guess I don’t have to say much about isolation, as it is, typically for earbuds, minor to non-existent, depending on how firm and close the earbuds sit in the auricle.


Sound:

Before I started critical listening, the earbuds received at least 50 hours of burn-in.
Sound was mainly evaluated with my iBasso DX90 playing FLAC and MP3 files. During my testing process, I used the earbuds with and without the sponge tips, as you can read below.

Tonality:

The following impressions grew out of a tight fit with the earbuds pretty much locking my ear canals.

Without sponge tips:

Sound could be best described as dark, bassy and full-bodied. The whole bass is noticeably emphasised, with a dominant midbass. There’s a slight bit of subbass, but it’s not worth to mention – these are still earbuds. Midbass, upper bass and the fundamental tone area are boosted and also bleed into the lower mids, making them sound warm and lush. Mids in general are emphasised, too. Presence area is recessed, which also enforces the mids’ warm timbre. Treble in general is recessed, though there are two peaks at 6 and 10 kHz, but they’re still below ground line, though they help the earbuds not to sound too muffled or dull. Overall, the 3.14 Flat’s tonality reminds me of the famous Koss Porta Pro (though I haven’t compared them directly).
Treble extension is quite good and reaches up to 16 kHz, but isn’t much noticed with music due to the recessed highs.

When I hang the earbuds just loosely in my ears, midbass and fundamental tone lose mightiness, though upper bass remains, thus mids and voices sound less warm and tonally more correct.

With sponge tips:

Compared to other earbuds, the included sponge tips don’t have a drastic influence on the 3.14 Flat’s sound signature, but have an influence on the bass:

Fundamental tone, upper bass and midbass gain some level (about 1-2 dB), along with sub-bass that gets more rumble between 35 and 40 Hz and is audible with music, although it still rolls off below, which is normal for earbuds, but ~35-40 Hz are quite decent for earbuds. Though, with the sponge tips, highs are slightly damped and sound a little diffuse.

Resolution:

The more expensive Apple EarPods are a bit higher resolving, but have got a totally different tonality.
As these are very inexpensive earbuds, resolution is fine and also good for not-so concentrated listening sessions, although I would take other models for more serious listening sessions. Many inexpensive In-Ears are higher resolving, but as In-Ears aren’t earbuds and are much easier to get a high resolution with constantly the same tonality as they have a consistent seal and position due to their entirely different structural principle, I’ll leave it to that.
As far as I can say, instruments sound fairly good and realistic for the price and treble is overall airy and precise, despite its recession.
Despite its emphasis, bass isn’t too boomy, but rather controlled with a soft and full-bodied impact.

With the sponge tips, sound gets somewhat diffuse and lows lose aridness and become spongier, wherefore I only recommend using the 3.14 Flat with the sponge tips if even more bass is desired.

Soundstage:

Soundstage reproduction is quite remarkable for the price, with a precise impression of spaciousness. Lateral expansion is very wide, but without neglecting depth. Instrument separation and placement are surprisingly precise for earbuds and even beat some $30 In-Ears.
Layering is good, though it could be just a tad more precise.


Conclusion:

For inexpensive earbuds, the 3.14 Flat are fairly decently sounding, with a bassy and warm sound signature with prominent mids and recessed treble. Fortunately, bass has got a quite good impact and isn’t too slow, wherefore it has no bloat. With a looser fit, mids lose some warmness and are tonally better.
Lows have an impressive extension for earbuds and even show some signs of subbass; soundstage is very spacious, airy and has got a good and precise instrument separation for the price.
Fans of the Koss Porta Pro will definitely like the 3.14 Flat, which even features the better soundstage.

Sound isn’t as good as with inexpensive In-Ears, but no earbuds can compete with In-Ears in the same price range anyway and don’t even claim to do, but for earbuds, the PaiAudio 3.14 Flat are very decent.

 
Sep 18, 2015 at 9:51 AM Post #4 of 449
Reviewed: http://www.head-fi.org/products/paiaudio-dr1-single-dynamic-iems-with-replaceable-mmcx-cables/reviews/14770
 

Pros: value, resolution, replaceable cables (MMCX), soundstage, resolution (that however gets a bit overshadowed by the bass), build quality
Cons: lower-middle treble peak adds some metallic timbre at times, fundamental tone bloom, cable lacks chin-slider, female voices a bit veiled

 ​


Preamble:

Disclaimer: Before I start with my actual review, I’d like to thank PaiAudio and especially their Alex for providing me with a sample of the DR1 (price: ~ $37-47) in exchange for my honest opinion.
After I picked up their 3.14 “Flat” earbuds and the MR3 (I’ve also reviewed both) some time ago, here now comes my evaluation on the DR1.
I am not affiliated with PaiAudio in any way and this review reflects my honest thoughts on the product.

PaiAudio is a rather young company founded in 2014 and based in Shenzhen, China and has specialised in manufacturing In-Ear monitors. According to their information, the company that consists of totally 13 people has got national elite audio developers in their team.
The yet young company has currently four earphones in their product range, of these one is an earbud, one a dynamic In-Ear and two are Balanced Armature-based In-Ear Monitors, whereby all models except for the earbuds feature replaceable cables.

The company backs on direct distribution through ebay (http://stores.ebay.com/paiaudio), Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aag/main/ref=olp_merch_name_1?ie=UTF8&asin=B00ZU89S6E&isAmazonFulfilled=0&seller=A4X08XUDEJ1P3) and AliExpress (http://www.aliexpress.com/store/1738335).

In my review below, you can read how their single-dynamic-driver model, the DR1, sounds for the comparatively low price.

Make sure to also check out the PaiAudio thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/781399/audio-pai-audio#post_11926956.


Technical Specifications:

Transducer Type: dynamic
Transducers per Side: 1
Acoustic Ways: 1
Sensitivity: 120 dB
Frequency Range: 20 – 20000 kHz
Impedance: 32 Ohms
Cable: 120 cm; L-shaped 3.5 mm connector
Colours: tanredorangeblueshiny colours or gold


Delivery Content:

Just like all PaiAudio in-ears, the DR1 arrives in the an identically designed packaging with the same delivery content.
The in-ears arrive in a plain black packing with a paper sleeve that has got a huge white “π” on top, which is PaiAudio’s signature feature. The actual package underneath the paper sleeve is just entirely black and has got a magnetic flap that unveils the In-Ear monitors when one opens it up. Apart from the In-Ears, a user manual, three pairs of white silicone eartips in different sizes (S/M/L) and a velvet travel pouch are included. I’d preferred to see a sturdy hard case or zipper case instead, but at this comparatively low price with these features (real MMCX connectors for less than $50 IEMs!), I don’t really mind at all and am very happy that something like that pouch comes included.
 

 
 
 

 
 

Looks, Feels, Build Quality:

The IEMs’ shells are relatively big and ergonomically shaped, but it generally doesn’t matter for me as my ears’ conchas are pretty big either.
Build quality is flawless as it seems and both halves of the shells are glued together very sturdily and pristine. Overall, the IEMs’ bodies seem valuable and convey the impression of being very sturdy.
For this price range very unusual, the DR1 uses an MMCX coaxial connectors system for its detachable cables, just as Shure does for example.
The flexible cable is greyish, semi-transparent and seems thick, sturdy and very durable, although it doesn’t have strain reliefs. The only thing I’m missing is a chin slider, but as the cable is replaceable, it isn’t a real flaw at all.
Through the shell, the dynamic driver-unit can be seen.

For just a small upcharge, the in-ear bodies can also be purchased in different colours, among a large selection of faceplates with shiny glitter applications (there are 13 glitter options available).
In my case, I chose “option 5” which has got wine-red in-ear bodies with glittery red faceplates. In my opinion, this design looks extremely nice, especially in direct light.
 

 
 
 
 

 ​
 

Comfort, Isolation:

As I already mentioned, the IEMs’ bodies kind of resemble the size of the ears’ conchas and are rather big, which is not a problem for my large outer ears, but it may be too big for people with very small ears.
In the beginning, I couldn’t manage to get a good seal with the MR3, but it changed with time, as I found out that I have to gently turn the IEMs forwards, which is due to a rather unconventional angle of the rather short nozzle. Then, seal is pretty decent for me.
Comfort-wise, I find the DR1 to be very pleasant, and the cable has got close to zero microphonics, which is very nice, though I wouldn’t mind having a chin-slider.

Although there is a tiny vent in each body, isolation is on a really good level and just very slightly below PaiAudio’s entirely closed in-ears MR2 and MR3.


Sound:

My main devices for evaluating the sound of the DR1 were the iBasso DX90, DX80 as well as the HiFime 9018d. Music files were generally stored in FLAC as well as WAV format, but also some MP3s were used.
Just in case, the in-ears were burnt in before listening tests started.

Tonality:

The DR1’s tuning could be described as bass-heavy.
With a mighty emphasis of around 13 dB, the lows are evenly emphasised from the sub-bass over the mid-bass, upper bass as well as lower fundamental tone. There is a good amount of sub-bass rumble and from about 150 Hz on, level starts decreasing into the lower mids, where it stops. Therefore, the fundamental tone is also clearly emphasised and adds weight and mightiness to the lows.
Surprisingly, mids are very correct and just a slice darker, but don’t really seem coloured or very warm. Though, brighter and female vocals sound a bit veiled, “normal” voices however do not and sound entirely good.
In the upper mids and lower highs, level is a bit pushed back. From 3 kHz on, level increases a bit and comes back with a narrow emphasis at 4.5 kHz.
There is a small dip at 5.5 kHz; the upper treble along with the super-treble above 10 kHz are in the background, but extension is good.

Due to the peak at 4.5 kHz, some instruments in the treble area have a somewhat metallic decay and sound slightly artificial – but overall, I find the treble to be better tuned than let’s say for example the Zero Audio Carbo Tenore (which however has got the better implemented bass tuning in my opinion).
+13 dB compared to the Etymotic ER-4S sound quite much, but the doesn't sound that bassy; it is rather a smooth, warm, fundamental tone oriented IEM like the Sennheiser IE 80.

Resolution:

Let me start with the positive things – overall resolution seems consistent and no area is worse than the other. For the price, resolution is neither bad nor extraordinary, but just quite good and appropriate (just like the Carbo Tenore’s as well). Despite the strong bass emphasis, lows are relatively fast and controlled, but that isn’t audible at first sight (/listening) because of the phat fundamental tone which makes the lows appear a bit blunted and even a bit woolly (the lows somehow appear to me like if a subwoofer was playing underneath a blanket). It is a bit sad, as elsewise especially the sub-bass is really controlled for inexpensive dynamic in-ears (and clearly more arid than the Carbo Tenore’s) – a slightly different tuning with a slower rising fundamental tone would have been more advantageous.
Although voices (even bright ones) are tonally quite correct despite the sound signature with the mighty bass, the fundamental tone along with the slightly pushed back presence area and the dip at 5.5 kHz make especially female voices appear a little veiled – lowering the fundamental tone and compensating the 5.5 kHz dip makes the veil (that is just a negative side-effect of the tuning and wouldn’t have been necessary) go away.

With a little better fine-tuning, the actual resolution would be much more obvious, although the DR1 is already on a good level and on Carbo Tenore-standards (slightly better and slightly worse in some areas).
Dynamic dual-drivers in about the same price range (like the Havi B3 Pro I or TTPod T1 (non-E) however outperform the Pai by about half a class.

Soundstage:

It seems like a good spatial presentation is something all in-ears from PaiAudio have in common, as the DR1 has got a wide soundstage with a nice depth (which is a bit more than half as distinct as the width). Instrument placement and separation are really good and the Pai clearly beats the Carbo Tenore in this regard. The generated soundstage is coherent and appears quite spacious.
Compared to the Havi B3 Pro I, the DR1 is just as wide as the B3, but the Havi has about 40% more spatial depth. However, both are on the same level of instrument separation and spatial precision.


Conclusion:

The PaiAudio DR1 are in-ears with a good price-to-performance ratio (notice that even real MMCX connectors are used and that the bodies are well built).
Technically, the in-ears are strong, but like a rough diamond that needs some final touch – which could be achieved by a little tonal fine-tuning in this case, as its (lower middle) treble is sometimes a bit too metallic in impact and especially female vocals appear a bit veiled due to the mighty fundamental tone along with the moderately recessed presence area and the peak at 5.5 kHz – that is acceptable for the price, but a bit more is possible.
The spatiality, sub-bass rumble and resolution are quite decent.
Who is looking for a very bassy sound with a clearly emphasised fundamental tone and a general signature that goes a bit into the direction of the Sennheiser IE 80 will find an IEM with a good price-to-performance-ratio as a quite inexpensive portable companion in the PaiAudio DR1.
In my opinion, solely the tonal tuning could have been better made, as it somewhat influences the perceived resolution and is currently probably not the most advantageous – but all in all, my overall résumé is actually quite good with 75% or 3.75 (rounded close 4) out of 5 possible stars.

 
 


 
Sep 18, 2015 at 9:51 AM Post #5 of 449
 
Reviewed: http://www.head-fi.org/products/3-14-mr2-ba-balanced-armature-headphones-with-two-units-of-moving-iron-new-style-earbud-stage-monitor-earphones/reviews/14767​
 

Pros: value, resolution, replaceable cables (MMCX), good soundstage, treble more realistic than MR3's, natural and smooth

Cons: pouch instead of case, cable lacks chin-slider

 

Preamble:

Disclaimer: Before I start with my actual review, I’d like to thank PaiAudio and especially their Alex for providing me with a sample of the MR2 (price: ~ $129-139) in exchange for my honest opinion.
After I picked up their 3.14 “Flat” earbuds and the MR3 (I’ve also reviewed both) some time ago, here now comes my evaluation on the MR2 – and as a little teaser, just like the MR3 back then, my conclusion is really good.
I am not affiliated with PaiAudio in any way and this review reflects my honest thoughts on the product.

PaiAudio is a rather young company founded in 2014 and based in Shenzhen, China and has specialised in manufacturing In-Ear monitors. According to their information, the company that consists of totally 13 people has got national elite audio developers in their team.
The yet young company has currently four earphones in their product range, of these one is an earbud, one a dynamic In-Ear and two are Balanced Armature-based In-Ear Monitors, whereby all models except for the earbuds feature replaceable cables.

The company backs mainly on direct distribution through ebay (http://stores.ebay.com/paiaudio), Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aag/main/ref=olp_merch_name_1?ie=UTF8&asin=B00ZU89S6E&isAmazonFulfilled=0&seller=A4X08XUDEJ1P3) and AliExpress (http://www.aliexpress.com/store/1738335).

In my review below, you can read how their dual-driver model, the MR2, sounds for the comparatively low price.

Make sure to also check out the PaiAudio thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/781399/audio-pai-audio#post_11926956.


Technical Specifications:

Transducer Type: Balanced Armature, Knowles
Transducers per Side: 2
Acoustic Ways: 2
Sensitivity: 120 dB
Frequency Range: 20 – 20000 kHz
Impedance: 32 Ohms
Cable: 120 cm; L-shaped 3.5 mm connector
Colours: redblue or tan


Delivery Content:

Just like all PaiAudio in-ears, the MR2 arrives in the an identically designed packaging with the same delivery content.
The in-ears arrive in a plain black package with a paper sleeve that has got a huge white “π” on top, which is PaiAudio’s signature feature. The actual packing underneath the paper sleeve is just entirely black and has got a magnetic flap that unveils the In-Ear monitors when one opens it. Apart from the In-Ears, a user manual, three pairs of white silicone eartips in different sizes (S/M/L) and a velvet travel pouch are included. I’d preferred to see a sturdy hard case or zipper case instead, but regarding the price for a BA-based dual-driver IEM, the velvet pouch is quite okay and aftermarket cases aren't that expensive at all.
 

 
 
 


 
Looks, Feels, Build Quality:

The IEMs’ shells are relatively big and ergonomically shaped, but it generally doesn’t matter for me as my ears’ conchas are pretty big either.
Build quality is flawless as it seems and both halves of the shells are glued together very sturdily and pristine. Overall, the IEMs’ bodies seem valuable and convey the impression of being very sturdy.
For this price range rather unusual, the MR2 uses an MMCX coaxial connectors system for its detachable cables, just as Shure does for example.
The flexible cable is greyish, semi-transparent and seems thick, sturdy and very durable, although it doesn’t have strain reliefs. The only thing I’m missing is a chin slider, but as the cable is replaceable, it isn’t a real flaw at all.

Through the transparent shells, the Balanced Armature drivers, internal wiring and crossovers can be seen, what I personally really like. Also visible are the two sound tubes (just like the MR3, the MR2 features a dual-bore design with dedicated acoustic filters in each bore behind the mesh).

Upon request, other colour schemes can be obtained as well (orange in my case).
 

 
 
 
 

  ​
the blue one on the left is the MR3 (note the MR2's large single BA woofer)​


 
Comfort, Isolation:

As I already mentioned, the IEMs’ bodies kind of resemble the size of the ears’ conchas and are rather big, which is not a problem for my large outer ears, but they might be too big for people with very small ears.
In the beginning, I couldn’t manage to get a good seal with the MR2, but it changed with time, as I found out that I have to gently turn the IEMs forwards, which is due to a rather unconventional angle of the rather short nozzle. Then, seal is pretty decent for me.
Comfort-wise, I find the MR2 to be very pleasant, and the cable has got close to zero microphonics, which is very nice, though I wouldn’t mind having a chin-slider.

As the shells are closed, which is typical for most Balanced Armature earphones, isolation is on a high level, though of slightly lesser amount than extremely noise-isolating earphones like the models from Shure or Westone, but it’s still very high and on the same level as the UE900.


Sound:

My main devices for evaluating the sound of the MR2 were the iBasso DX90, DX80 as well as the HiFime 9018d. Music files were generally stored in FLAC as well as WAV format, but also some MP3s were used.

Tonality:

After the really felicitous experience with the MR3 in-ears, I was especially eager to know how the dual-driver model sounds. Its sound heads into the smoother, more bass-emphasised direction, but is overall still fairly balanced. With the small emphasis in the upper treble, the MR2 could also be described as very slightly, tendentially v-shaped, but “somewhat bassier than balanced” is in my humble opinion the better fitting characterisation.

In my ears, the bass is emphasised by about 8 dB (compared to the ER-4S) and mainly focusses on the mid-bass, upper bass as well as fundamental tone, although the sub-bass fortunately doesn’t roll off either. The overall emphasis is very even.
The following midrange is in my ears slightly elevated (and therefore no typical v-shaped midrange) and deep voices are very slightly on the warmer side (due to the lows’ emphasis that starts extending at about 500 Hz), but still what I’d consider as tonally very correct and they are far from being coloured. The following presence area and middle highs are more in the background, wherefore the sound gets smoother and guarantees for really good, non-fatiguing long-term listening. At 9 kHz is a moderate peak.
Above 10 kHz, the extension is still good up to 14 kHz, wherefore subtle sparkling/glare in this area can still be heard, what is quite nice.

The MR3 follows a tuning philosophy that pretty much resembles my UERMs’ tonality with a tad more lows.
The MR2 is bassier and sounds darker as well as more relaxed than the MR3 – especially the middle treble which is less present on the dual-driver makes the sound appear more forgiving and better for long-term listening. In contrast to the MR3, the treble is not bright, but also not really dark – “relaxed” would be a fitting term.
In the super-treble above 10 kHz, the MR3 has probably got the slightly better extension by 1 kHz.

Resolution:

In terms of detail retrieval, the MR2 is really good, simply typical for BA-based in-ears. Not much surprising, the lows are fast, responsive and arid, but also gain a good bass body from the large Knowles woofer, what I personally like about it. The mids are precise and unveil singers’ variations very well. The treble is also high resolving and sounds natural.

Regarding resolution, the triple-driver MR3 is superior to the MR2 (and also beats the Shure SE425). Typically for the M3’s small dual-woofer, the bass is somewhat more arid than the MR2’s large woofer, but the dual-driver MR2 has got the nicer bass body and is about just as fast and controlled (and not really soft at all, though softer than the MR3’s small, responsive BA-woofers).
Although the MR3 has got the better treble resolution, I kind of prefer the MR2 in the upper department, as it lacks the slightly metallic impact of the MR3, wherefore the MR2’s treble sounds more natural.

Compared to the Shure SE425, the American slightly wins – the Shure has got the quicker bass and the somewhat higher detail retrieval in the mids and lower highs. Though, with music that contains many instruments, I find the Pai to be better controlled (most likely due to the larger soundstage). Not much surprising, the Chinese in-ears have got the better extension above 10 kHz.

Soundstage:

Just like the MR3, the MR2 is spatially convincing, although its soundstage is slightly narrower and also not as deep, but still quite remarkable (and in contrast to some multi-drivers like the UE900 or Westone W4R, the Pai has got a good spatial depth). And also like the MR3, MR2’s instrument placement and separation as well as layering are really felicitous (the MR2 is just as precise as the MR3 in this regard) and above the Shure.
Once again, the whole presentation is really successful and beats the Shure in terms of spatiality.


Conclusion:
 
PaiAudio’s MR2 is, just like the MR3, a really good Balanced Armature-based in-ear that retails for a really fair price. In contrast to the flagship that is more neutrally and balanced tuned, the dual-driver represents a gentler, bassier signature that I would consider as “trimmed fun”.
The spatial imaging as well as detail retrieval are clearly on a better level than what the price suggests – though, in contrast to the slightly more expensive MR3, the MR2 is no “SE425-killer”, but comes quite close in performance.
Sonically, there is nothing to criticise at this price point and the MR2 has got a formidable price-to-performance-ratio, wherefore it gets 96% or 5 out of 5 possible stars in my evaluation.

 
Sep 19, 2015 at 2:29 AM Post #6 of 449
Most annoying thing was the different spelling of the brand name. Took me across 4 websites to find it on Amazon and Alibaba. My 3.14 MR3 are on their way, looking forward to post impressions here. How is its bass performance Chris, and the cables?
 
Sep 19, 2015 at 3:06 AM Post #7 of 449
Pass performance is pretty good - it is firm and solid,but doesn't lack body. It is just not emphasised (except for probably a slight lift in the upper bass/lower fundamental tone). Definitely nothing for bassheads. In my ears, sounding is quite comparable with the Etymotic ER-4S, but a little brighter.
Sound quality is definitely above what one would expect for the price.

The cable is neither very good nor very bad, but actually quite decent. As the IEMs feature MMCX connectors, one can just use what he/she prefers. As I am a stock-tips-stock-cable guy, I'll leave it to others to try aftermarket cables.

EDIT:

In my ears, insertion is a little different than with other concha-/kidney-shaped IEMs: twisting them, I don't get a deal. I have to push them in, just as with earbuds or piston-shaped IEMs like the UE200 or Zero Audio Carbo Tenore, then seal is excellent.


EDIT 2:

By the way, the IEMs also have got a double bore design.
 
Sep 19, 2015 at 4:17 AM Post #8 of 449
The sound signature sounds appealing.
 
The change from the DTECs to 3300s on the MR3 that is mentioned in the description of the sales page had me wonder a bit, although it was mostly conjecture, about what triggered the switch. A possibility is that they ran out of stock of what are plenty of "reappropriated" BAs that come from RMAed universals (many sellers on Aliexpress and Taobao sell these stocks). There are also RMAed drivers that come directly from Knowles China (more likely since I don't see any universals using the 31323 in specific, after consulting Tomscy2000's lovely chart here). A lot of this pivots on how large an outfit Pai is (or have become). I'll leave with the fact that I see Pai stuff being sold by sellers who seem to be participating in the very practice I described above (the selling of RMAed BAs).
 
Of course it could have also been a design choice. I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. All in all this doesn't really affect anything other than the possibility that QC might not be aces on these. Again, mostly conjecture and leftover information I source from folks much smarter than me
 
As a sort-of-related tangent, there are also sellers who I've seen sell empty acrylic shells that look remarkably like the ones used on the Pais (well, to be fair, acrylic shells all look fairly similar, so it might not have been from Pai specifically). Another possibility is that Pai sources them from these sellers. There was a shop on Aliexpress that seemed to have shut down a few months back, they were selling some DIY equipment fairly cheaply (couplers, ear simulators, massive amounts of Sonion 2600s, resin mixes) that were also selling these shells, so it's clear that whoever is making them is doing so in great quantities. It could all be the same source, and maybe I just need to brush up on my Chinese, or maybe I've watched too much Pulp Fiction. Pai is really just one out of a hundred of these DIY-shops so none of this would come as a big surprise.
 
Back to the MR3 (sort of). This is from a guide that Sonion provides here.


The 2389 is basically Sonion's take on the ED29689 (it's in the name!) so this should convey a general idea of what it'd take to tune setups like these. (This is not to say that all 3300 + 2389/ED29689s are identical, of course placement, tubing and dampers used, i.e. tuning, make all the difference). I'd be interested to know if you can see what dampers are on there (the information that gives is not super-useful, at best; it's just out of curiosity).
 
Sep 19, 2015 at 4:36 AM Post #9 of 449
As a sort-of-related tangent, there are also sellers who I've seen sell empty acrylic shells that look remarkably like the ones used on the Pais (well, to be fair, acrylic shells all look fairly similar, so it might not have been from Pai specifically). 


AfaIk, PaiAudio also sells those shells on their AliExpress store.
They even offer various "custom" shell designs: 



 
  Back to the MR3 (sort of). This is from a guide that Sonion provides here.

 


eek.gif
 Wow, that looks very familiar and resembles what I hear. Nice finding!

I might get into measuring FR in a couple of weeks, so I'll see what the graph looks like after everything is set up. Too bad the graph doesn't include the raw measurement without HRTF compensation, as I don't know yet if I can add HRTF compensation to the measurements in ARTA - but we'll see.

 
  I'd be interested to know if you can see what dampers are on there [...]


I can see them (actualy just their metal cylinder), but it is impossible to see what colours they have - both just sit very close to the transducers. But I'll try to find out.
 
Sep 19, 2015 at 4:56 AM Post #10 of 449
AfaIk, PaiAudio also sells those shells on their AliExpress store.
They even offer various "custom" shell designs: 


Yes, I noticed those as well (I joked with someone offline that they looked like kidneys with glitter on top). The shells I referred to were more along the lines of the ones you have in the OP and were spread across a few sellers way back (I started noticing them around the time I stopped posting, that would have been...around a year ago?). Especially the bore shape. Anyways, just thinking out loud there.
 
 
eek.gif
 Wow, that looks very familiar and resembles what I hear. Nice finding!

I might get into measuring FR in a couple of weeks, so I'll see what the graph looks like after everything is set up. Too bad the graph doesn't include the raw measurement without HRTF compensation, as I don't know yet if I can add HRTF compensation to the measurements in ARTA - but we'll see.

I more or less posted that up to show the details of the tubing and dampers, and what it would entail for a dual woofer + full range setup, the FR would not have been very useful for comparative purposes (I don't know how Sonion compensated it). I would be surprised if measurements would be similar to that one if at all.
 
Being on Linux, have not used ARTA (only REW and DRC), so unfortunately can't help you there.
Edit: From the ARTA FAQ:
 A: Starting from version 1.0.1, ARTA has capability to apply frequency response compensation to spectrum and frequency response curves.

 
 I can see them (actualy just their metal cylinder), but it is impossible to see what colours they have - both just sit very close to the transducers. But I'll try to find out.

Just realizing that the metal mesh would probably cover that up, should have thought of that beforehand, my apologies.
 
Sep 19, 2015 at 5:18 AM Post #11 of 449
I noticed this blurb on most of their description pages:
 [size=large]The same style as star"I am a singer"[/size]

For those who are confused, it's a reference to this show, which is a adaptation of this Korean show. I'm guessing that the CIEMs that the singers wear have grown in popularity and Pai's marketing is trying to capitalize on that. I find it sort of funny.
 
Sep 28, 2015 at 3:51 PM Post #12 of 449
I just took a look at the composite lows drivers, they say:
 
                    33AE011e
[Sonion Logo]   0746

(http://www.sonion.com/Products/Transducers/Receivers/~/media/Files/Products/Data%20Sheets/Transducers/Receivers/Receivers%203000/Receiver%203300/33AE011_v1n.ashx)


BTW, I just listened to the MR3 again, along with the UERM, Shure SE425 and Havi B3 Pro I.
Conclusion: Yep, bright-ish neutral sound signature, with some moderate emphasis in the upper bass/lower fundamental tone, which adds a little warmth and compensates for the highs. Still, this area is less "emphasised" than on the Shure SE425, Havi B3 Pro I (stock tips, good seal provided) or InEar StageDiver SD-2.

My opinion hasn't changed yet - the MR3 does a great job for the asked price.

Though, I'd love to see others' impressions, but I know that the majority doesn't appreciate that much neutral/brightish-balanced-neutral sound.
 
Oct 1, 2015 at 7:40 AM Post #15 of 449
To be honest I don't know what to really say about them. I won't and can't really evaluate the sound signature or any of that stuff. It's way clearer, less bassy and more detailed in the high side compared to the CKX5iS that I have. I just feel really good about them. They look good and feel good and sound better than anything I would ever have. It has a really good seal and above average isolation. I picked up some good stuff about its soundstage that I can't articulate.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top