CK Moustache (previously active as "HiFiChris") – Audio Review and Measurement Index Thread

[CK Moustache]

DUNU Titan 6


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Despite the name, they do not really have much in common with the original Titan series (completely different design and beryllium- instead of titanium-coated dynamic drivers used inside the Titan 6).

Available in two different colours.

Nice unboxing experience.
Come with three sets of differently sized silicone ear tips. One set consists of ear tips that are combined with ear hooks.
Nice looking but more boutique than functional carrying case, made of artificial leather.

High build quality and nice design; it barely resembles the “typical” DUNU Titan series design anymore, though.
I like the satin brown shell colour, silver accents and brushed faceplates with polished bezels (that triangular design, according to the website’s product page, is inspired by the balalaika).

Similarly to the carrying case/purse that came with my Campfire Audio Andromeda, I don’t like the Titan 6s’ either. It is likewise padded with artificial fur inside (which is more likely to attract dust and dirt and less easy to clean that silicone or plastic), and has also got those folding “wings” inside which ultimately only limit the interior space.
Therefore, I would have preferred a more traditional, less boutique but more functional carrying case – for example one of the same style that came with most of the other Titan series in-ears (perhaps a bit taller for an easier fit of the in-ear).

Very nice cable with four twisted conductors – supple, soft and looks beautiful. Has got a chin-slider and DUNU’s typical silicone cable tie. I definitely prefer it over the other Titan series in-ears’ cables.
Designed to be worn with the cable down, however, as with pretty much every in-ears of this kind, I insert the in-ear pieces normally and then route the cable over my ears anyway.

Sound:

Largest included red core silicone tips.

Tonality:

Bassy and warm.

Typically for in-ears with an inner-facing vent for the dynamic driver’s front cavity, the Titan 6 also suffer from changes in the lower bass (blocked vent = more lower bass) depending on how much/if that front vent is blocked. As it is almost impossible not to block this vent (it is blocked naturally by my ears, which is the case for most in-ears with a vent in this place), the lows have a strong emphasis on the sub- and midbass with a very warm root that also bleeds somewhat into the lower mids (if the vent remained free, there would be a moderate (ca. 4.5 dB) midbass and upper bass plus lower root lift with a roll-off towards the sub-bass, whereas the lows would extend flat into the sub-bass with an overall elevation of ca. 3 dB if both vents (dynamic driver’s front and rear cavity) were blocked).

The bass starts to climb around 700 Hz, is already around 7.5 dB north of neutral around 200 Hz, shows an elevation of ca. 10.5 dB around 100 Hz, and reaches its highest quantity at around 30 Hz with an elevation of no less than a bit more than 12 dB without any roll-off below that.
Naturally due to such a strong bass, the root/fundamental range sounds very full (which can become quite annoying as it is boomy) in addition to the strong bass elevation, and also bleeds somewhat into the lower midrange and almost overshadows the mids.

Despite being somewhat too warm in the lower midrange caused by the very boomy fundamental range, the midrange and voices sound still natural enough and are pretty correct to my ears, with a flat central midrange, only mildly dialled back presence range around 2 kHz, and again correct quantity around 3 kHz.

The treble is, apart from a moderate but neither peaky nor sharp brightness lift around 5 kHz, on the smoother side and gradually loses quantity above about 7.8 kHz (cymbals are reproduced fairly quietly and without much splash and absolutely no aggressiveness) aside from a less important rebound around 12 kHz, which makes the Titan 6 the least bright and most natural, most even sounding sounding model of the Titan series in-ears in the treble.
General timbre isn’t 100% perfect, but overall natural and close, with nothing to really criticise except for the probably overly full fundamental range that tends to boominess.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation (blocked inner Vent)

That mirrors my impressions quite well except for that I don’t perceive the mid-treble peak as this strong but only moderate, and that the upper of the two peaks is not nearly as strong either.

ER-4S-Compensation (free Vents)

ER-4S-Compensation (both Vents blocked)

ProPhile 8-Compensation (blocked inner Vent)

ProPhile 8-Compensation (free Vents)

ProPhile 8-Compensation (both Vents blocked)

Effect of Blocking the inner Vent

Effect of Blocking both Vents

Resolution:

The Titan 6s’ treble is on the softer side in terms of definition but still with decent detail retrieval and yet clean note separation.

The in-ears’ midrange is truly its positive highlight, as it is really nicely layered, detailed and reproduces fine details very well (high speech intelligibility). What’s really notable is however how “layered” it appears subjectively – really something that sounds very appealing (comparable to the Etymotic ER2SEs’ and ER2XRs’ layering, however those two carry this perceived sound attribute over their entire frequency range and therefore do it “better” than the Titan 6), and is a nice feature that the other Titan series in-ears don’t have to my ears.

When it comes to a bassy or bass-heavy in-ears bass performance, I demand a reasonably high quality, nimbleness and control – unfortunately, the Titan 6 clearly disappoint in this regard. While their lows aren’t really soft or slow sounding per se (they are a bit soft, though, but not to the extent of being overly so), their bass quality isn’t very high; it just rumbles but doesn’t have any real definition or details.
The control is actually quite decent, nonetheless the bass sounds fairly one-noted, not really layered and just doesn’t feel “right” (there are very bassy single- and multi-driver in-ears in comparable price ranges that perform so much better when it comes to technical bass delivery (e.g. the AAW Nebula One and Nebula 2, Echobox Audio Finder X1, FiiO FH1, Shure SE215m+SPE, iBasso IT01 and IT01 v2); the Titan 6s’ bass, on the other hand, falls rather into the category of my Sennheiser IE 80 (not really the softness, but the lack of details), Trinity Audio Engineering Delta V-II (the same as for my Sennheiser) or the MEE audio Pinnacle P1 (yup, in their bass delivery, the DUNUs’ technical performance appears to be really similar to the latter that already left me quite disappointed in terms of bass quality (one-noted, lack of layering, not much definition or details despite not sounding really soft or slow per se))).
To me, it sounds as if the driver’s mass were just too high (or over-damped), resulting in the attack not appearing to be the fastest, which leads to a lack of differentiation and definition, and a blunt, dull appearing rendering of the bass. This still sounds well with slower bass lines (nice slam and lingering of the lower notes) but not so well with faster ones at all, and sounds really bad with tracks that have fast, layered bass lines.
Thinking this may be a result of the driver not being able to handle the strong elevation is unfortunately a wrong assumption, as even when both vents are blocked (which leads to the bass to become flat and only mildly lifted), the bass quality is still not great and remains about the same (fairly one-noted rumble without much layering, details or differentiation).

Soundstage:

The soundstage is pretty wide and clearly leaves the base of my head. There is only little spatial depth, though, which makes it appear fairly flat and stretched to the sides.

Instrument separation is pretty accurate; there’s still a bit of blur but the stages doesn’t collapse. As a result, the separation and instrument placement are decent for dynamic driver in-ears in this price range.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Shure SE215m+SPE:

The DUNUs’ cable is clearly superior to my Shures’. While their carrying case/pouch looks more boutique and is stiffer, I still prefer my Shures’ as it’s much more convenient.
In terms of fit, my Shure are superior.

The bass tuning is highly comparable and almost identical – the small differences are that the DUNU have got a very slightly stronger sub- and upper bass elevation while the root and fundamental range are pretty much similar, whereas my Shures’ lower mids sound minimally warmer to me.
The DUNU portray voices a bit closer while the Shure are less relaxed in the presence range.
In the highs, the Shure have got the darker, more downwards-sloping tilt.

Despite being tuned almost identically in the bass, the Shure sound less boomy and full in the root/fundamental range since their lows appear nimbler, linger less and seem much less one-noted wherefore their warmth and bass bleed feel much less pervasive or obtrusive. The DUNUs’ bass is a bit softer, less controlled and lingers longer whereas the Shures’ lows are cleaner and tighter.
The DUNU sound more layered in the mids and also a bit cleaner. The real midrange details are actually quite comparable, though – ultimately, the Shure are somewhat ahead in the lower midrange to my ears whereas the DUNU are in the upper mids despite having less quantity in the presence range than the Shure. Still, due to the better layering and sounding a bit more cleaner in the midrange, I see the DUNU as slightly ahead.
In terms of treble details, the DUNU seem to be somewhat ahead.

The soundstage presentation of both in-ears is highly comparable – in the end, the only real difference in terms of soundstage size is that the Shures’ appears to be slightly wider whereas the DUNU portray just slightly more width; in terms of precision, the DUNUs’ stage offers the slightly more precise instrument placement in comparison.

DUNU Titan 5:

I prefer the Titan 5s’ shell design, perceived value and carrying case (although it could be just a bit taller on the inside) while the Titan 6s’ cable is superior.

The Titan 6 are tuned bassier and much warmer in the root.
The Titan 5s’ midrange is brighter – the Titan 6 sound more natural here in comparison. The Titan 5s’ mids sound more distant whereas the Titan 6s’ are more intimate, closer in the mix.
The Titan 6 are clearly more even and much more natural sounding in the treble (the Titan 5 sound somewhat metallic and much brighter in the upper middle and lower upper highs compared to the Titan 6), but have got somewhat subdued cymbals. The treble timbre is more natural, even and realistic on the Titan 6 in comparison.

The Titan 5s’ bass is tighter, nimbler and better layered as well as controlled whereas the Titan 6s’ lingers longer and seems rather one-noted.
The Titan 6s’ mids are more layered and slightly more detailed.
The real treble details are comparable; the Titan 5 render the contours sharper and have got a less soft character, but that’s mainly due to the different tuning. However, due to the higher treble linearity, the Titan 6 appear more realistic in the highs.

In terms of soundstage size, the Titan 5s’ is larger and also features the slightly more precise imaging. What’s especially audible, though, is that the Titan 5 offer far more spatial depth compared to the Titan 6s’ wide but flat sounding imaginary soundstage.

Conclusion:

Aside from not really being a true addition to the Titan series line, DUNU’s Titan 6 feature a generally nice timbre plus well-done midrange as well as treble tuning along with nice midrange layering, with only the overly full fundamental range to blame in terms of tuning, however, what ruins all of this, is that the sound is unfortunately swamped by an overpowering bass with a driver that sounds like its mass were too high wherefore the lows linger too long, don’t appear nimble (despite not being slow or soft per se), lack layering and control, and, which is their biggest flaw, sound quite one-noted.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

Etymotic ER2XR


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Just like on the ER3XR as well as ER4XR, "XR" stands for "Extended Response", indicating a moderately boosted bass compared to the flatter tuned SE (respectively SR) models.

One dynamic driver per side; closed shells.

Come with the same accessories as the ER3XR (almost the same small pouch case as that of my ER-4S and the ER3 series, one pair of green replacement filters along with a filter removal tool made of metal, one shirt clip, one pair of cylindrical foam tips, and last but not lest two pairs of differently sized silicone tips – that’s definitely a bit disappointing compared to the ER4 series’ amount of accessories, but still okay).
Same black cardboard case inside the outer paper sleeve. Somewhat rubber-like surface finish as known from the ER3 series, however without any shiny black “ER2” written on it.

Small blue shells that are made of metal. Same size as those of the other new ER series in-ears. Very beautiful blue colour – personally, this is definitely my favourite colour among the various new ER series in-ears.
Good build quality.
It’s nice that each shell has the serial number as well as model number on it in white (the same is true for the ER3 and new ER4 series in-ears).

Removable cables with non-rotating (small notch that prevents that) MMCX connectors.
Nice blue y-splitter that’s made of metal, too.
A chin-slider is present.
Side indicators unfortunately only small and difficult to see in dimly lit environments – coloured indicators would have been better.
Fairly supple and flexible cable.
Rather high microphonics when worn down, but that can be fixed by guiding the cable over the ears and using the chin-slider (or alternatively using the included shirt clip).

Sound:

Largest included triple-flange silicone tips, modified so that they create a seal in my large ear canals while still maintaining the original ear tip length (achieved by cutting off the smallest flange and putting it onto the nozzle first, followed by the remaining double-flange rest of the tip).

Tonality:

Sub-bass elevation with diffuse-field-oriented midrange and treble neutrality. In other words, neutral midrange as well as treble combined with a really nicely integrated elevation of the lower midbass and especially sub-bass that the lows’ main focus lies on. Harman-like, if you will.

In the midrange and treble, the ER2XR follow the ER2SEs’ tonality almost exactly, which means that the ER2XR are highly linear and realistic sounding, which I cannot only confirm by listening to music (and performing acoustic measurements) but also when listening to sine sweeps that reveal a very even, linear tonal response without any unevenness, sudden peaks or dips; instead, the ER2XR, just like Etymotic’s other models that I am familiar with (ER-4S, ER4SR, ER4XR, ER3SE, ER3XR, ER2SE), show remarkable upper midrange and treble neutrality and evenness to my ears that is only very rarely achieved by other in-ears, resulting in a highly natural and realistic treble timbre reproduction (which is also the reason why I prefer my ER-4S and the ER4SR over the various other, much more expensive, technically more proficient in-ears that have a more or less neutral sound signature as well, for stationary music listening).
Therefore the ER2XR also closely resemble the ER4XRs’ midrange and treble tuning, with slightly greater upper midrange and treble quantity compared to the ER3XR, and slightly less upper midrange/presence range quantity compared to the ER4SR.

While the ER2XR have got a bass elevation, it is implemented extraordinarily well, as it avoids bleeding into the midrange and instead mostly stays out of it (it starts to climb around 600 Hz and reaches its climax nicely low, in the true sub-bass).
Compared to the ER3XR, the ER2XR have got a smidgen less lower midrange/upper fundamental range warmth, while they are just a tad warmer in this range than the ER4XR. Generally, it is quite remarkable how close all of the three XR in-ears are tuned between 100 Hz and 500 Hz, with a tuning difference of only between around 1 dB (ER2XR compared to ER3XR / ER3XR compared to ER4XR) to around 2 dB (ER4XR compared to ER2XR) between each other.
The bigger differences in the bass start below 100 Hz – while the ER3XR and ER4XR show a more or less similar response between 20 Hz and 90 Hz, the ER2XR add a few decibels on top and have got their highest bass amplitude at a lower frequency than the two other XR in-ears (the ER2XR peak really nicely low at around 30 Hz with an elevation of around 8.5 dB compared to the ER4SR/my ER-4S), which makes them the bassiest and especially most sub-bass oriented in-ears out of the three.
While there is fortunately no bass bleed into the midrange, there’s nonetheless a bit of gentle, pleasant warmth/body that doesn’t interfere with the midrange but stays mostly out of it, added to the lower fundamental range. Sure, the elevation is not exclusive to the sub-bass (almost no in-ears’ bass elevation is truly sub-bass exclusive, and out of those I have, the closest to that would be my Earsonics ES3) but already features an upper bass elevation of around 5 dB at 100 kHz compared to the central midrange at 1 kHz, however the ER2XR already do such a tremendously great job and come nicely close to a “true subwoofer effect” by peaking no higher than at around 30 Hz wherefore they do not sound thick or midbassy and also do not have an unnecessarily strong upper bass kick or punch, but a nice, “driving” sub-bass elevation from down below that really only shows up when the track actually reaches this low.

As a result of all, the ER2XR sound highly natural, realistic and accurate, but also feature a really nicely implemented elevation of the lower bass on top.

On a personal note, before I ever listened to the ER2XR for the first time, I didn’t expect too much from them but thought that I would prefer the ER2SE for recreational, non-flat-neutral listening, so the question was: is a sub-bassy model from Etymotic really necessary?
The ER2XR would not serve me as some of my main in-ears for stationary music listening anyway (in-ears such as the Etymotic ER4SR, my ER-4SR, InEar ProPhile 8, Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors and few others take this spot), as I prefer a flatter, more neutral presentation for that.
For recreational music music listening and recreational in-ear use, however, Etymotic’s bass-elevated ER2 model is simply fantastic; yep this is exactly the right word for these in-ears. They deliver that high midrange and treble neutrality and realism but at the same time, of course only when the audio signal reaches that low, provide a pleasant, fun sub-bass boost that doesn’t interfere with the midrange.
So, coming back to the initial question – are sub-bassy Etymotic in-ears really necessary? I think they definitely are; they are not simply just a comparably tuned alternative to the ER4XR or ER3XR, but are instead absolutely a fully qualified stand-alone alternative with that extra sub-bass lift. And I have to admit that I like and enjoy them much more than I had thought, in fact to the point that I would go even further to say confidently enough that regardless of price, the ER2XR have become some of my all-time favourite in-ears for non-neutral, recreational listening due to how well their fun sub-bass elevation is implemented, while the lower midrange, midrange and treble feature the high Etymotic neutrality that I am familiar with and personally hear as the closest to my perception of “flat neutral”.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

The ER2XR were measured with the non-modified triple-flange ear tips in both graphs as I did not save the other measurements and didn’t bother to re-measure them. Due to the resulting slightly different insertion depth into the coupler, the graphs shows a bit less upper treble quantity than the ER2XR would actually have.

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Very nice, natural timbre and note decay.
Very coherent, but that’s not really a too big surprise given they are single-driver in-ears and since the ER4 and ER3 series in-ears as well as the ER2SE and my ER-4S sound very coherent, too.

High midrange resolution and speech intelligibility. Fine details are revealed nicely.
Clean note and treble separation, although ultimately not fully on the same level as that of the single-BA Etymotic models from the ER4 and ER3 line as well as my ER-4S. This, however, gives the ER2XR a bit more “character” rather typical for dynamic driver in-ears, and sounds highly natural while still clean and precise.
Despite being subjectively just a bit less resolving than the single-BA Etymotic models, the ER2XR do not have any “grain” in the midrange when compared to them – something that’s also true for the ER2SE, and is probably due to that the dynamic drivers used in the ER2 series have less distortion than the BA drivers in the other Etymotic models (not that they had high distortion either, but perhaps that is the reason for this perception – not that the BA model Etymotic in-ears sounded grainy in the mids (they are far from that), but in a direct side-by-side comparison, there is just that extra “something” to the ER2 series’ dynamic driver midrange presentation).
Perceived lower midrange and fundamental range as well as bass resolution slightly behind that of the ER2SE to my ears; otherwise they resolve pretty much similarly well.

The bass softens just a bit towards sub-bass and loses a bit of texture, but doesn’t really lose any control.
The lows are precise and generally pretty tight and fast, but ultimately a bit less tight than Etymotic’s bass-elevated BA models (ER3XR and ER4XR), with transients that are generally just a bit on the softer side in direct comparison. The ER2XRs’ subjectively perceived bass “texture”, however, even in the bass range where the three XR models are mostly similarly tuned, is more perceptible and feels different; the general presentation of the dynamic driver is just a bit different and adds a slight “something” to the ER2XR that could be described as having more “character”, something that could be definitely perceived as more “natural” by many people.
Either way, just as with the tuning, in terms of technical qualities, the ER2XR deliver extraordinarily high performance.

Soundstage:

Compared to Etymotic’s other single-BA in-ears from the ER3 and ER4 line as well as my ER-4S, the ER2XRs’ soundstage appears subjectively larger in all dimensions to my ears, especially in terms of perceived spatial width (not by much, but still).
It sounds generally three-dimensional and therefore authentic as well as realistic with a believable front projection. (The ER2XR are even also good with the portrayal of elements that are behind the listener – if they are present on the recording.)

When it comes to imaging and precision, the ER2XR do not show any real weakness either and place instruments and tonal elements accurately on the imaginary stage, with clean instrument separation and a soundstage that still remains mostly intact even with busy, fast and dense music material, even though the ER2SE’s stage remains just a tiny bit cleaner in comparison due to their flatter, more neutral bass tuning that puts less “stress” on the driver in busy and demanding situations (in addition, due to their flatter tuning, there is of course also less subjective frequency masking, which is the main reason for this impression). Nevertheless, the ER2XRs’ imaging is precise as well, although when compared to the single-BA Etymotic in-ears, both new ER2 series models give in just a little earlier with very densely arranged, busy tracks.

Largest and most three-dimensional soundstage among all Etymotic in-ears to my ears (pretty much similarly perceived spatial width as the ER2SE, however more perceived spatial depth, probably an impression that’s caused by the sub-bass-focused elevation in the lows).
Almost perfectly circular to my ears; just a little wider than deep (slightly oval).

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Shure SE846 (white Treble Filters):

Both in-ears have got a comparable tuning and clearly head into a similar direction in terms of sound, but still have some differences in their tonality.
While the upper bass presence at 100 Hz is almost identical on both in-ears, the ER2XR have got slightly more quantity in the root above it up to around 450 Hz, and have got a sub-bass boost that is a bit stronger and peaks a bit deeper, giving them an even somewhat stronger “subwoofer effect” than the SE846.
The Shures’ upper mids and presence range are somewhat more in the background wherefore their upper mids are a bit darker than the Etymotics’.
To my ears, the Shures’ middle treble around 5 kHz is more in the background in comparison, which gives them a more relaxed presentation. The upper treble (cymbals) are somewhat more forward on the SE846. Super treble extension past 10 kHz is definitely better on the Etymotic.

The Etymotic beat my Shure when it comes to upper midrange and treble linearity as well as realism and timbral accuracy.
Voices are more realistic on the Etymotic whereas they have a more relaxed, darker character on the Shure due to their comparatively more relaxed upper midrange, presence range and middle treble.
The biggest difference however is the upper treble – while the Shure render cymbals brighter than the ER2XR, they don’t sound fully right, and that’s not because they are brighter, but because they appear as if they decayed faster (over-dampened), since they lack the upper tones and reverb as the SE846s’ super treble extension is pretty limited; in comparison, cymbals appear to decay correctly on the ER2XR and have got that reverb, decay and the upper tones that they are supposed to have, as the Etys’ super treble extension is better.

Bass tightness and sub-bass definition are ultimately superior on the Shure when both in-ears are compared directly, but surprisingly not by much.
If fast music tracks are played, the Shure remain a bit better controlled and more focused in the bass and mids than the ER2XR, although the difference is smaller than one may expect.
In terms of speech intelligibility, the Ety are ahead due to their tuning as their entire midrange is more neutral, however the Shures’ retrieval of micro details in the mids is better in direct comparison.
It is a different story, though, when it comes to treble details: here, the Etymotic are audibly somewhat ahead, as the Shure simply lack information and sound softer, less precise and less clean when it comes to treble separation.

The Etys’ soundstage appears subjectively larger to me. The Shures’ is more circular to my ears while the Etys’ is slightly more oval in comparison.
In terms of imaging, the Shure are only minimally more precise in direct comparison. With dense, fast and complex music material, the Shures’ stage remains a bit more intact.

While my Shure are a bit ahead in terms of technical performance in the lows and mids (but lose in the treble), the ER2XR beat them when it comes to midrange and treble accuracy, linearity as well as timbre in these frequency ranges, and are generally not that far behind at all when it comes to technical performance, so I personally ultimately prefer the Etymotic (more than “just slightly”) and also think that generally, as a whole package, they are the better in-ears (and this even while neglecting the fairly big price difference between the two).

Etymotic’s Single-BA In-Ears (ER-4S, ER4SR, ER4XR, ER3SE, ER3XR):

A lot has already been written in my main review and sound analysis above, so here is just a small summary:

Identically great, highly linear and flat-neutral midrange and treble response with realistic timbre – no sudden dips or peaks wherefore the sound is highly authentic and realistic.

In terms of technical perception, the dynamic driver Etys are just a smidgen behind the BA Etys to my ears when it comes to ultimate note separation, but this only shows rarely when the in-ears are stressed by very busy, dense and bast sound material. Most of the time, they are remarkably close to the point of being near-indistinguishable.
Slightly “softer” bass presentation compared to the BA Etys but on its own very tight and controlled. Attacks and impact better/easier perceived when compared to the single-BA Etys.
In direct comparison, the single-BA Etys appear to have a bit of “grain” in the midrange compared to the dynamic driver Etys that do not.

Larger perceived soundstage than the single-BA Etys and highly precise as well, but starts to become “foggy”/gives in earlier with spatially very crowded, densely arranged tracks with many tonal elements at the same time.

Moondrop Starfield:

My Starfield sound somewhat bassier and warmer to me but are generally heading into a highly comparable direction when it comes to tuning.
As such, the Moondrop have a slightly more relaxed presence range in comparison while they sound highly authentic in the mids as well, although with some more lower midrange/fundamental range warmth than the ER2XR, but are a bit brighter in the middle treble than the Etymotic.
In terms of treble extension past 10 kHz, the ER2XR offer more subtle “air”.
While far from “wonky” or bad, the Starfield appear to be just somewhat less linear and refined in the treble tuning than the ER2XR.

Technical performance is close enough but I would ultimately place the ER2XR just somewhat higher than the Starfield. While their advantage in the treble is only fairly small, the biggest difference is in the lows where the Etymotic in-ears are less soft whereas the Starfield have got the slightly softer bass attack and slower, more lingering decay in comparison, wherefore they start to give in/show their limits just a bit earlier on tracks that are demanding and fast in the bass, while most of the time the performance is close enough.

Generally, I hear the ER2XR as the slightly more refined, more linear, more authentic sounding version of the Starfield, and would place them ultimately somewhat higher, whereas the Starfield have got the advantage of a more common, less deep insertion/wearing style (for what it is worth, the vented Starfield naturally offer audibly lower passive exterior noise isolation than the closed shell ER2XR).
Simply put, while the Starfield get a “Recommended”, the ER2XR place the bar just a bit higher and get that rare “Highly Recommended”.

Conclusion:

Highly Recommended.

The ER2XR just do so much right in terms of tuning, frequency response evenness and therefore perceived realism/authenticity, and soundstage, to the point of being pretty much flawless:
Very high midrange and treble accuracy as known from Etymotic and loved by me, combined with a fun bass elevation that concentrates mainly on the true sub-bass and doesn’t interfere with the midrange, which is something that not many in-ears achieve. This all, combined with the good technical performance as well as the subjectively most three-dimensional soundstage among the ER-4S, ER4, ER3 and ER2 line, make the ER2XR a fantastic choice of in-ears and even places them among my personal all-time favourites for non-flat, recreational use regardless of price.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

Sabaj Audio D1


Source:

Purchased at a discount for the purpose of a product review.


Miscellaneous:

Comes with a very nice case as well as a long micro USB to USB cable.

Looks nice as well; really good build quality. Small. Made of metal.

Has got a 3.5 mm headphone output as well as optical output.

Didn't require any additional drivers to be installed (Windows 7). Seems like the volume buttons work as multimedia buttons and control the PC's volume.

Sound:

Used with my Windows 7 laptop computer. Didn’t bother to run any tests with the DAC connected to my Windows 10 desktop computer.

Volume Control:

Two dedicated volume control buttons, which is very nice to see. Seems to be linked with the PC’s digital volume control since the volume control buttons work as multimedia buttons and therefore control the PC’s volume, just like when there are volume control buttons on the keyboard.

Very powerful. Too loud for me personally when using sensitive IEMs (Xiaomi Piston Colorful Starter Edition as an example, some inexpensive consumer in-ears) even when setting the system volume to 1%; I need to reduce the volume even further in foobar2000.

Hiss performance:

Strong hiss even with in-ears that are not near-extremely sensitive.

Frequency Response (no Load):

FR unloaded

Unfortunately one can see a roll-off towards the sub-bass (as well as some small but negligible channel imbalance). Too bad; this should definitely not happen on any modern device. That roll-off is not load-dependent.

Output Impedance:

FR loaded – Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10

The calculated output impedance should be around 0.2, 0.3 Ohms, which is an excellent value and suitable for all critical multi-BA in-ears.

Subjective Listening Impressions:

To me, the D1 sounds just like any audio device should sound and doesn't show any flaws other than obviously the bass roll-off and audible hiss even with less-than-very-sensitive in-ears.
May appear a bit “softer” sounding in the lows with in-ears (most likely due to the bad hiss performance), something that I do not perceive when using the D1 with full-sized headphones.

Conclusion:

Inexpensive, great design, high build quality. Low output impedance.
Bass roll-off regardless of load, which is something that should not happen nowadays; poor hiss performance.

 

[CK Moustache]

Apple USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter (A2155)


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

Nicely inexpensive.

Contrary to its name, the A2155 is much more than just an “adapter”, as despite its pretty tiny form factor, it houses a fairly smart sound card with a built-in DAC, ADC, automatic detection of whether anything is plugged into it, and even supports in-line remote control commands.

Rather decent unboxing experience (for the price); very nicely and cleanly designed packaging that can also be used as a carrying case (since there is no other included pouch or case other than the cardboard packaging itself).

Small.
Clean design.
White.
No Apple logo on it – the only sign that it’s made by Apple (aside from its design, but other companies have subsequently manufactured comparable-looking small DACs) is the faint grey text on the cable.

While the USB-C plug (that most likely contains all of the active electronics) and multi-purpose 3.5 mm socket appear to be well-made, the cable between them, while fairly soft and nicely flexible, doesn’t appear sturdy or durable at all but pretty fragile instead, as it is unfortunately the case with most of Apple’s cables.

Surprisingly, the A2155 supports three-button in-line remote control commands (volume up, play/pause, volume down) when used with my Windows 10 computer.

What’s definitely nice: it can be basically left plugged in all the time, as it automatically senses if anything is plugged into it and accordingly adjusts its features. If nothing is plugged in, the output is disabled automatically and it doesn’t even show up in the Windows sound menu anymore but will show up again and is selected automatically once something is plugged into it, and the setting options change accordingly to the type of plugged in headphones (e.g. with/without built-in microphone).

Sound:

My ZOTAC ZBOX CI547 nano running Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit is the only source that I’m using.

I’m only using my Apple USB-C DAC purely as a DAC for in-ears and headphones, and haven’t tested its ADC capabilities yet.

Volume Control:

Logically, the volume is controlled by Windows’ system-wide standard 100 attenuation steps (plus mute). Unfortunately, even the quietest possible volume setting above mute (≙”1”) is much too loud for me personally, so I need to further lower the volume in foobar2000 and YouTube drastically. Therefore, listening very quietly just above the audible threshold is not directly possible without any further software tweaks.

Hiss Performance:

Using my near-extremely sensitive Shure SE846, there is only the tiniest bit of barely perceptible hiss when no music is playing or when an empty audio file is played.

When used with my Ostry KC06A that are even a bit more sensitive to picking up hiss, the amount of audible hiss in quiet passages and empty audio files or when nothing is played is very little and close to being inaudible.

Using my extremely sensitive Campfire Audio Andromeda that are the most sensitive out of the three, the audible hiss is still very little, which makes the Apple USB-C DAC an amazing performer in terms of hiss performance with very and/or extremely sensitive in-ears.
As for comparisons, it even slightly surpasses my iBasso DX90, is only beat by my RME ADI-2 DAC and Leckerton Audio UHA-6S.MkII, and audibly outperforms the FiiO Q5 with attached AM1 module or my Chord Electronics Mojo.

Frequency Response (no Load):

FR unloaded

There is no real surprise here; the unloaded frequency response is just as flat as it is supposed to be.

Output Impedance (Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10 as Load):

FR loaded – Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10

Based on the frequency response deviation, the Apple DAC’s output impedance is calculated to be around only 0.3 Ohms, which is truly excellent and therefore perfectly suitable for all low impedance multi-BA in-ears.

Subjective Listening Impressions:

Neutral, clear, clean and very precise. Basically as audibly transparent, good-sounding and clean-sounding to my ears as a device could be, and therefore clearly “not broken”, which again is no real surprise but the standard for most modern audio devices.
Precise and tight bass reproduction with sensitive multi-BA in-ears.
Subjectively large (i.e. normally sized) and very accurate soundstage; slightly on the oval side.

Seriously, there’s absolutely no subjective sonic fault that I could find, and this is no real surprise either since the A2155 has shown to surpass surpass the CD Red Book standard when it comes to objectively measured audio performance.

In other words, excellent transparent performance regardless of price. There is absolutely no reason at all to pay more for a USB DAC, at least when it comes to pure sound quality with headphones.

Conclusion:

Recommended.

The Apple A2155 USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter is, despite its very low and extremely competitive price, packed with many features, surpasses CD Red Book standards, has got an excellently low output impedance, comes extremely close to being ideally hiss-free with the most sensitive in-ears (wherefore it is just a shy bit below absolute perfection/“Highly Recommended” but still surpasses even many of the better devices in this regard; in addition, unfortunately the lowest possible volume setting (in Windows 10) is too loud for me personally (without further reducing the software gain in the music player interface)) and sounds audibly transparent.

Aside from some people probably wishing for “more power” for their respective listening levels with the headphones they use, and probably for more features (such as dedicated volume control buttons or more inputs and outputs), just based alone on pure sound quality or a more luxurious appearance and/or better build quality (the cable could indeed appear more durable), there is absolutely no reason to pay any more for a DAC.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

HiFiMan RE2000


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Fairly impressive and abundant unboxing experience, but anything less would be disappointing at the fairly high price point (for single dynamic driver in-ears) anyway. The product photo on the box’s sleeve doesn’t fully fit in, though (regarding lightning and focus).
I like the large, hinged, pleather-coated storage chest with a metallic badge on the outside that they come in; it somehow reminds me of that of my Sennheiser HD 800.
Removing the outer cardboard sleeve (without ripping it apart) turned out to be somewhat difficult, though.

Fairly poor selection of ear tips, especially given the price (various styles of tips, but only one respectively two choices as for size).

Gold-plated shells (on the inner half). The outside with the HiFiMan logo, though, appears like it could lose its colour over time (it would have been better if the logos had been engraved or laser-etched).
Unique shell design. Rather bulky. The nozzles are on the shorter side which results in a fairly shallow fit.
Worn with the cables around the ears.

The RE2000 are HiFiMan’s first IEMs with detachable cables; thankfully they went with the 2-pin standard (recessed sockets) instead of the more fragile MMCX.
Interestingly, the cable comes with a set of spare 2-pin connectors.
Nicely soft and supple but also slightly sticky and rubbery on the surface; the strain relief could be executed better on some of the transitions. Doesn’t really appear (in terms of aesthetics) suitable for $2000 in-ears (despite the gold-plated elements on it), but is still good enough for a cable with non-braided/-twisted conductors.

Fairly nice aluminium carrying case that is rubber-padded on the inside and therefore protective.

One dynamic driver per side.

Sound:

Largest included triple-flange ear tips trimmed down to large single-flange ear tips that have the same length as the grey double-flange tips that came already installed on the RE2000. Due to the same length, acoustic measurements indicate them to sound identical.

Tonality:

As for tonality, “balanced” is probably what comes closest to the RE2000s’ tuning.

The bass is emphasised by ca. 6.5 dB to my ears compared to the Etymotic ER-4S/ER4SR but sounds subjectively as if it were more present which is however not the case as it turned out when adjusting it using EQ software; perhaps it is the larger driver and longer decay that leads to this impression.
Extension into the real sub-bass is good with just a slight drop below 40 Hz. As the lows start to climb already around 900 Hz and reach their climax already around 400 Hz, lower mids and fundamentals are on the fuller side and there is some undeniable fundamental range bloom that can turn from pleasant, cosy warmth into being somewhat annoying at times; nonetheless the timbre in the vocal range is still good and relatively natural thanks to the treble being on the generally brighter side.

That said, there is really nothing to be really criticised about the midrange – while not focussing on pure flatness, it sounds natural with some added lower midrange warmth, a slight central midrange bump that brings voices a little closer to the listener, a slightly reduced fundamental range, and an elevated middle and upper treble that compensates for the warmth.

When it comes to the highs, though, this is definitely the area where the RE2000s’ biggest problem is located: performing sine sweeps, I can hear elevations around 5 kHz, 7 kHz and around 12 kHz, each increasing in quantity. While they are rather wide and spread instead of narrow wherefore sharpness and harshness are thankfully avoided, the trebles sounds artificial and has a metallic timbre as a result; especially the 5 kHz elevation is responsible for this and also leads to trumpets and cymbals sounding off (squeaky respectively as if they were played with brushed instead of sticks (to which the 11 kHz elevation definitely also contributes)).
Surely there are in-ears at lower price points that sound even more artificial in the highs – but at $2000, the RE2000s’ treble presentation is just too far off from a realistic sound reproduction, as while it doesn’t sound bad per se, music that mainly incorporates real acoustic instruments and no drum machines and sampling does just not sound realistic but plasticky. At this price point and for much less money, there are so many other superiorly (more realistically) tuned alternatives, including dynamic driver in-ears (even such as HiFiMan’s own RE4000i).
Super treble extension past 10 kHz is flawless.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

Performing sine sweeps and EQ comparisons, I hear the bass as somewhat stronger (ca. 6.5 dB instead of the ~ 5 dB that are shown), with another peak around 7 kHz. Otherwise, that’s about how I perceive the RE2000 as well.

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

As for technicalities, the RE2000 are indeed convincing for dynamic driver in-ears, but not really worthy of the $2000 that they cost.

Not much surprisingly for single-driver in-ears, coherence is flawless, but should also be expected at this price point no matter whether hybrid, single- or multi-driver in-ears are talked about.

Speed and control with complex and really fast recordings are very good for dynamic driver standards and a good bit ahead of my HE4000i but not fully on the same level when compared to good multi-BA in-ears.
Since one dynamic driver per side is used, the focus is perhaps naturally not on pure BA-like speed and nimbleness anyway, though, but more on body, the perceived tactile sensation of the dynamic drivers and rumble. And this is where the RE2000 really shine, with a rumbling but highly controlled bass whose tactile perception is especially high, as if the moved air and mass could be perceived physically, even down into the real sub-bass. As such, their bass presentation reminds me somewhat of that of my Audeze LCD-X that also have that rumbling texture while being highly controlled and still very fast at the same time, but ultimately the HiFiMan and my Audeze are still different enough in terms of bass presentation and the LCD-X impress even a good bit more here, but for dynamic driver in-ears, the RE2000 are very good and are, among those that I have heard, probably those that come closest to my LCD-X in this regard.

Treble separation is on a high level as well and comes close to that of my UERM, although they are ultimately more pin-point precise than the HiFiMan in-ears.

Speech intelligibility and midrange details are on a very high level to the point of being transparent, with small variations and fine details being heard precisely.

Ultimately, in terms of technicalities, the RE2000 deliver about Ultimate Ears Reference Remastered to-go performance, perhaps a step below them, which definitely places them on a high level, however they are therefore, as a result, also not on the same level as in-ears such as my Campfire Audio Andromeda, InEar ProPhile 8 or the NocturnaL Audio Atlantis. Therefore, while fairly impressive for dynamic driver standards, compared to the multi-BA competition, the RE2000 appear priced too high.

Soundstage:

The perceived soundstage is convincing as well but mainly a derivation of the tuning; the portrayed sound field is fairly large and as such leaves the base of my head towards the sides quite easily, almost to the point of reaching the perceived size of some full-sized headphones.
Ultimately it feels somewhat wider than deep to me, with an overall slightly oval presentation. Height cues seem to be reproduced as well.

Imaging seems to be precise.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors:

As for tuning, the UERM are clearly more neutral and realistic.

In terms of technicalities, it is quite remarkable how close the RE2000 come in terms of bass speed and tightness but at the same time present the lows totally differently, with a slightly longer decay but especially more rumbling, “tactile” sensation and layering; it’s just that “dynamic driver texture” that adds a pleasantly unique character and flavour to them.
Ultimately, the UERM are a bit superior in reproducing small midrange details.
Treble separation is almost a draw but the UERM are in the end also a bit more precise in busy and complex passages when it comes to separating single notes.

The RE2000 have a somewhat wider soundstage to my ears that appears somewhat deeper as well wherefore their presentation is more open.
In terms of instrument separation, the UER are somewhat cleaner when busier and more demanding recordings are played.

Sennheiser IE 800:

The IE 800 have a clearly more fun-oriented sound signature and feature the noticeably stronger v-shape with an audibly stronger bass and especially sub-bass and a more forward, more sparkling upper treble, but compensate for this with a dip in the middle highs around 5 kHz that generates enough headroom and compensation for the follow-up peak.
The IE 800’s mids are more relaxed due to a more recessed upper midrange.
Cymbals sound splashier and brighter on the Sennheiser and are therefore sharper, but the RE2000, while not sharp but milder, present them more metallically and appear to be more off in the highs (fun tuning on purpose on the IE 800 compared to a moderately brightness-elevated but more plasticky tuning on the HiFiMan).

While the IE 800 are definitely competent for single dynamic driver IEMs, the RE2000 are overall a step up and feature a somewhat tighter and faster bass, with somewhat more precise treble separation and superior midrange resolution.

To my ears, the IE 800s’ soundstage is even slightly wider but, in contras to the HiFiMan, with almost no spatial depth.
Instrument separation is cleaner and more precise on the HiFiMan.

HiFiMan RE400i:

The RE400i feature the more neutral, realistic (i.e. accurate) tuning in the midrange and highs but are also somewhat on the warmer side in the lows compared to diffuse-field standards.

When it comes to technical performance, the RE2000 are audibly quite a step up and sound faster, tighter, better controlled and render minute details more precisely.

The RE2000s’ soundstage is larger in all directions, with more precise imaging.

Conclusion:

The RE2000 are very good when it comes to technical qualities, especially for dynamic driver standards (although definitely not $2000 good compared to the multi-BA competition) and feature a nicely tactile reproduction of lower notes’ rumble, but are clearly flawed in the treble tuning that leads to an unnatural presentation of real instruments. When it comes to accessories and build quality/perceived value, there are areas for improvement as well.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

Sybasonic Byta


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

USB-C DAC.

Built-in microphone.
Built-in USB-C socket that acts as a passthrough, which is nice.

Unboxing experience rather nice at the price point (clear plastic box with cardboard inlay; nicely designed and with all of the important information about how to operate and use the Byta).

Fairly small but rather wide for how small it is.
Made of plastic. Feels neither very cheap nor remotely valuable. Definitely okay for the price, though.
The headphone output is slightly angled towards the side.

“Hidden” button that changes the EQ profile. I wouldn’t know that it existed without the manual on the cardboard or if it didn’t read “press” on the DAC itself. Nice; I quite like it.

Sampling rate indicator on the DAC itself (three LEDs). Will also act to indicate what EQ profile is active (LED(s) flash(es) several times and then go(es) back to displaying the sampling rate). Unfortunately, there is no inscription or any other indicator on the DAC itself about which LED indicates what (although it’s rather easy to remember once one has read the info on the golden sticker inside the plastic box).
Fast-charge indicator for the USB-C passthrough socket.

Unlike the Apple A2155, the Byta doesn’t seem to support in-line remote control commands or in-line microphones.

Sound:

My ZOTAC ZBOX CI547 nano running Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit is the only source that I’m using.

Seems like it always operates on 24 Bits and cannot be changed to operate on 16 Bits natively, which means that it upsamples the signal.

I haven’t tested the built-in microphone’s quality.

Volume Control:

The volume is controlled through Windows’ system-wide standard 100 attenuation steps (plus mute). Unfortunately, even the quietest volume setting above mute is clearly too loud for me even when using my Xiaomi Mi In-Ear Headphones Basic, wherefore I have to further reduce the volume in the player software.

Hiss Performance:

Very poor.

Already a bit of audible hiss with my Xiaomi Mi In-Ear Headphones Basic.
High to very high amount of hiss with my Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10.
Exorbitantly high amount of hiss with my extremely sensitive Campfire Audio Andromeda.

Switching between the Byta’s different EQ modes doesn’t change the amount of audible hiss.

Frequency Response (no Load):

FR unloaded

As flat and linear as it should be.

Frequency Response (no Load; all of the four different EQ Modes; different Graph Scaling):

FR unloaded EQ Modes

As one can see, aside from the default EQ mode, all of the three others are differently implemented v-shape/loudness EQ curves with the “Clarity” preset elevating a broader range of the treble than the others. Stereo crosstalk values show a quite significant decrease when any of the three frequency response-altering EQ presets is activated.

Personally, I wish the “Audiophile” EQ preset curve didn’t lose amplitude below 30 Hz, otherwise the implementation is what I would consider decent for portable use, although undeniably already on the strong, easily noticeable side.
The two other EQ presets are very strong and, in my opinion, probably not really necessary, although undeniably sometimes definitely provide some very strongly bass-boosted fun.

Switching between the various EQ modes works in real-time and without any audible glitches or any other undesired noise.

Output Impedance (Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10 as Load):

FR loaded – Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10

Based on the frequency response deviation, the Byta’s calculated output impedance should be around 2.4 Ohms, which is definitely already a bit higher than the desirable very-close-to-0-Ohms value one would like to see for low impedance multi-driver in-ears with a great impedance swing.

Subjective Listening Impressions:

Other than that the bass reproduction sounds subjectively a bit blunted and that the high frequencies may appear a tad “unclean”, which all could also be imagination, the sound is subjectively, which is not that much surprising, neutral.
The big issue, however, is the absurdly high amount of hiss that already starts to become slightly audible with averagely sensitive in-ears.

Activating the EQ presets leads to a somewhat narrower soundstage perception, which is not too surprising given that the stereo crosstalk decreases compared to the default (flat) EQ profile.
The bass presentation becomes a bit blunter with activated EQ profiles, but to a surprisingly small degree.

Conclusion:

The idea of having four quickly switchable, pre-defined EQ profiles at this price point is nice, however the Byta’s very poor hiss performance and output impedance of around 2.4 Ohms that is quite a bit higher than ideal for (multi-BA) in-ears that have a greater impedance swing are definitely disappointing.
At around the same price (actually even a bit less), the Apple USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter (A2155) performs much better in these regards; on top, it offers an ADC and in-line remote control support.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

Superlux HD668B


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Pretty inexpensive.

Unlike my Superlux HD681 that came packed in a cheap see-through plastic packaging, the 668B arrived in a proper packaging.

Included are a storage bag (feels quite cheap, but it's much better than nothing at this price point) that I already know from my HD668B as well as a similar 3.5 to 6.3 mm adapter, but in addition, there are also two cables and a clip that secures/locks the cable joint. I'm using the shorter 1 m cable.

It's obvious that the HD668B have adopted design elements from several AKG and Audio Technica headphones.

The plastic used on the headphones feels quite cheap but rather sturdy.

Proper strain relief on the cable and good flexibility. Cable attached to the left ear cup, which is the industry standard. I like the clip that secures/locks the extension cable in place.
Cable extension is a standard 3.5 mm TRS plug, so any regular headphone extension cable could be used in theory.
Cable microphonics are fairly low, which is nice.

Comfort is decent but not great.
The pleather ear pads are rather shallow but the case is not as bad as on my Fostex T50RP Mk3.
The headband size is self-adjusting but the comfort or pressure distribution aren't great due to the split design.

Clamping force is on the higher side.

There is a bit of passive noise isolation, but not to the degree of most fully closed-back over-ear headphones.

Sound:

I have the shorter (1 m) of the two extension cables attached.

Tonality:

V-shaped with elevated mid- and upper bass ass well as upper middle and upper treble.

The midrange is definitely nicely tuned and follows a flat, diffuse-field oriented tuning wherefore voices sound natural and realistic – something that is especially nice to hear on headphones this inexpensive.
As the bass and highs are elevated, though, the midrange is perceptively ultimately pushed further into the background of the mix.

The lows stay nicely out of the mids and don't start to climb before about 550 Hz; they then reach their climax somewhere around 100 Hz with an elevation of around 8 dB of what would be neutral to my ears, with a subjectively perceived strong, bassy impact. Level stays there down to 60 Hz; below that, the bass starts to roll off.
Therefore, the midbass and upper bass are the most elevated areas, however the sub-bass isn't lacking at all and definitely present with similar quantity as the central mids, however probably not fully down to the very lowest registers where it is perhaps a bit below the mids’ level.

The upper middle and upper highs as well as super treble are then elevated, with surprisingly high evenness wherefore the highs are bright but fairly (but not fully) realistic, although undeniably tuned more towards the “fun” side.

Resolution:

Very decent – even more so considering how little these headphone cost.

Pretty clean sounding bass that is only a bit on the softer side. Details are good, but not the most separated (sounds a bit blunt), despite being fairly tight and fast.

Decent midrange resolution and speech intelligibility – nothing sounds grainy here.

Treble resolution is good, but fast attacks could be rendered a bit cleaner.

Soundstage:

On the smaller to average side with almost just as much spatial depth as width.
Reaches about from the left from the right ear cup and about to where my eyes are located.

Imaging and separation aren't as clean as on some of my more expensive headphones, but the imaging is anything but blurry and remains decently precise and distinguishable even when more complex music is played.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Superlux HD681:

The HD668B sound bassier to me.
Deep bass extension on my HD861 is minimally better by ca. 3 Hz, but not much and only audible when performing sine sweeps.
The HD681 are brighter, leaner (and therefore less realistic) in the mids.
The same goes for the treble where the HD681 are brighter and peakier – out of the two, the HD668B are definitely the better-tuned headphones.

The HD681s’ bass sounds a bit cleaner and tighter in comparison.
Both are similarly resolving in the mids and highs, with the HD861 appearing airier in comparison (but most likely only because of their tuning).

The two headphones’ soundstages are nearly identical to my ears, with the HD681s’ being perhaps just a tiny bit wider.

Fostex x Massdrop TH-X00 Mahogany:

Way different price league, but several similarities.

Both sound v-shaped.

The bass boost starts about similarly on both headphones until 100 Hz, with my Fostex being a bit less full in the root, however below 100 Hz, the TH-X00 continue to climb further and further, and start to roll off much lower than the Superlux that are already really good in this regard, wherefore they have got considerably more sub- and midbass quantity than the cheaper headphones, with an overall more sub-bass-driven sound signature. Due to this more sub-bass-driven signature, they are the even more engaging and fun sounding headphones in the lowest registers.
The Fostex’ upper mids are more in the background, but not subdued.
The upper middle highs are clearly brighter on the Superlux, whereas the TH-X00 are tuned brighter in the starting super treble.
Out of the two, the Fostex’ highs sound more realistic and natural.

In terms of resolution, the Fostex are ahead, but the gap towards the Superlux is not as gigantic as one may thing. Not at all, in fact, as the latter still perform very reasonably when compared to the former that are ultimately however superior by a good bit in about every aspect regarding resolution.
Therefore, the Fostex’ bass rendering is cleaner, tighter, faster, better controlled as well as better layered; in the mids, they are more layered and detailed as well as refined sounding, which also applies to the highs.

The soundstage size is comparable with the TH-X00s’ appearing overall just a bit larger in terms of spatial width and depth.
In terms of imaging, though, the soundstage is cleaner and better focused on the Fostex, with superior instrument separation, a better portrayal of “emptiness” around tonal elements, and an overall more authentic imaginary room. Directly compared, the Fostex’ soundstage also collapses less when fast and busy music tracks are played, even though the Superlux do a good job at this as well.

Conclusion:

Recommended.

Inexpensive, well-tuned v-shaped fun sounding headphones with good technical performance and even midrange response.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

Shure SE425


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

Decent unboxing experience and accessories.

I like the shiny silver mirror-like design.
Build quality is good.

Excellent fit, ergonomics and noise isolation.

Removable cable with MMCX connectors.
Long, good strain relief integration, does not lack a chin-slider. Feels sturdy and one can feel that below the outer shielding, the inner conductors are twisted. Supple.

Two BA drivers per side. Two ways.

Sound:

Largest included single-flange silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Fairly neutral leaning towards rolled-off/dark-ish in the upper treble. Largely flat and uncoloured.

The lows show a gentle boost of warmth in the fundamental range/lower midrange, comparable to my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors, with a boost of around 3 dB compared to my Etymotic ER-4S.
While the sub-bass is reproduced with sufficient level, it is generally a bit behind the upper bass in quantity as the lows level starts to gradually decline a little from the lower fundamental range towards the sub-bass.

Except for the gentle lift in the fundamental range that adds just a touch of lower midrange body, the midrange is tuned neutral towards ever so slightly dark, but quite prominent/intimate in the mix. Due to the mild roll-off towards the sub-bass as well as the relatively early treble roll-off, the Shure could also be categorised into the mid-centered side of neutral in-ears.

The treble remains unobtrusive in a positive way in the lower and middle highs, with a moderate dip in the middle treble, just to be around neutral quantity above again.
Above that, however, is the SE425s’ biggest pity, their treble extension, that is simply lacking, with a roll-off that starts already before the upper treble that is relevant for cymbal reproduction, with a muted super treble above that, wherefore the Shure clearly lack the reproduction of many instruments’ overtones and thus perceived “air”, with cymbals for example just sounding as if they were cut off. This also leads to a sound that appears somewhat “veiled”.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

Except for the 7 kHz peak that I do not hear when performing sine sweeps or listening to music, this is also how I perceive my SE425.

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Solid for multi-BA in-ears in this price range. Surpasses many similarly priced dynamic driver in-ears. Nevertheless definitely not class-leading for multi-BA IEMs in this price range, and surpassed by in-ears such as the Rose Technology Mini2, Brainwavz B200 (the good first generation, not the inferior v2), Etymotic’s in-ears, the Pai Audio MR3 and the Eternal Melody EM2.

The bass is very tight, fast and clean, while details in the lows could be ultimately a bit higher, but are still decently reproduced. Due to their bass speed, the SE425 remain clean and well-separated in the lows even in fast music passages. As for this, the Shure even outperform some other multi-BA in-ears with rear-vented BA woofers when it comes to tightness.

Midrange details and speech intelligibility are convincing as well.

While treble details are per se not really lacking, the early and steep roll-off in the treble that just cuts off the upper highs altogether makes the SE425 lack some upper end information.

Soundstage:

Very small and especially narrow soundstage, even to the point that I would say that there is more depth than width. Still more pronounced three-dimensionality than my Sennheiser Amperior, but that’s not a difficult thing to achieve.

Instrument separation is executed well with clean borders, but due to the stage’s small size, it seems a bit cramped.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Noble Audio SAVANNA:

The Shure have got the very slightly lighter bass (by ca. 0.5 dB) that also start to lose quantity slightly earlier.
In the mids, the SE425 are somewhat more forward and mid-centric sounding.
The SE425 have got the more forward presence range. In the treble, the Shure start to roll off noticeably earlier, wherefore cymbals sound quite muffled on them.

The Shure have got the slightly quicker upper bass punch, however their lows don’t appear as layered or detailed as the Savannas’. Likewise, in the mids and highs, the Savanna are ahead whereas the SE425 sound more veiled in comparisons, with fine details not being reproduced as effortlessly.

Regarding soundstage, the Nobles’ isn’t only larger in all dimensions but also considerably more realistic, in addition to being more precise as well.

Jays q-JAYS (2nd generation):

The SE425 win in terms of absolute neutrality, though they is more mid-centric and have got the obviously inferior treble extension; the q-JAYS' upper treble is noticeably brighter due to their peak whereas the Shures’ is a little on the darker side.

The q-JAYS outperform the SE425 in terms of resolution. In the mids, treble as well as bass, the Swedish in-ears outputs more details while the Shure sound “restricted”/a bit cloudy in comparison.
The Shure have got a closed BA woofer and as a result of this the quicker and tighter bass in comparison, but the Jays in return have got the more detailed lows and are still far away from being slow or soft sounding.

The Shure have got a very small soundstage whereas the Jays’ is more open, with the more precise instrument separation and, as a consequence of the larger size, better instrument placement.

Conclusion:

Neutral tuning with decent technical performance, especially in terms of bass speed and tightness, but unfortunately clearly too early and steep roll-off in the treble that just cuts off instruments’ overtones and leads to a severe lack of perceived “air” and extension. Narrow soundstage.
A price closer to 200$ is more realistic than the ~ 300$ price tag.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

Meze 99 Classics


Source:

Personal unit. (I won them as part of a gear bundle in a competition.)


Miscellaneous

Come with a sturdy hard case (headphones fit in even when the cable is attached) that looks good and is very protective.
Two cables are included – a short one with microphone/remote unit, and a longer one. Both have got a 3.5 mm plug. Last but not least, a 3.5 mm to 6.3 mm adapter, airplane adapter and zipped bag (for the spare cable) are included as well.

There are no side indicators on the headphones (Meze dedicated that job to the cable).
Build quality and design are good, however ultimately the headphones don’t appear as premium. Still very good.
I really like the wood grain. Beautiful.

Self-adjusting height adjustment mechanism (somewhat comparable to that of my AKG K701). Likes to pull my hair out, though (at least as badly as my Koss Porta Pro, probably even worse).
Headband bracket made of metal; very unpleasantly microphonic and ringing when touched, which is a big factor of annoyance.

I don't like the cable. It's fabric-coated everywhere, even above the y-splitter. Quite microphonic as well. Will show signs of wear fairly quickly due to that fabric, as it will fray over time (mine already does a little in some places).
3.5 mm mono plugs on the cable’s headphone-facing side.

Fairly small and shallow ear pads. Still manage to seal well, though. Good noise isolation.

Sound:

Tonality:

Big, bassy, smooth, natural, dark.

Really strong bass elevation with only moderate roll-off towards the sub-bass. Lots of impact and punch.

Warm fundamental range transition into the upper fundamentals; therefore warm, lush lower mids without becoming overly muddy or muffled sounding.

Treble generally evenly in the background, even already in the lower treble. Therefore on the darker side but relaxed and smooth instead of lacking. Natural kind of relaxed. Not fatiguing.
Pleasantly lacking any noticeable dips or peaks.

Resolution:

Good midrange and treble resolution; nothing to criticise here.

Unfortunately the bass doesn't really blend in with the rest. Appears somewhat dull and also a bit loose, lacks some differentiation; doesn't have the details of the mids and highs. Also shows some already slightly audible distortion even at quiet listening levels.
While not very bad, I expect better bass quality for the price. What the 99 Classics deliver is the bass performance I'd expect from a set of 150$ headphones. That said, I'd rate my Sennheiser Amperiors’, Shure SEH440s’, Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pros’ (250 Ohm) and the 1More Mk801s’ bass quality above that of the 99 Classics. Solely the Mee audio Air-Fi Matrix² (wired use) and Brainwavz HM2 are about comparable to the Meze in terms of bass quality, but both headphones cost much less.

Soundstage:

Average for closed-back headphone in terms of dimensions.

Not too much width but fairly good localisation and decent layering. Instrument separation could be a little better, just like the separation (it's not foggy but not spot-on sharp and exact either).

Still fairly decent imaging overall.


Conclusion:

Beautiful wood. Unfortunately highly microphonic headband arch (rings when touched). The headband really likes to pull hair out. Small ear pads.
Bassy. Smooth and natural, warm-dark midrange and treble tuning; even response that lacks peaks/dips. Decent midrange and treble resolution. Underwhelming bass quality and low-range details, though.

 

[CK Moustache]

1More E1001


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Also commonly known just as “1More Triple-Driver”.

Luxurious unboxing experience.
I especially like the “1More” tie pin that comes included.
Nice selection of ear tips.

Shells fully made of aluminium. Unusual but nice colour scheme with rose gold and the darker of the two colours reminding me on Mercedes-Benz’ “Bornite Metallic 481”.
Build quality seems to be good.

While the included carrying case looks and feels nice, what I don’t like about it is that it isn’t designed to be fully sealed and will therefore let dust and dirt in.

Cable non-removable. Coated with woven fabric below the cable divider. Looks and feels nice and has even got some subtle blue accents incorporated, but is highly likely to fray over time and more prone to soaking fluids than regular cables.
No chin-slider.
The remote control (three buttons, located on the right hand side) feels of high quality.

Designed to be worn with the cable down. Due to this and the lack of a chin-slider, microphonics are unfortunately strong.

Three drivers per side; hybrid construction (1x dynamic driver, 2x BA).

Sound:

Largest included silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Clearly consumer-oriented (sub-) bass-focused L- to w-shape.

As it is the case with pretty much all in-ears that house a dynamic driver and are vented, the amount by how much the E1001s’ inner vents are blocked also affects their (especially sub-) bass output. In my ears, the vents are closer to being blocked than free, and as a result the sound is even somewhat more sub-bass-oriented than if the vents remained completely free.

The bass starts to climb around 900 Hz and reaches its climax around 40 Hz to my ears, with a quantity of around 16 dB compared to diffuse-field flatness, but is already very present around 90 Hz wherefore the sound, while ultimately still focused on the true sub-bass and lower midbass, does carry some strong and noticeably punch and is also heading undeniably into the warmer direction in the lower fundamental range and lower midrange but without overshadowing the mids.

The mids seem to be neither intimate nor distant in the mix; there is small climb towards 4 kHz in the middle treble wherefore bright voices’ overtones carry a bit of added brightness to compensate for the lower midrange warmth. While this also affects instruments’ timbre (such as trumpets and pianos) negatively and colours them to a brighter pitch, I personally think that this elevation is necessary as a counterweight to the warmth in order to make voices not appear too muffled.

Around 6 kHz, I can hear a rather narrow dip that adds headroom for the former as well as the next elevation that starts around 8 kHz and peaks in the super treble around 12 kHz.
Ultimately, while neither sharp nor annoying (but sometimes just somewhat too “sizzling”) thanks to being placed quite high, the latter of the two elevations, combined with the 6 kHz drop, results in the treble to not sound natural but artificial while it sounds overall inoffensive yet bright at the same time.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation (blocked inner Vents)

My ears block the inner vents slightly less than completely, so the actually perceived sub-bass elevation is just a little bit less strong to me but comes very close. Otherwise, that’s also the tonal tendency that I actually hear when performing sine sweeps, although I perceive the lower/mid-treble elevation as just a bit milder, with a slightly less steep 6 kHz dip.

I haven’t saved the FR measurement with un-blocked vents.

ProPhile 8-Compensation (blocked inner Vents)

Resolution:

When it comes to resolution, the E1001 are merely “okay” at best in their price range and outperformed by a good number of other competing single-driver and some multi-driver in-ears.
That said, apart from some metallicness and perceived short decay in the upper highs, the two BA drivers don’t really shine through when it comes to details and separation; the treble just lacks some details.

Overall, the midrange and treble details and separation are just acceptable for the price, and as mentioned, more or less clearly outperformed by other single- and multi-driver in-ears in all areas or certain ones of the frequency spectrum (iBasso IT01, AAW Nebula One, Moondrop Starfield, FiiO FH1, Shure SE215m+SPE, Fidue A65 – just to name a few). Generally, it just sounds as if the dynamic driver were handling most (if not even all) of the frequency spectrum and the BA drivers were just integrated to incorporate some upper treble sparkle.

The lows are neither the tightest nor fastest and come close to the point of being spongy and undefined; solely their more or less controlled decay saves them from notes and bass lines not being perceptible anymore. As for quality, the dynamic driver implementation in the E1001 is clearly on the lower side, with only my Sennheiser IE 80, Trinity Audio Engineering Delta V-II, the NuForce NE800M and Chord & Major’s in-ears managing to deliver even less quality in the bass.
Apart from the lack of tightness and speed, I also perceive the lows’ details as less than average.

Soundstage:

The perceived soundstage is overall fairly average to me as well – neither narrow nor especially wide expanding, however with rather decent although less-than-wide front projection.

Imaging precision is okay as well – not especially blurry or diffuse, but not precise and well-separated either.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Fidue A73:

The Fidue are less bassy than the 1More but still clearly elevated and warm, although a bit less warm in the mids.
In the upper mids and lower treble, the A73 are brighter.
Both are comparably bright in the upper highs, with the Fidue peaking somewhat lower.

The A73 decay a bit slower in the lows compared to the 1More but have the better defined, tighter attack as well as more detailed bass.
Both are comparably detailed in the mids and treble, with a slight advantage for the Fidue which separate single notes better and more precisely.

The A73s’ soundstage is larger and also somewhat more precise to my ears.

AAW Nebula 2:

The Nebula 2 are comparable in the sub- and midbass as for quantity, but with even more upper bass punch. The E1001 are warmer in the root, though.
The AAWs’ mids are flatter.
The E1001s’ highs appear darker due to their 6 kHz recession even though their upper treble carries more brightness.

The AAW are superior when it comes to bass speed and tightness, and also feature a more detailed midrange and treble.

Soundstage size and imaging precision are about comparable.

Conclusion:

While it lacks realism in the treble reproduction when it comes to real instruments, the E1001s’ consumer-oriented fun tuning is overall okay and does not offend. When it comes to technicalities, though, these in-ears fall rather short and deliver a performance that can be described as merely “acceptable” in this price range where several better performing single-driver models exist.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

FiiO M5


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Tested at firmware version FW 1.2.0.

Plenty of wired and wireless features (aptX Bluetooth reception and transmission, USB DAC in and out), but I will mainly focus on its performance as a traditional digital audio player in my review.

No screen protector applied by factory, which is not very FiiO-like. Two protectors and a data/charging cable are included, though, along with a plastic case with integrated clip.

Available in multiple colours.

Rear made of glass.

Decent build quality.
Fairly small and compact – not as slim as my Apple iPod Nano 6G, but still nicely compact.

Surprisingly heavy for the size.
Nice blue LED above the screen (for Bluetooth-related stuff).

Rather small buttons, however easy to find and distinguish. No volume up/down (+/-) indicator except for a tactile dot on the volume up button.
Combined headphone, line and coaxial output socket.
USB-C (USB 2.0).

It’s nice that a clear plastic case with built-in shirt clip is included.

Unfortunately no built-in FM radio.

Does not seem to support in-line cable remote control commands.

Built-in microphones (can be used for hands-free phone calls when the player is connected to a mobile phone via Bluetooth) and built-in voice recorder.
Built-in step counter.

No internal storage.
Micro-SD card slot.

1.54 inch 240 x 240 pixels touchscreen (similar screen dimensions and resolution as my Apple iPod Nano 6G). Easy to read and doesn’t feel pixelated at all despite the seemingly low resolution.
The screen orientation can be changed, however, unlike on my Apple iPod Nano 6G, only through the settings and not through intuitive two-finger turns.

What's somewhat annoying: the 3.5 mm socket is located right next to the volume control buttons, wherefore operating them while a headphone/in-ear with an angled plug is inserted is only possible when the plug is turned into the other direction. The same goes for thick plugs. That's definitely better executed on my Apple iPod Nano 6G where the 3.5 mm socket and control buttons are located on opposite sides.

Graphical User Interface:

Surprisingly intuitive navigation by swipe gestures – a lot like on my Apple iPod Nano 6G, but not entirely similar (e.g. no long press return to home screen). One can go back by swiping from left to right – just like on my iPod Nano 6G.
Swiping from top to bottom and then clicking on the album cover/title/interpret display jumps straight to the playback screen where one can swipe left and right to access different playback-related screens.

Smooth and fluent navigation and animations.
Navigation (clicking on specific elements and swiping from left to right to go back) not always as precise as on my Apple iPod Nano 6G or 7G, however good most of the time.

Currently, some playback-related bugs (long track title texts aren’t fully displayed and don’t scroll automatically/cannot be scrolled horizontally by swiping over them) still persist.

Currently no volume indicator on the lock screen or playback screen or drop-down playback screen (only in the menus); only pops up when changing the volume.

Typical FiiO feature (that I also already know from my X3): “Resume mode”: “Position” leads to the playback to continue right after the player is turned on again, and there is no option to having to click on “play” manually (that’s what I like about the Rockbox firmware that I installed on my SanDisk Sansa Clip Plus, Sansa Clip Zip and the xDuoo X3 – it leaves the user the option to continue the playback automatically after booting the player or to having to click on “play” manually in order for the playback to start).


Sound:

I’m only using and testing the 3.5 mm headphone output (playback from micro-SD card).

When high sensitivity, low impedance in-ears are used, very often, there is some mild left channel crackle/pop when pausing/skipping/changing the playback position of most files and during the transition of two files (the latter mainly happens with lossy files, however the rest unfortunately also appears in almost all cases when playing lossless files (click/pop/crackle is always present when changing the playback position or when pausing/resuming the playback/muting/unmuting the volume regardless of whether the file is lossy or lossless)), and it can even happen in a silent passage of a song; so it seems as if some sort of totally unnecessary noise gate that immediately turns off the amplifier section when no signal is detected were implemented, and this is definitely highly annoying.

Gapless Playback:

Works perfectly when using FLAC files.

Volume Control:

60 volume steps (no gain setting). Gentle fading up/down when changing the volume (therefore no instant volume changes), which is definitely a matter of taste (it is definitely somewhat irritating as it takes around one second for the volume to change after pressing any of the two volume buttons).

Even using extremely sensitive in-ears such as my Campfire Audio Andromeda and playing loudly mastered files, the lowest possible volume setting above mute is quiet enough for me for quiet listening, which is very, very nice.

Personally, I wouldn't mind more steps than 60 in order to achieving finer volume step changes (that’s my general criticism about every device that doesn't have 1 dB to 0.5 dB changes per step over the entire adjustable range), but the jumps aren’t too big even in the low adjustable range, so it’s ultimately fine.

Hiss Performance:

Using my extremely sensitive Campfire Audio Andromeda, the audible hiss in a very quiet but not yet silent passage of a song is only slightly audible in a quiet room, which makes the M5 very good/almost perfectly perfect in this regard. Therefore it is one of those very rare low output impedance devices with very good hiss performance when using extremely sensitive in-ears.

Frequency Response (no Load):

FR unloaded

Unsurprisingly as flat as it is supposed to be.

Output Impedance (Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10 as Load):

FR loaded – Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10

The very small deviation indicates that FiiO’s stated specs of a very low output impedance of below 0.5 Ohms are true, and that the actual output impedance is even closer to 0 Ohms, which is perfect.

Subjective Listening Impressions:

Not all that surprisingly thanks to its good specs and measured performance, the subjectively perceived sound is very clean and transparent, “precise”, just as it should be.

Subjectively, using well-resolving multi-BA in-ears, I have the slight subjective feeling that the bass response may be a little softer when compared to other devices such as my RME ADI-2 DAC or iBasso DX90 (as well as the iBasso DX200, DX220 and Cowon Plenue 2), but even if it were the case, it would be just one of those minor and practically irrelevant differences even in concentrated listening real-world scenarios.

While the M5’s near-perfect hiss performance and perfectly low output impedance make it theoretically perfect for extremely sensitive multi-BA in-ears, the noise gate and crackle/pops in the left channel when used with super sensitive in-ears, as described further above, are super annoying.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Apple iPod Nano 6G:

My iPod is much flatter and lighter.
Similar screen dimensions and resolution.
Both can be attached to one’s clothes using a clip. The FiiO’s is however removable.

While the FiiO comes reasonably close, the iPod is ultimately superior when it comes to navigation, responsiveness, ease of use and intuitive touchscreen control.

The iPod has got built-in memory that is not expandable whereas it’s the other way around on the FiiO.

In-line remote control commands are supported by the iPod whereas they are not by the FiiO.

The FiiO obviously offers many more features. Unlike the iPod, it lacks an FM radio, though.

In terms of output impedance, hiss performance with super sensitive in-ears and number of volume steps, the FiiO outperforms the iPod. However, the iPod lacks that noise gate and disappointing noise in the left channel that occurs under specific conditions when the FiiO is used with very sensitive in-ears.

Conclusion:

Theoretically very good nearing perfection when it comes to audio performance (especially in regards to its perfectly low output impedance and nearly perfect hiss performance), but with some highly annoying flaws when using in-ears with really high sensitivity.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

Stoner Acoustics UD125


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Comes with a very nice storage case and cable.

It’s great to have the user manual basically printed onto the case’s top plate.
Compact design.
I sort of like that aside from a graphical operation manual, the top also features a simple schematic graphic of the internal sound-related component.
Made of metal.
Build quality seems really good.
Surprisingly light.
Unfortunately the DAC doesn’t have any rubber feet.

3.5 mm headphone output on the front, along with a status indicator LED (different colours for the digital filters as well as minimal and maximal volume warning) and a joystick-like digital volume rocker that can be pushed in to change the digital filters.
Mini USB input on the rear.

Sound:

AKM AK4490 DAC chip; Texas Instruments TPA6120 amplifier chip.

Volume Control:

Digitally controlled volume with 256 attenuation steps with precise 0.5 dB per step along the entire attenuation range result in the ability of listening just barely above the audible threshold even when using extremely sensitive in-ears is possible, which is very nice.

While it is nice that the last volume (as well as digital filter) setting is remembered, there is unfortunately no volume indicator, which is somewhat sad.
No accelerated volume adjustment wherefore large adjustments take some time.

Pushing in the volume rocker for at least one second mutes the output.

Hiss Performance:

There is some clearly audible hiss with very/near extremely sensitive in-ears (e.g. Ostry KC06A, Shure SE846, Pai Audio MR3) and fairly high amount of hiss with extremely sensitive in-ears (Campfire Audio Andromeda). Ultimately less hissy than the iBasso DX50, HiFime 9018D, Shanling M2 or iBasso DX80, but also not nearly as quiet as devices such as the iBasso DX200, iBasso DX90, Cowon Plenue 2, Cowon Plenue D or FiiO Q5.
Using still sensitive but less extremely sensitive in-ears such as my Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10 or Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors, hiss becomes very little, but is still audible.

As a result, I wouldn’t recommend the UD125 for sensitive in-ears.

Frequency Response (no Load):

FR unloaded

Flat and linear as it should be, but with a small roll-off towards 20 kHz that is however negligible.

Frequency Response (no Load; all of the four Digital Filters):

FR unloaded Digital Filters

Output Impedance (Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10 as Load):

FR loaded – Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10

Based on the frequency response deviation, the UD125’s output impedance is calculated to be around only 0.1 Ohms, which is truly excellent.

Subjective Listening Impressions:

Nothing bad to report here.

Subjectively a bit of softness in the lows and perceived “smoothing” of the high frequencies when using in-ears; likely caused by the high noise floor.
No audible difference to other flat measuring devices anymore to me when used with full-sized headphones.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

HiFime 9018D:

Neither DAC has got any rubber feet.
The 9018D is slightly more compact and even features a digital output whereas the UD125 comes with a practical storage case.
While the 9018D has got two digital filter settings that can only be switched when turning on the device, the UD125’s digital filters can be changed any time.

Whereas the Stoner Acoustics DAC doesn’t have any sort of real volume indicator, the HiFime has got a very convenient LCD screen that shows the volume and sample rate (and even the screen’s backlight brightness can be adjusted).

Both feature 256 precisely digitally controlled volume attenuation steps à 0.5 dB.

Both have got a perfectly low output impedance of around 0.5 Ohms.

Neither DAC comes close to hiss-free perfection with sensitive in-ears, but the UD125 is ultimately somewhat less hissy (audible hiss with my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors on the HiFime and only very mild hissing the Stoner Acoustics).

Subjectively when using in-ears, the HiFime appears a bit “harder”/”more direct” in the highs compared to the softer/smoother UD125. The Stoner Acoustic’s low-end presentation appears slightly softer when used with multi-BA in-ears.
Perhaps very slightly larger (especially deeper) soundstage rendering on the UD125 with in-ears.

Conclusion:

Perfect output impedance, highly precise digitally operated volume control that also allows for listening just barely above the audible threshold. Unfortunately quite hissy with sensitive in-ears. A volume indicator would have been nice as well.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

Shure SE215m+SPE


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

One could definitely call the Shure SE215 true modern classics when it comes to single dynamic driver in-ears.

Honestly, the white shell colour was definitely a major factor for why I bought the SE215m+SPE.

Decent unboxing experience but rather simple compared to my SE425 and SE846.

Carrying case included and protective against moisture and dirt as well as dust, but quite soft and therefore not nearly as protective as that of my SE425.

I love the white shell colour with grey logos.
Typical Shure design and ergonomics.
Shells flatter than those of my SE425 and more rounded in the front.
Build quality seems decent although the finish is somewhat below that of the SE425.

Removable cable with MMCX connectors.
The cable is quite a disappointment – it is clearly of lesser quality than the SE425s’ and doesn’t feel nearly as robust; the only thing they have in common is the y-splitter. The SE215m+SPEs’ cable is definitely thinner, the 3.5 mm plug is straight instead of angled and has got a minimalistic, fragile appearing strain relief.
At least a chin-slider is still present despite the three-button remote control unit. Speaking of which, the mic-remote unit is fairly large, nonetheless the buttons are unnecessarily close to each other, although easy to distinguish from each other; the accentuation force is a tad too high.

As the shells are closed, noise isolation is very high.

Sound:

Largest included silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Very warm with strong bass boost; relaxed treble.

At about 800 Hz, the bass’ level begins to rise slowly and reaches its climax at about 60 Hz and can be maintained practically down to 20 Hz without any roll-off. The strongest emphasis here is about 11 dB compared to in-ears like the Etymotic ER-4S/SR which are tuned close to the diffuse-field target in the bass.

Since the upper bass is already not really all that much less emphasised, however, it gives the in-ears a powerful, punchy upper bass character.

Even though the SE215m+SPEs’ bass is undoubtedly quite prominent, it doesn’t tend to bloom too much and the sound isn’t too bass-heavy (in the price range around 100€, where the Shure fit in, there are definitely many in-ears with an even stronger bass focus). Nonetheless the lows have got an ample amount of warmth, and undeniably radiate into the lower mids, although the midrange is not overshadowed by the lows.

As voices are not masked too much by the bass despite being clearly warm, the midrange tuning is done quite well, with a correct to just slightly recessed/dark upper midrange, which is the reason for the mids still having enough presence and proximity in the mix without drowning in the ample warmth and bass.

Above 3 kHz, the level is slightly in the background just to form a peak at 5 kHz when listening to sine sweeps, but to my ears it just barely, if even at all, crosses the neutral baseline wherefore it is neither annoying nor does it lead to any sort of metallicness/reduced realism, although it ultimately leads to cymbals gaining a minimally metallic impact/edge, wherefore they are ultimately not 100% accurately reproduced in timbre.
Above that, the highs are in the background and therefore inoffensively relaxed and sloping down, wherefore hi-hats/cymbals are actually softened and never sharp, but not lacking either.
Thankfully the SE215m+SPE don’t really appear muffled, although one could argue that they perhaps lack some “air”/”snap”.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

To my ears, the 5 kHz lift is less present even to the point of being pretty much somewhere around neutral in quantity, wherefore the actually perceived treble response is darker than on the graph.

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

In terms of resolution/details, the Shures’ delivery is definitely solid and worth the price for single dynamic driver in-ears, although they are not the “best” in their field and ultimately outperformed by offerings such as the Etymotic ER2XR, Moondrop Starfield, Fidue A65 and iBasso IT01/IT01v2, especially when it comes to midrange and treble micro details, while the SE215m+SPEs’ bass quality is ultimately among the better/best for similarly-priced dynamic driver and hybrid in-ears.

The bass is quite a positive surprise – it is, despite the strong elevation, nicely fast, tight, punchy and maintains high control. Softness is avoided nicely. While the lows surely don’t reach the speed and tightness of the iBasso IT03, IT02, Fostex TE-02 or most in-ears with Balanced Armature woofers, the Shure don’t appear stressed in most situations, and especially avoid muddiness. Solely very fast material leads to single bass notes’ being reproduced mushier, although they still distinguishable from each other.

Midrange resolution and speech intelligibility are decent, but one shouldn’t expect the performance of higher-priced dynamic driver or single-BA in-ears, as there is a bit of grain in the mids’ details.

Basically the same as for the midrange also applies to the highs.

Soundstage:

To my ears, the stage is rather wide, which is somewhat of a surprise compared to Shure’s multi-BA in-ears.
Expansion is quite exactly from my left ear to my right one, without really exceeding that base; there is not much spatial depth and the soundstage appears fairly flat to minimally elliptical.

Instrument separation is fairly precise for this price range and doesn’t suffer too much even when more demanding tracks are played, although the “empty” room between tonal elements isn’t perceived as fully but with a little bit of bleed instead.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

ORIVETI BASIC:

The BASICs’ bass is slightly more lifted in the sub-bass whereas their fundamental range and upper bass are elevated slightly less wherefore their lows radiate somewhat less into the lower midrange.
The Shures’ vocal reproduction is warmer whereas the ORIVETIs’ is darker due to somewhat less level in the presence range.
The reble response is fairly similar with the BASIC only being slightly brighter. Above 10 kHz, though, the ORIVETI are more present wherefore they appear “airier” and offer more subtle sparbke.

The BASIC are somewhat softer and slower in the lows.
Resolution, on the other hand is a little higher on the ORIVETI.

The BASICs’ stage is somewhat larger to my ears (slightly wider but especially somewhat deeper). Both are about even when it comes to imaging precision.

ADVANCED Model 3 (wired Use):

The Model 3s’ bass boost is even stronger and they feature an even warmer fundamental range that radiates more into the midrange than the Shures’.
The ADVANCEDs’ mids are brighter and consequently more “balanced” sounding due to the upper midrange boost compensating for the lower midrange warmth.
Their upper treble is also clearly brighter, with cymbals not being dampened, while extension past 10 kHz is about the same.

The Model 3 are clearly slower and softer in the lows and audibly muddier. When it comes to midrange and treble resolution, the Shure are ahead as well.

The ADVANCEDs’ stage is narrower but deeper.
Instrument separation is somewhat better on the Shure.

iBasso IT01:

The Shure sound warmer, thicker and darker whereas sub-bass quantity is comparable.
Mids are closer in the mix on the SE215m+SPE.
Their treble response is also noticeably darer and more relaxed.

In terms of resolution, the iBasso are ahead, and are one of those rare cases that outperform the Shure when it comes to bass quality.
Even though the Shure have got a nicely tight, fast and punchy bass for dynamic driver in-ears, the IT01 manage to be even a bit tighter and faster in the lows. But it definitely doesn’t stop here, since their definition and details are also on a higher level in the lows.
Generally, separation and resolution are cleaner on the IT01.

When it comes to soundstage, the Shures’ is slightly wider while depth is comparable (perhaps a tad deeper on the iBasso, but the difference is fairly negligible). Instrument separation and imaging precision are somewhat superior on the iBasso.

NuForce HEM Dynamic:

Below 400 Hz, the Dynamic rise stronger towards the sub-bass and have no less than around 8 dB more quantity in the true sub-bass than the Shure.

Otherwise, their midrange and lower midrange is fairly close, although due to their stronger lower fundamental range and midbass, the NuForce appear to be more bloated.
Treble response is remarkably comparable, with the exception being that the HEM Dyamic do not cross the border of neutrality around 5 kHz but are relaxed here, wherefore their treble response is ultimately smoother and more realistic than the Shures’.

When it comes to technical presentation, though, the NuForce are a fair bit below the Shure and sound much softer, boomier and slower, and not even remotely close when it comes to control – in fact, they seem to reach their limit very early, even with rather slow to normally-paced music, and become muddy very soon.

Westone UM Pro 10:

The Shure are tuned considerably bassier and warmer, with the fuller presentation in comparison.
Vocals on the SE215m+SPE are more intimate.
The Shure sound a bit darker in the upper highs (cymbals) but extend a bit further above 10 kHz.

While the Shure have got a quite tight and quick bass for dynamic driver standards and are among the better models in this regard, the single-BA driver used in the Westone is nonetheless a bit superior when it comes to tightness, and also slightly when it comes to speed. Therefore the Shure have got more of the typically recognisable dynamic driver slam and texture in comparison, while being ultimately not as controlled or detailed in the bass as the Westone when more complex and faster tracks are being played.
Overall the UM Pro 10 sound just a bit cleaner than the Shure, but not by that much, however they definitely remain better controlled with more complex music material; altogether they are the slightly more refined appearing in-ears when it comes to technical presentation.

The Shures’ soundstage is overall somewhat wider and sounds a bit more open.

Conclusion:

Recommended.

Bassy-warm, inoffensively dark tuning that is executed well. Punchy, fast and tight bass response. Resolution decent for dynamic driver in-ears in this price range, and while not among the very best, still reasonably good.
The cable doesn’t seem very durable, though, and should be treated with care.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

Zero Audio Carbo Tenore


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

Very simple plastic packaging.
Three pairs of differently sized silicone tips plus branded storage pouch (a case would’ve been nicer but a pouch is still better than nothing, and still okay in this price range).

Quite small shells, almost tiny.
Nice design; I like the carbon fibre and dark grey aluminium.
Build quality seems decent.

Soft cable but doesn’t appear very durable. The strain relief could be better. Integrated chin-slider.

One dynamic driver per side.

Sound:

Largest included ear tips.

Tonality:

W-shaped tonality with nicely implemented, strong sub-bass boost.

Lows start to climb around 600 Hz and reach their climax around 40 Hz, in the real sub-bass, with an elevation of around 12 dB compared to my Etymotic ER-4S. No roll-off below that, and as a result the Carbo Tenore have got a sub-bass driven boost without too much spillage into the midrange, which is nice.

The mids are tuned quite well, with only deep and bright voices being somewhat accentuated due to the fundamental range range lift as well as another mild one between 2.4 kHz and 3 kHz that I can spot when performing sine sweeps.
Due to their slightly u-shaped character, voices appear subjectively a bit recessed/further in the background of the mix.

One can hear a lift around 6.8 kHz and 7.8 kHz that is on the stronger side and adds some brightness to the mix. Tends to be somewhat annoying at times due to its quantity as well as since it is ultimately placed not high enough.
That peak can be basically eliminated with a really deep insertion, however that doesn’t feel natural to me as the ear pieces disappear almost completely in my ears that way, with only the cable/strain relief sticking out of my ear canals (which is most definitely not good and would, on the long run, potentially cause the cable to break as I would need to pull on it in order to extract the in-ears).

Overall, I would consider the Carbo Tenore as some of the clearly better-tuned w-shaped in-ears – much better than the subpar Anew U1 anyway.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Decent (enough) for the price but certainly not among the best dynamic driver in-ears in this range. Below my Fostex TE-02, Havi B3 Pro I and TTPod T1 as well as the Fidue A65.

Aside from its location, the upper lift in the treble can be somewhat unpleasant (sharp) at times as the resolution is only average in this area; the Zero Audio would just have to resolve better in order to pull that elevation off more effortlessly, as the single note differentiation could be better in the highs.

About the same applies to the bass as the lower bass could use somewhat more differentiation and precision since the lows soften towards the sub-bass, nonetheless the tightness is ultimately still okay for dynamic driver in-ears although a good bit away from my single-BA Sony XBA-C10, MEElectronics A151p or dynamic driver Shure SE215m+SPE. After all, it’s still faster and audibly less mushy sounding than my SoundMAGIC E10. I’d also rate the general resolution and control a bit above my Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE200.

Soundstage:

Fairly narrow to my ears and quite comparable to that of my Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE200.
While narrow, not flat though and with a bit of spatial depth, although a good bit away from sounding large, open or even layered.

Instrument separation and imaging are okay to decent but definitely collapse somewhat with more complex tracks being played; the Fidue A65, despite having a small soundstage as well, cope audibly better with fast and complex tracks when it comes to remaining clean sounding in regards to imaging.


Conclusion:

Pleasant w-shaped tonality with a nicely implemented boost in the lows, although the higher of the two treble elevations can come across as too sharp at times.
Still decent enough technical performance but definitely not among the best dynamic driver in-ears in the budget range; nothing really stands out.

 

[CK Moustache]

NocturnaL Audio Atlantis


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Rather plain unboxing experience but still okay – IEMs, three pairs of ear tips, cleaning tool, cable tie, aluminium storage case, cleaning cloth, some business cards.

What I really like about the storage case is that it offers plenty of interior space, is nicely padded on the inside and looks generally nice. It doesn’t offer ultimate quality, though, and elements such as the lock and outer corner protectors appear less premium. Still ultimately much better, more protective and practical for actual use than the more boutique-like cases of IEMs such as my Campfire Audio Andromeda, Sennheiser IE 800 or the DUNU DK 3001 Pro.

Available in custom fit and universal fit shells. Even the latter are hand-built and just as customisable, which is quite awesome.
While I didn’t request any special design or colours but wanted to be surprised, I really like the blue colour with silver glitter and swirl faceplates.
Build quality and finish are excellent.

Very comfortable fit.

2-pin connectors (the type of connectors is configurable, though).
Premium, soft cable with four twisted conductors and chin-slider. Despite its slightly different design, it highly reminds me of the cable I configured my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors with; it’s actually very similar to my Campfire Audio Andromedas’ cable (except for minor differences in colour, a different twisting direction and different twisting density above the y-splitter) but with the, to me, more attractive cable divider.

Four BA drivers per side, three acoustic ways, triple-bore configuration.

Sound:

Largest included silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Warm balanced.

Basically similar to my Campfire Audio Andromeda (as well as the Brainwavz B200 (the original ones with black shells, not the much inferiorly tuned v2 with removable cables) or Eternal Melody EM-2) in the entire lows, but with fairly natural-neutral central and upper midrange that is highly comparable to my UERMs’ tuning (although ultimately a little more relaxed), and moderately, softly lifted upper highs that are never sharp and more realistic than that of my Andromeda (as a result, I definitely see and hear the Atlantis as the better (as in more realistically) tuned alternative to my Campfire Audio Andromeda, although true fans of them might miss the Andromedas’ clarity-lifted, sometimes nearly-overly sharp (and sometimes too gimmicky) bright treble accentuation).

Around 700 Hz, the lows’ emphasis starts to climb gradually and reaches its zenith around 100 Hz with an elevation of around 8 dB north of diffuse-field neutrality while the area between 200 and 100 Hz already carries certain fullness. The bass remains with unchanged levels down to 40 Hz and gently loses quantity below that wherefore the focus is somewhat more on the midbass than the sub-bass.

The fundamental range and lower midrange is undeniably on the warmer side, but neither exaggerated nor unnatural; just enough to give the lows a warm tilt and lower voices a fuller character.
The central midrange and upper midrange are highly comparable to that of my UERM and therefore on the “natural neutral” side, which also means that they are ultimately somewhat more on the relaxed side and inoffensive, contrary to in-ears such as my Etymotic ER-4S or the ER4SR/ER3SE/ER2SE whose midrange tuning is more “uncompromised flat” but can appear as not relaxed enough for recreational listening.
As a result, the midrange appears natural yet not intimate, and has got a warmer tilt.

Between 6 and 10 kHz, I can spot a soft, mild and broad, even elevation that adds just a bit of brightness to the sound in the upper highs and can be seen as a nicely implemented loudness correction applied to the tuning since due to its even implementation, it doesn’t appear gimmicky and isn’t really adding any colouration either but instead just accentuates the higher frequencies more (contrary to my Campfire Audio Andromeda that are tuned noticeably brighter in the highs, which can be fun, but ultimately leads to a more coloured, less realistic presentation).
Extension past 10 kHz is good, with a roll-off above 15 kHz.

Overall, I consider this a really well-done tuning for recreational listening, and it is no real surprise that the Atlantis, also due to their technical qualities, are still very clearly among my all-time favourite in-ears for this purpose.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

When it comes to technicalities, the Atlantis don’t fall short either – more precisely, they are definitely in the UERM, Andromeda, InEar ProPhile 8 tier.

The star of the show is definitely the Atlantis’ highly detailed, transparent midrange with extremely high speech intelligibility and headroom (doubled up backup vocals are very precisely and transparently uncovered as such and not as echo/reverb as it would be often the case on somewhat less resolving in-ears, which also applies to singers’ very small, purposefully placed tonal variations).
As such, it outperforms my UERM and Andromeda in this area, but is ultimately slightly behind my ProPhile 8 in terms of transparency and micro details in the mids, while interestingly offering the better speech intelligibility.
What’s really nice is that all of this is achieved without implementing any “tuning tricks”.

The lows carry the typical BA tightness, resolution and speed, paired with a hint and body, which is what one would expect from a good implementation of the BA woofers. As for bass quality, they are practically identical to my UERM (and therefore somewhat superior to the Ultimate Ears Reference Remastered to-go they were replaced with), although undeniably with a fuller, warmer tuning.
While the lows are very detailed, highly controlled and clean (similar to my UERM), the Atlantis’ sheer midrange transparency is ultimately just somewhat higher, wherefore the lows are in the end a bit behind these in-ears’ midrange when it comes to details.

When it comes to treble resolution, the Atlantis are impeccable as well and feature precise single note separation with high speed, and are, just as in the midrange, even superior when compared to my UERM. Their even and rather soft tuning of the treble elevation also contributes to a fairly subtle effortlessness added to the high, almost brutally accurate resolution in the higher ranges.

Needless to say, complex and very fast music material doesn’t stress the Atlantis at all – if anything, their bass starts to appear just a bit less focussed/controlled, whereas the mids and highs remain pretty much unaffected by it.

Soundstage:

Open, fairly large and precise to my ears, with good layering – ultimately not fully Andromeda-tier yet, though.
Pretty much even balance between width and depth wherefore the soundstage appears three-dimensional and very authentic.

Very clean and precise imaging with very good portrayal of “empty space” around and between tonal elements/instruments; UERM tier and ultimately even a little above them.

Handles complex, fast and busy arrangements very well without collapsing, although ultimately just a bit less clean than my ProPhile 8.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors:

The UERM are obviously tuned audibly flatter and more neutral, whereas both in-ears’ midrange timbre is quite similar apart from the Atlantis’ warmer tilt in the lower midrange and fundamental range.
Except for around/just a bit past 10 kHz where the UERM have a fairly strong peak when performing sine sweeps, they are quite comparable here as well, although I would ultimately say that the Atlantis are somewhat more realistic/authentic in the highs due to being elevated more evenly, whereas the UERM ultimately offer more subtle sparkle because of their higher super treble extension.

Both are absolutely on the same high level in the lows when it comes to details, tightness, control, speed and texture.
In the midrange and treble, though, the Atlantis are a step above and resolve even higher, with more transparency, headroom, the higher speech intelligibility and even somewhat cleaner note separation and better control.

Depending on the recording, the UERMs’ soundstage may appear even slightly larger to my ears, although just by a small margin.
Imaging precision is comparably precise on both sets of IEMs, with ultimately a small advantage for the Atlantis that are just a bit ahead when it comes to instrument separation and cleanly portraying “emptiness” between and around single instruments and tonal elements.

Campfire Audio Andromeda:

Similar tuning in the lows with the Andromeda being more relaxed and distant in the midrange, upper mids/presence range and lower treble.
The Andromeda are a good bit brighter in the treble, which can be fun but also contributes to a coloured, sizzly high note timbre, whereas the Atlantis are only gently lifted in the high and appear much softer and especially more realistic due to their even and broader elevation (as for tuning, I definitely think that the Atlantis are the better (more realistically sounding) alternative while sharing some similarities).

Both have a different approach to the bass – while the Andromeda have traded some of the control and tightness for more visceral, rumbling fun, the Atlantis are cleaner and tighter, and remain better controlled in the lows when the track becomes more demanding.
When it comes to the midrange, the Atlantis are definitely more transparent and detailed sounding, whereas the Andromeda are slightly more detailed in the treble.
Generally, the Atlantis are definitely better controlled with busy and fast music material, with a stronger focus on technical qualities than rumbling tactility.

The Andromedas’ soundstage is somewhat larger (both in terms of width and depth) and as a result more open, effortless sounding, whereas the actual imaging (instrument placement and separation) is a bit more precise on the Atlantis that also remain cleaner with busy, fast and densely arranged music material.

InEar ProPhile 8:

The ProPhile 8 are generally tuned flatter (“natural neutral”), even when both switches are activated (which I usually never do) – then, compared to the ProPhile 8, the Atlantis are still warmer in the lower mids and a bit bassier, and somewhat brighter in the upper highs.
Both are comparably authentic and realistic sounding in the treble with an accurate timbre, with the Atlantis having just a bit more of “loudness compensation” tuning applied.
The Atlantis are slightly more relaxed in the presence range.

In terms of transparency and resolution, the ProPhile 8 are ultimately slightly ahead of the Atlantis (even with both switches activated, although then to a slightly lesser degree), while the Atlantis interestingly feature a level of speech intelligibility that appears even a little higher, just as if they had more “headroom” here.
While the Atlantis are already very good in terms of bass quality (definitely UERM tier), the ProPhile 8 manage to sound seven somewhat tighter and cleaner in the lows, with the higher resolution in the bass and lower mids.
Generally, the ProPhile 8 are a slight step above when it comes to control when they are pushed to the limits (by which I mean speed and busy, dense recordings with multiple layers and many fine variations).

The Atlantis have got the larger, more open, more three-dimensional soundstage (more perceived spatial depth and width to my ears) whereas the ProPhile 8 offer the more precise instrument placement (imaging) and cleaner note/instrument separation in comparison.

Conclusion:

Recommended.

Very easily so, actually, and (really) close to the “Highly Recommended” award.
Flagship-level technical performance with very, near extremely high midrange transparency, speech intelligibility and general control, combined with a three-dimensional, authentic soundstage and well-executed soundstage. Their only shortfall, if one could even say so, is that their bass, while on its own technically excellent, is ultimately just a step behind the Atlantis’ excellent midrange and treble resolution.

On a personal note, along with the Etymotic ER2XR, the NocturnaL Audio Atlantis are easily among my all-time favourite in-ears for non-neutral recreational music enjoyment.


Photos: