[geagle]

Moving from 1551 to 1650 i need a bit of time to get use to it. But now its better after weeks of use.

Could you maybe give us some comparative impressions on the 1650 vs the 1551 ? Is it sort of a 1551 with a bit tighter bass and a bit more treble? or something different?

 

[blazinblazin]

Could you maybe give us some comparative impressions on the 1650 vs the 1551 ? Is it sort of a 1551 with a bit tighter bass and a bit more treble? or something different?

Definately tighter bass, higher resolution, clearer, better soundstage.

If discribe 1551 as a closed headphone, 1650 is a more open one.

To me the tone is slightly different but not far from 1551.

 

[geagle]

Definately tighter bass, higher resolution, clearer, better soundstage.

If discribe 1551 as a closed headphone, 1650 is a more open one.

To me the tone is slightly different but not far from 1551.

Thanks, quite helpful ! Any more comments on treble, and relative positioning of the 1650 on a warm/cold scale ?

I have not heard either the 1551 or the 1650, but, from other people's comments, I was imagining the 1551 as warmer, and the 1650 as more balanced, though probably still a bit south of neutral, both with a good bass (tighter on the 1650, bit more "muffled", maybe, on the 1551), and with the 1650 being a bit airier and open (I just don't know if that "a bit" airier and open would translate to "enough" for MY ears ) .

And I guess that you do not have any experience with the 1670SS, right?

 

[blazinblazin]

Thanks, quite helpful ! Any more comments on treble, and relative positioning of the 1650 on a warm/cold scale ?

I have not heard either the 1551 or the 1650, but, from other people's comments, I was imagining the 1551 as warmer, and the 1650 as more balanced, though probably still a bit south of neutral, both with a good bass (tighter on the 1650, bit more "muffled", maybe, on the 1551), and with the 1650 being a bit airier and open (I just don't know if that "a bit" airier and open would translate to "enough" for MY ears ) .

And I guess that you do not have any experience with the 1670SS, right?

1650 is not as warm as 1551 that's what i felt too.

SS is more neutral. As people describe as Andromeda with bass but colder.

To me 1650 is like probably between 1551 and 1670.

 

[geagle]

Thanks again, definitely helpful!

 

[ZenErik]

To me the 1650 is basically slightly retuned 1551. While it can appear to be a step up due to what has already been mentioned I think it’s mostly personal preference. The 1551 is a little more thick and smooth sounding but overall pretty similar.

I am glad to have both around. Very curious what the 2000 series will bring.

 

[Ghisy]

Hey,

I own the 1551 and got to try both the 1650 and 1670 today. I don't think there's a big difference honestly. The bass does feel tighter but I like it better on the 1551.

While I do think the 1650 in black looks nicer, I don't think the price difference is worth it.

One thing: they are smaller overall so they fit better in my ears. But I would only buy them realllly cheap for that reason alone.

 

[ZenErik]

Hey,

I own the 1551 and got to try both the 1650 and 1670 today. I don't think there's a big difference honestly. The bass does feel tighter but I like it better on the 1551.

While I do think the 1650 in black looks nicer, I don't think the price difference is worth it.

One thing: they are smaller overall so they fit better in my ears. But I would only buy them realllly cheap for that reason alone.

How is the 1670 compared to the 1650 and 1551?

I agree that the 1650 looks better. I haven't noticed the smaller size making a difference for me personally, but I could see how it would be helpful for some. In the end it's a lesser value than the 1551 and more of a side grade than an upgrade. Still worth a look if the cost difference isn't really a factor to someone.

 

[Max Choiral]

How is the 1670 compared to the 1650 and 1551?

I agree that the 1650 looks better. I haven't noticed the smaller size making a difference for me personally, but I could see how it would be helpful for some. In the end it's a lesser value than the 1551 and more of a side grade than an upgrade. Still worth a look if the cost difference isn't really a factor to someone.

I have directly compared 1670SS & 1551 CU/Red. Silver does everything a little bit better, leans towards analytical concept while Red have this "organic" feel in sound.
Bass & treble quantity are almost identical on both, mids (drums, vocal, guitars) - less forward, neutral but not recessed. Again, improvements can be heard but they are subtle. For a dynamic iem 1670SS sounds somewhat "cold" to me.

 

[Ghisy]

Again, improvements can be heard but they are subtle. For a dynamic iem 1670SS sounds somewhat "cold" to me.

Honestly, I had trouble finding a difference between the 1650 and 1670. But I do agree that the 1670 felt a little "colder". I only listened to them for about 30 min each though (used my Plenue R as the source).

I'm only somewhat jealous of the 1650: that matte black finish is great, the golden accents not so much. But I like my IEMs to have a warm sound so I'll stick with my 1551 for now.

 

[productred]

I have the 1551 and tried the 1650 and 1670. The 1650 is too little change for the investment - in fact for a warmth and smoothness the 1551 does it better. Of cos if you don't have the 1551 or cannot source a 1551 then the 1650 is your choice for a very reaonsably priced, well made, and warm and relaxing sound DD based iem that showcases the DD properties well.

The 1670 on the other hand is a very solid all-rounder. It's funny how when listening for a short while it is very difficult to pinpoint any obvious difference between the 1650 and 1670, but after some prolonged testing you could tell that the 1670 is just a bit less warm, with tiny bit sharper attack and speed, and a slightly more outspoken treble. It could potentially be many people's one and only iem.

 

[productred]

I have the 1551 and tried the 1650 and 1670. The 1650 is too little change for the investment - in fact for a warmth and smoothness the 1551 does it better. Of cos if you don't have the 1551 or cannot source a 1551 then the 1650 is your choice for a very reaonsably priced, well made, and warm and relaxing sound DD based iem that showcases the DD properties well.

The 1670 on the other hand is a very solid all-rounder. It's funny how when listening for a short while it is very difficult to pinpoint any obvious difference between the 1650 and 1670, but after some prolonged testing you could tell that the 1670 is just a bit less warm, with tiny bit sharper attack and speed, and a slightly more outspoken treble. It could potentially be many people's one and only iem.

After another session solely for the 1670, gotta say I'm vastly impressed and may consider getting it shortly even though I don't really need it in my arsenal. It is a technically capable but more importantly, and quite rarely these day, superbly tuned to a very musical yet balanced sound, balanced in the sense that there's no shortfalls at all and would probably please everyone, from the flat-reference lover to the not-so-hardcord basshead.

 

[geagle]

@productred Thanks for your impressions... though my wallet is NOT thanking you

 

[geagle]

Oh, and I found this review https://personalaudio.hk/2018/09/20/acoustune-hs-1650-cu-and-hs-1670-ss-riview/ (you'll need a translator like google translate or the S3.Translator add-on) .... though the translator mangles a bit some words, it would seem to me to be generally in line with @productred 's impressions

 

[ezekiel77]

For my preferences, 1650 hits all the right notes. It also helps that the earpiece looks glamourous in black and gold. 1670 is no doubt more neutral, with faster transients, more apparent note texture and airier than 1650, but I notice some sibilance in the treble with my testing (WM1A, stock single-ended 1670 cable). I listened back and forth a few times just to make sure. And the 1670 had some "ttt" and "sss" hotness at some passages at say, Hotel California. At that instant the warmth, tone, naturalness and forgiveness of the 1650 seemed more alluring although less technically proficient. So for looks, pricing and ultimately the sound, I'd take 1650 any day of the week. Once again it's a preference game, don't take my word as gospel.