Night and day? Definitely not. There certainly is a difference, but not significant enough of one to make me like something I never really liked in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, tips are mostly relegated to finetuning something that already sounds good.But.....you must agree the differences between narrow bore tips and full wide bore tips are night and day? I’m only suggesting that if you get another chance to hear it, try it with wide tips.
Aminus hates everything (Or, Aminus rants and reviews stuff)
- Thread starter aminus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- iems impressions rants review
Conversely tips (even stock tips) can make something that could sound good sound really bad - or at least bad based on your personal preferences. That said I get that there's no time to tip roll and cable roll every IEM to see how much you can bend it towards your preferences, but that doesn't mean it can't be done by people buying said IEMs.
But.....you must agree the differences between narrow bore tips and full wide bore tips are night and day? I’m only suggesting that if you get another chance to hear it, try it with wide tips.
Would interfere with the projection.
My opinion on the matter isn't that far off from my opinion on sources and amps. It absolutely does make a difference, and synergy is a very real thing, but no source is magically going to make me like a Meze Empyrean. Likewise, no tip will magically make me like something I fundamentally disagree with. On the other hand, I myself tip and cable roll stuff I already own, because the base transducer is already fit for my preferences and it's down to tweaking to taste.
When it comes down to stuff I actually write about, though, I can't have that luxury because much of this stuff is shooting in the dark. I might, for example, vaguely get the idea that an IEM works better with narrowbores than widebores due to excessive treble energy, but what narrowbore? Sony Hybrids? Final Es? Spinfits? AET-08s? FAudio Instruments? Radius Deep Mounts? All of these sound different and I don't have ready access to all of them at any given moment, not to mention how much time it would take to compare all of them. And even then, even if I find the perfect tip, it really doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things if the IEM in question is still too bright, or has another problem unrelated to this. It's nice to hear stuff in their ideal conditions, but pragmatism is a very real thing when it comes down to making decisions like this. Which is why I follow the same rule I've been using for the last year and a half, and even before I started writing - any tip that's good enough for the manufacturer or the store owner is good enough for me.
Last edited:
Redcarmoose
Headphoneus Supremus
It’s all just part of the possibilities and endless convoluted rabbit-holes we as enthusiasts subject ourselves to in the sake of finding tone. And as far as tone goes, overall tone may be one of the top factors affecting personal affinity to an IEM. Most of this writing here reflects my own conclusions in the reality of tips affecting tone and ultimately the end tune of the IEM. Something that can at times work better than EQ, and be more powerful than different cables and sources.
I wrote a review about the XBA-N3 only inspired due to (new) different firmware and (new to me) DUNU L blue tips, making it a different IEM; becoming something inspirational enough to write about. The effects of the Sony included Silicone Hybrid Tips (manufacture included no less) were all the N3 was previously judged with prior.
The Hybrid Tipped N3, boring uninspired, slow and pedestrian, to my ears.
Yet it’s not simply tone as the N3 review was inspired by a different soundstage too. This post isn’t about someone saying “You didn’t like the IEM I like because you didn’t use the off choice tips I like.” All I’m suggesting is if you had time to try a super wide bore tip.
All this nonsense........as we all know the differences are very very small in separated differences between IEM success and IEM failure. The devil is in the details. We know reviews are subjective even though their (possible) objectivity is the potent reality we as readers are trying to gain by reading. The fact that a writer is attempting to cross over from his personal interpretations into a community valued objectivity including investigative thought on the value of an IEM. And with all the structural devices set up to mislead the IEM buyer with shill reviews and hype marketing the contrarian reviewer becomes at times the voice of reason. If anything they are a single opinion just as valued as the others and even more so than the IEM review site that has given 8.7 scores to the last 100 IEMs.
In ending here; I don’t view this whole “tip-thing” as mysterious or even that difficult. Trying to get fit on an IEM with a small, medium and large bore typically gives a person the groundwork for determining the potentiality for change inherent in the IEM. We all know that the same tip will be drastic on each IEM affecting a different set of outcomes. Try and take off the included Sony Hybrid Tips off the XBA-Z5 and put the same Blue DUNU tips that “woke-up” the N3 and the Z5 becomes a mess. Many manufactures give the same set of tips to 5 different IEM creations or more. 5 models and the same tips. As we all know the odds are not in favor of the tips being optional for all uses with the IEM......hence the aftermarket tip popularity.
The only goal of this rambling wall of text is to simply suggest “what if”. The manufacturers understand this “what if” hence they now give included a wide range of bore style tips in an attempt to address these issues.
Last edited:
Redcarmoose
Headphoneus Supremus
I beg to differ on this. But not to generalize; some IEMs are vastly affected by tips being changed, others not so much.
Last edited:
@aminus Do you plan on doing any headphone reviews?
Headphone reviews are a little difficult to approach the same way I approach IEM reviews. The reason I can establish a somewhat reasonable baseline across all my writing is because I always listen to stuff using the same standards. Like the discussion above about tips, for example, this is consistent on every IEM I've heard, not just the ones I write about but the ones I don't as well. Same with cables.
But that's not the reason headphones are tougher to write about. Beyond certain brands like ZMF, the headphone equivalent of eartips is very cut and dry, and cables aren't any more an issue in headphones than they are in IEMs. The real issue is source gear. I maintain absolute consistency on all IEMs I listen to by using the same DAP for everything: my WM1A. Occasionally if I get a piece of gear in for home review I plug it into my headphone amp, but even so I always listen to it on the 1A as well to make sure that my writing is consistent with what I hear on both setups. This becomes exponentially harder with headphones because a meager 250mW will not satisfy most headphones in the current department, especially if the discussion shifts to planars. Even for the ones that do, it is extremely questionable whether or not the 1A is good enough to run source picky stuff like the HD800 or the Utopia. I know I wouldn't run my Utopia on my 1A unless I needed to, and I don't see it as reasonable to apply such a standard in my own writing when I wouldn't in my personal listening. This is without bringing DACs into the discussion at all, or even the fact that certain headphones simply need tubes to be at their best.
Why don't I do this with IEMs, you ask? Well, IEMs just aren't this source gear reliant. I've yet to hear an IEM that really needed some form of amplification or something otherwise not provided by the WM1A to shine. The WM1A is great at this - not screwing up whatever you plug it into. Well, that is unless the thing itself is screwed up from the getgo, but there's not really much you can do about that anyways.
I see two potential solutions to this:
1. The realistic option. Use a high power portable source like one of iFi's DAC/amps. Sounds reasonably good and should work to a tolerable degree with most stuff. Not a satisfactory solution, but a solution nonetheless.
2. The idealistic option. Only review headphones I can get in for a home review. Such an arrangement would probably mean I would need to build my own collection of source gear, which I may end up doing eventually, but even so, that means that the large majority of stuff I write about will have to be loaners. Now, call me crazy, but I don't see myself getting too many loaners of kilobuck headphones given my reputation as a writer.
Keep in mind that both of these solutions involve me sinking my own money into this, which is really not that ideal given I don't make anything from writing. If I happen to create a setup that ends up being ideal for reviewing by coincidence through my own personal interest in bettering my audio setup, that's great (and essentially what happened with the 1A), but beyond that the investment into this stuff for the sole reason of furthering what is essentially an unmonetized blog doesn't make any sort of financial sense on my end.
The long and short of it is, unless I can work out something that satisfies both my standards and my subjectivist and idealistic leanings, it's unlikely anything will come of this. Which is a shame, because I honestly think headphones might be more interesting to talk about than IEMs these days.
Hard to hate, hard to love: Prisma Azul
Disclaimer: I happen to be friends with veebee, the owner of Prisma. Take that as you will.
Most people on Head-fi who read these reviews may not know who Prisma Audio is, though I'm sure those of you who also frequent the audio discords will know well about them already. To summarize it quickly, Prisma is an Australian IEM company that's new on the scene and the Azul is their debut product, priced at $300. This puts it in direct competition with the Dusk, as well as lower priced mainstays like the ER2 and the FDX1. Of course, I don't need to spell out how tough the competition is in this price range, especially since all the main competition is hybrids or DDs, and the Azul is a 2BA setup. In other words, it has some big shoes to fill. Success here, however, does mean that the Azul will be unique in this category, as the large majority of good budget IEMs do tend to be DD based.
Bass on the Azul... It exists. It's certainly not the worst BA bass I've heard, and it does seem to have slightly better than average bass texture. Beyond that though, it's rather stereotypically BA. Lack of slam, limp decay, subpar low end extension, you get it. Certainly not surprising given the 2BA configuration, and given the surprisingly decent performance with bass texture I'd say it deserves some points for being a little better than average there. But not by much. You're not buying the Azul for bass performance.
The Azul's midrange is perhaps best characterized by a slight upper mid tilt that increases presence moreso than it does shout, and slightly thin lower mids. The lack of shout is certainly a good thing, but the boosted upper midrange presence does sound like it goes overboard at times. The Azul sounds fairly lean and almost a little cold, and this is keeping in mind that both of my source setups generally lean towards warmth. I'm reminded a little of the PP8 here, minus the general hard-edgedness that the PP8 is rather well known for. I don't think it's the worst tuning in the world, and the lack of shout or belt certainly makes it a lot more palatable, but I also find it hard to love as well. It's slightly paradoxical sounding in that it's not as harsh (at least in the midrange) as many other upper midrange forward IEMs, but at the same time leaves one desiring more lower midrange presence. I'm sure this will inevitably have its fans, and I don't see many people outright hating this, but I can't say I'm head over heels here.
Now, the Azul's treble is where things get tricky. It generally sounds fine until you reach the upper treble, where it sounds like there's some sort of peak somewhere that makes instruments that extend that far up (generally cymbals, brass and violins) sound like they have a particularly sharp upper harmonic. Initially I assumed it was due to the 18khz peak on the graph, though I found it slightly odd as well given 18khz is insanely high up and I myself question whether or not I can even hear that high. It wasn't until I gave it further listening that I realized that this wasn't too far off from the audible but unmeasurable treble peak the Blessing 2 had, except here it's the upper treble extension in question that's the issue. In other words, the Azul's extension is simply too resonant and dirty for its own good, and to a point where it's adversely affecting the rest of the frequency range.
What does this translate to in practice? Well, as mentioned, instruments that have harmonics that extend past 10khz sound like they have their harmonics in that region overemphasized, and if said instrument also happens to take large prominence (for example, a rock track with heavy cymbal usage) it sounds like there's a sheen of upper harmonics to things that generally sounds unpleasant and dirty, if not difficult to listen to. Perhaps ironic to be complaining about an excess of upper treble in IEMs given their reputation, but this appears to genuinely be an issue with the Azul.
Intangible performance with the Azul is, in some ways, expected for its price range, and in other ways unexpected. One example of the former would be overall macrodetail. It's just okay. It's enough that the average person wouldn't know what they're missing, though comparisons to stuff that excels in this department show that the Azul is clearly not amongst the best. Another example could be timbre: ignoring the treble issues, it's still clearly BA, but not the most plasticky BA I've ever heard either. Nor is it the most clean (that would be the M9) or the most pleasant (the U12t), but it's certainly good enough that I don't think it needs anything more, especially given the price. Similarly enough, staging is also pretty standard. In the shell and not much more to it.
Now onto the unexpected: the Azul's macrodynamic performance is actually pretty good. It does have some minor upwards compression and presents quiet stuff as a little louder than it should be, but it doesn't let this get in the way of large dynamic swings. I actually quite enjoy the Azul's macrodynamic presentation, even if it lacks nuance. It also has decently sharp attack transients to aid this; while that's something of a bane in the treble, it works pretty well in the midrange and bass. Curiously enough, despite the strong macrodynamics, microdynamics are a bit of a weakness of the Azul: I find the Azul's microdynamics somewhat flat, not particularly so with delineation but especially so with small dynamic fluctuations. I think this may be related to the mild compression, but in any case, it's not the worst thing in the world. It might compound slightly upon the leaner and colder tonality of the Azul, but I think the strong macrodynamic performance is a good counterbalance to it.
All that's left here is to evaluate just how the Azul stacks up to the competition. I don't think it's quite good enough to go head to head with the Dusk, though few IEMs are so this is certainly not an insult. On the other hand, the ER2 and FDX1 are definitely much closer competition. The Azul has a good sense of dynamism and a unique tuning going for it, but at the same time has serious issues with treble and is somewhat mediocre on all other fronts. In a sense, it's not too far off from the ER2 and FDX1, in that both have particular strengths and a fatal flaw in one form or the other. In the ER2's case, it's a strength in bass slam and timbre and a weakness in staging and macrodetail. With the FDX1, it's being really good at layering and macrodetail but also too laidback and has a slightly metallic timbre. The difference here, however, is that the Azul's flaw in question seems a lot more pervasive than its competition's, and it makes it a lot harder to recommend upfront. I don't think it's worse than either the ER2 or the FDX1 per se, but it also seems much more niche, and not as easy to love.
All listening was done with the Bifrost 2 > BHA-1 stack, with supplementary listening from the WM1A.
The Azul, at the very least, is a good IEM, and somewhat worth the money. But there is a huge buyer beware warning tacked onto it, in particular with its treble response. A shame, because I do think what I'm hearing isn't bad beyond that. Definitely not a bad shot at a debut product, but there is clearly more that can be done here. Perhaps the next Prisma release will fare better.
Score: 6/10
Disclaimer: I happen to be friends with veebee, the owner of Prisma. Take that as you will.
Most people on Head-fi who read these reviews may not know who Prisma Audio is, though I'm sure those of you who also frequent the audio discords will know well about them already. To summarize it quickly, Prisma is an Australian IEM company that's new on the scene and the Azul is their debut product, priced at $300. This puts it in direct competition with the Dusk, as well as lower priced mainstays like the ER2 and the FDX1. Of course, I don't need to spell out how tough the competition is in this price range, especially since all the main competition is hybrids or DDs, and the Azul is a 2BA setup. In other words, it has some big shoes to fill. Success here, however, does mean that the Azul will be unique in this category, as the large majority of good budget IEMs do tend to be DD based.
Bass on the Azul... It exists. It's certainly not the worst BA bass I've heard, and it does seem to have slightly better than average bass texture. Beyond that though, it's rather stereotypically BA. Lack of slam, limp decay, subpar low end extension, you get it. Certainly not surprising given the 2BA configuration, and given the surprisingly decent performance with bass texture I'd say it deserves some points for being a little better than average there. But not by much. You're not buying the Azul for bass performance.
The Azul's midrange is perhaps best characterized by a slight upper mid tilt that increases presence moreso than it does shout, and slightly thin lower mids. The lack of shout is certainly a good thing, but the boosted upper midrange presence does sound like it goes overboard at times. The Azul sounds fairly lean and almost a little cold, and this is keeping in mind that both of my source setups generally lean towards warmth. I'm reminded a little of the PP8 here, minus the general hard-edgedness that the PP8 is rather well known for. I don't think it's the worst tuning in the world, and the lack of shout or belt certainly makes it a lot more palatable, but I also find it hard to love as well. It's slightly paradoxical sounding in that it's not as harsh (at least in the midrange) as many other upper midrange forward IEMs, but at the same time leaves one desiring more lower midrange presence. I'm sure this will inevitably have its fans, and I don't see many people outright hating this, but I can't say I'm head over heels here.
Now, the Azul's treble is where things get tricky. It generally sounds fine until you reach the upper treble, where it sounds like there's some sort of peak somewhere that makes instruments that extend that far up (generally cymbals, brass and violins) sound like they have a particularly sharp upper harmonic. Initially I assumed it was due to the 18khz peak on the graph, though I found it slightly odd as well given 18khz is insanely high up and I myself question whether or not I can even hear that high. It wasn't until I gave it further listening that I realized that this wasn't too far off from the audible but unmeasurable treble peak the Blessing 2 had, except here it's the upper treble extension in question that's the issue. In other words, the Azul's extension is simply too resonant and dirty for its own good, and to a point where it's adversely affecting the rest of the frequency range.
What does this translate to in practice? Well, as mentioned, instruments that have harmonics that extend past 10khz sound like they have their harmonics in that region overemphasized, and if said instrument also happens to take large prominence (for example, a rock track with heavy cymbal usage) it sounds like there's a sheen of upper harmonics to things that generally sounds unpleasant and dirty, if not difficult to listen to. Perhaps ironic to be complaining about an excess of upper treble in IEMs given their reputation, but this appears to genuinely be an issue with the Azul.
Intangible performance with the Azul is, in some ways, expected for its price range, and in other ways unexpected. One example of the former would be overall macrodetail. It's just okay. It's enough that the average person wouldn't know what they're missing, though comparisons to stuff that excels in this department show that the Azul is clearly not amongst the best. Another example could be timbre: ignoring the treble issues, it's still clearly BA, but not the most plasticky BA I've ever heard either. Nor is it the most clean (that would be the M9) or the most pleasant (the U12t), but it's certainly good enough that I don't think it needs anything more, especially given the price. Similarly enough, staging is also pretty standard. In the shell and not much more to it.
Now onto the unexpected: the Azul's macrodynamic performance is actually pretty good. It does have some minor upwards compression and presents quiet stuff as a little louder than it should be, but it doesn't let this get in the way of large dynamic swings. I actually quite enjoy the Azul's macrodynamic presentation, even if it lacks nuance. It also has decently sharp attack transients to aid this; while that's something of a bane in the treble, it works pretty well in the midrange and bass. Curiously enough, despite the strong macrodynamics, microdynamics are a bit of a weakness of the Azul: I find the Azul's microdynamics somewhat flat, not particularly so with delineation but especially so with small dynamic fluctuations. I think this may be related to the mild compression, but in any case, it's not the worst thing in the world. It might compound slightly upon the leaner and colder tonality of the Azul, but I think the strong macrodynamic performance is a good counterbalance to it.
All that's left here is to evaluate just how the Azul stacks up to the competition. I don't think it's quite good enough to go head to head with the Dusk, though few IEMs are so this is certainly not an insult. On the other hand, the ER2 and FDX1 are definitely much closer competition. The Azul has a good sense of dynamism and a unique tuning going for it, but at the same time has serious issues with treble and is somewhat mediocre on all other fronts. In a sense, it's not too far off from the ER2 and FDX1, in that both have particular strengths and a fatal flaw in one form or the other. In the ER2's case, it's a strength in bass slam and timbre and a weakness in staging and macrodetail. With the FDX1, it's being really good at layering and macrodetail but also too laidback and has a slightly metallic timbre. The difference here, however, is that the Azul's flaw in question seems a lot more pervasive than its competition's, and it makes it a lot harder to recommend upfront. I don't think it's worse than either the ER2 or the FDX1 per se, but it also seems much more niche, and not as easy to love.
All listening was done with the Bifrost 2 > BHA-1 stack, with supplementary listening from the WM1A.
The Azul, at the very least, is a good IEM, and somewhat worth the money. But there is a huge buyer beware warning tacked onto it, in particular with its treble response. A shame, because I do think what I'm hearing isn't bad beyond that. Definitely not a bad shot at a debut product, but there is clearly more that can be done here. Perhaps the next Prisma release will fare better.
Score: 6/10
Last edited:
Dunu SA6
Dunu seem to be having a bit of a spotlight on themselves lately. Between the SA6 having apparently been fairly acclaimed, and the Zen being the latest hype as far as single DD IEMs go, not to mention the Luna last year, it's pretty safe to say that they're slowly picking up a lot of the relevance they lost over the years.
Of course, I didn't really like the Luna very much, and quite frankly, I'm more interested in the Zen, but the SA6 is still worth paying attention to. At $550, it's going against a market sector that's not particularly densely populated. But perhaps the most interesting part about all this is that it has a near identical frequency response with the qdc flagship IEMs. Those who have been keeping up with this thread for long enough will likely know that I'm not the most fond of those IEMs, with their sheer macrodetail resolving ability being their main saving grace. The SA6 isn't actually tuned by qdc themselves, so there's always the chance that it'll get the intangibles that qdc flops on right.
Bass... well, what were you expecting? It's a BA. Poor slam, weak decay, not much bass texture to speak of. At least it doesn't sound as hollow, blunt and textureless as the qdc IEMs. Fun fact, the Gemini, VX, 8SL, 8SH and 8SS all use the exact same BA for the woofer and it sounds awful on all 5 of those IEMs. Moving on.
The midrange of the SA6 is similar to the qdc IEMs in that it's slightly lean and upper mid forward, moreso than I would consider neutral. I do think, however, that the SA6's timbre works more to its favor here in comparison, with a slight wetness that offsets the lean nature of the SA6, as opposed to the dryer VX. Sure, it's not perfectly neutral, and perhaps a little uneven compared to a Dusk or a Dawn, but I think it's pretty listenable and certainly doesn't detract from midrange heavy music. Given the sound Dunu were after, I'm not sure if I'd change anything here. They've found a good way to counterbalance the otherwise sterile and overly dry nature of the qdc midrange. Hats off to them for that.
Here comes the big caveat with the SA6. Similar to the qdc stuff, it has a less than perfect treble response, with a noticable grain on high notes and some mild splashiness and resonance. Mind you, this isn't nearly as bad as the nigh on distorted treble that the VX had, but it's not ideal either. It's kind of a rotten egg in the list of things that the SA6 does well, and prevents me from liking this IEM as much as I otherwise would. I wish Dunu took the time here to refine the SA6's treble response, because beyond that, the SA6 is really quite good in terms of raw tonality.
In terms of intangibles, it's a bit of a mixed bag. The SA6's macrodynamics are pretty mediocre, as is its general resolution ability, separation and staging. Transients are overall somewhat average, with the exception of the slightly splashy treble response. But, quite surprisingly, I find its microdynamics fairly nuanced and engaging. It's in an odd spot similar to quite a few other IEMs like the Viento or Z1R, or even headphones like some of ZMF's lineup where its macrodynamic range is less than perfect, but it still handles engagment really well by getting a lot of the small fluctuations and shifts in dynamics right. Combined with the slightly wet timbre, I find the SA6 far more enjoyable than its studio-oriented marketing and tuning would imply. Whether or not this was intended on Dunu's part or a happy accident, I can't say.
On the note of timbre, I find the SA6 to have a timbre that's not dissimilar to my U12t. It's a little warm and pleasant, which is surprising given the obvious similarities with the VX in tonal response. If anything, this IEM shows how awful the timbre is on the qdc IEMs, because it's vastly more tolerable in comparison. Sure, it's not as resolving (not even close), but it's just that much easier to listen to, to the point where I actually kind of find myself preferring it. It's arguable that timbre is much better than raw macrodetail at otherwise propping up an IEM's overall performance, and given the choice I would probably rather listen to the SA6 than the VX.
Now, the competition. Near identical in price is the FAudio Minor, which I don't think tries to go for the same thing, and has completely different strengths. The Minor runs circles around the SA6 in terms of staging and bass slam, but has considerably worse resolving ability, and both have their own myriad of treble issues. In a sense, they're probably equatable in terms of price/performance, and taste would be the deciding factor. Something like the S8, which is also a fair bit more expensive, would have way better treble transients and would have the ultimate coherence and cohesion that the SA6 doesn't really do anything noteworthy on, but wouldn't necessarily have the same appeal as the SA6 due the SA6's timbre and microdynamic performance. Ironically enough, despite the moniker, the S8 would be the better "studio IEM" than the SA6 would. So to consider the SA6 worth the price is pretty fair, and it isn't leaps and bounds behind an IEM that is not only $150 more on list price, but extremely competitive within its own bracket as well. Quite a feat.
All listening was done with the Bifrost 2 > BHA-1 stack, with some supplementary listening from the WM1A.
I think it's fair to say that the SA6 is recommended. Probably not as a studio oriented signature, nor as the mini-VX that many like to hype it up as, but as an pleasant and enjoyable IEM that many will find to be suitable for general listening. Just be wary of the treble response.
Score: 7/10
Note: Recommendation list has been updated to include the SA6.
Dunu seem to be having a bit of a spotlight on themselves lately. Between the SA6 having apparently been fairly acclaimed, and the Zen being the latest hype as far as single DD IEMs go, not to mention the Luna last year, it's pretty safe to say that they're slowly picking up a lot of the relevance they lost over the years.
Of course, I didn't really like the Luna very much, and quite frankly, I'm more interested in the Zen, but the SA6 is still worth paying attention to. At $550, it's going against a market sector that's not particularly densely populated. But perhaps the most interesting part about all this is that it has a near identical frequency response with the qdc flagship IEMs. Those who have been keeping up with this thread for long enough will likely know that I'm not the most fond of those IEMs, with their sheer macrodetail resolving ability being their main saving grace. The SA6 isn't actually tuned by qdc themselves, so there's always the chance that it'll get the intangibles that qdc flops on right.
Bass... well, what were you expecting? It's a BA. Poor slam, weak decay, not much bass texture to speak of. At least it doesn't sound as hollow, blunt and textureless as the qdc IEMs. Fun fact, the Gemini, VX, 8SL, 8SH and 8SS all use the exact same BA for the woofer and it sounds awful on all 5 of those IEMs. Moving on.
The midrange of the SA6 is similar to the qdc IEMs in that it's slightly lean and upper mid forward, moreso than I would consider neutral. I do think, however, that the SA6's timbre works more to its favor here in comparison, with a slight wetness that offsets the lean nature of the SA6, as opposed to the dryer VX. Sure, it's not perfectly neutral, and perhaps a little uneven compared to a Dusk or a Dawn, but I think it's pretty listenable and certainly doesn't detract from midrange heavy music. Given the sound Dunu were after, I'm not sure if I'd change anything here. They've found a good way to counterbalance the otherwise sterile and overly dry nature of the qdc midrange. Hats off to them for that.
Here comes the big caveat with the SA6. Similar to the qdc stuff, it has a less than perfect treble response, with a noticable grain on high notes and some mild splashiness and resonance. Mind you, this isn't nearly as bad as the nigh on distorted treble that the VX had, but it's not ideal either. It's kind of a rotten egg in the list of things that the SA6 does well, and prevents me from liking this IEM as much as I otherwise would. I wish Dunu took the time here to refine the SA6's treble response, because beyond that, the SA6 is really quite good in terms of raw tonality.
In terms of intangibles, it's a bit of a mixed bag. The SA6's macrodynamics are pretty mediocre, as is its general resolution ability, separation and staging. Transients are overall somewhat average, with the exception of the slightly splashy treble response. But, quite surprisingly, I find its microdynamics fairly nuanced and engaging. It's in an odd spot similar to quite a few other IEMs like the Viento or Z1R, or even headphones like some of ZMF's lineup where its macrodynamic range is less than perfect, but it still handles engagment really well by getting a lot of the small fluctuations and shifts in dynamics right. Combined with the slightly wet timbre, I find the SA6 far more enjoyable than its studio-oriented marketing and tuning would imply. Whether or not this was intended on Dunu's part or a happy accident, I can't say.
On the note of timbre, I find the SA6 to have a timbre that's not dissimilar to my U12t. It's a little warm and pleasant, which is surprising given the obvious similarities with the VX in tonal response. If anything, this IEM shows how awful the timbre is on the qdc IEMs, because it's vastly more tolerable in comparison. Sure, it's not as resolving (not even close), but it's just that much easier to listen to, to the point where I actually kind of find myself preferring it. It's arguable that timbre is much better than raw macrodetail at otherwise propping up an IEM's overall performance, and given the choice I would probably rather listen to the SA6 than the VX.
Now, the competition. Near identical in price is the FAudio Minor, which I don't think tries to go for the same thing, and has completely different strengths. The Minor runs circles around the SA6 in terms of staging and bass slam, but has considerably worse resolving ability, and both have their own myriad of treble issues. In a sense, they're probably equatable in terms of price/performance, and taste would be the deciding factor. Something like the S8, which is also a fair bit more expensive, would have way better treble transients and would have the ultimate coherence and cohesion that the SA6 doesn't really do anything noteworthy on, but wouldn't necessarily have the same appeal as the SA6 due the SA6's timbre and microdynamic performance. Ironically enough, despite the moniker, the S8 would be the better "studio IEM" than the SA6 would. So to consider the SA6 worth the price is pretty fair, and it isn't leaps and bounds behind an IEM that is not only $150 more on list price, but extremely competitive within its own bracket as well. Quite a feat.
All listening was done with the Bifrost 2 > BHA-1 stack, with some supplementary listening from the WM1A.
I think it's fair to say that the SA6 is recommended. Probably not as a studio oriented signature, nor as the mini-VX that many like to hype it up as, but as an pleasant and enjoyable IEM that many will find to be suitable for general listening. Just be wary of the treble response.
Score: 7/10
Note: Recommendation list has been updated to include the SA6.
ToastersMakeTea
New Head-Fier
Good review, animus. I wonder, have you managed to test the imaging capability?
The large majority of IEMs aren't worth talking about imaging or staging wise because they're effectively just average. The rare exceptions are usually a big deal, because they usually have some way they go about making their staging more diffuse than usual. But in any case, the Azul doesn't really have anything going on for it in stage or imaging.
You've been very generous with your scoring lately @aminus. Are you feeling ok?
To be completely honest, if I have a decimal system, the last 2 IEMs I've covered would probably be half a spot down to represent where they really stand. But with the current scoring system, I think they deserve where they've been placed. Less than perfect in more than a couple areas, but I think their relative strengths help with compensating for their flaws. Not screwing up a lot of the stuff I really look out for like general tonality and timbre is a plus as well.
Users who are viewing this thread
