[capybara is mine]

Portable Audio Touchdown Tour Part 1: The NW-WM1AM2 and NW-WM1ZM2

The WM1A is the DAP that I've used for the last 3 years. It's probably the single longest surviving audio product in my collection, I've sold everything I brought prior to it in one form or another. One of my fondest memories in audio is undoubtedly the first time I ever heard the 1A with my old A12t, it was likely the singular moment that converted me into a believer in sources and began my spurning of objectivist thought. Nostalgia aside though, it's also just a very good player. It has an inherent naturalness of timbre and tone backed up with surprisingly respectable dynamic performance, decay, and engagement for a portable player. I've heard more DAPs than I care to count in my time, and frankly none of them have really dethroned the WM1A in my eyes. Even its older brother, the WM1Z, offered something different as opposed to better; it was extremely warm and gooey sounding by any standards and while I can see some being enthralled with that sort of sound, I personally wasn't. And so the WM1A remained my first and only high end portable player.

Needless to say, I've been pining for an announcement of the second generation of Sony players for a minute and then some. Truth to be told, I've been aware that the project was in the works since the tail end of 2019 and poised for release the year after, but for reasons that need no mention that never came to pass and it was largely radio silence on it until the recent announcement and release. It might not be surprising that I'm more interested in the WM1AM2 than I am the WM1ZM2, but I'm no less eager to hear either regardless. So how do they stack up in practice?

Well, the WM1AM2 (or 1AM2 for short) is, to put it one way, a bit of a letdown. Sony seem to have decided that the WM1A (or OG 1A) was simply not colored enough; in this respect, the 1AM2 is a moderately warm sounding DAP, with softer transients and a somewhat manufactured and artificial sounding gloss to its timbre. With the softer transient edge comes more compression, and also lost is a fair degree of both the slam and nuance that the OG 1A had (which wasn't that much to begin with in the grand scheme of things; DAPs aren't really capable of either). As a whole, it's a bit dull sounding and unengaging; it's not quite as romantically warm and bloomy like the OG 1Z, but it's also not as clear and correct sounding as the OG 1A. What we are left with is not terrible, but not really great or even good either. It's just completely mediocre.

As for the WM1ZM2 (henceforth 1ZM2), things become a lot more complicated. The 1ZM2 sounds quite different from its predecessor, and it seems like it and the 1AM2 have traded places compared to the generation prior in terms of sound signature. The new 1ZM2 is almost (but not quite) the same flavor of neutral as the OG 1A. The main differentiating factors between the two lie in its slight warmth and a similar degree of glossiness to the timbre, though also apparent on the 1ZM2 is some degree of digititus in the treble. The 1ZM2 also retains some of the transient softness from the 1AM2, though it's not nearly as pervasive. As such, the 1ZM2 has most if not all of the dynamism of its predecessors, and it's also quite musical and engaging. There is no doubt that the 1ZM2 is a good DAP.

Herein lies the real question: is it a great DAP, and does it succeed in obsoleting the prior generation sonically? Let's not even talk about being worth the price, because face it, no DAP is worth $3.7K. The answer to both of those questions, in my humble opinion, is an unfortunate and resounding no. To begin with, I really don't hear any tangible improvements in the 1ZM2 compared to either the OG 1A or the OG 1Z. Sure, it has a different flavor of coloration compared to either of the aforementioned, and that coloration might be more appealing than others to someone, but it's not an abject improvement by any metric. On the other hand, there are a greater than insignificant number of actual tangible drawbacks with the 1ZM2 compared to the OG DAPs: the slightly artificial timbre, the softened edges applied onto every transient, the mild but present treble issues that are just enough to break immersion, it all adds up.

And even despite the 1ZM2 being closer to my preferred tonality than the OG 1Z, I struggle to decide if I actually prefer it overall. Yes, I prefer the greatly lessened warmth and bloom, but the OG 1Z was one of the most characterful and unique sounding DAPs on the market. There was a clear reason to buy one compared to the OG 1A, and though I didn’t necessarily agree with it, I was fully capable of respecting it. The 1AM2 and the 1ZM2 end up coming off as more similar than different. Sure, the 1ZM2 is an actual improvement over the 1AM2, but Sony accomplishes this by actively making the 1AM2 worse. We end up with products that exist in two completely different tiers that try to accomplish the same thing, instead of two products that are relatively speaking quite similar in performance, but with opposing goals.

One gains more clarity with such a realization when the DMP-Z1 is introduced into the picture; on immediate comparison it's clear that the DMP-Z1 is in fact the primogenitor of the M2 generation's sound. And while the DMP-Z1 is certainly a very interesting sounding device, it's not one that I would consider normal sounding, though that's a topic for another time. The long and short of it is that I just think that the latest generation of Sony players was a misstep. We have gone from an expression of musicality and naturality in two equal but opposite examples, to a hierarchy of mediocrity tuned to flavor, but not to taste. In a sense, there is not very much differentiating the M2 generation DAPs and the DMP-Z1 from the vast majority of other DAPs in the market in terms of overarching philosophy; coloration and flavoring for the sake of it instead of just trying to sound correct and normal. It's not that I don't get why they've done this either, the market wants this stuff and I imagine the idea of a mini-DMP-Z1 is extremely appealing to a lot of people who aren't me. I just personally couldn't care less for it.


Part 2 & 3 will cover a whole bunch of IEMs and Part 4 will focus more on some other sources.

Your impressions are very interesting and wonderful!

Is there any significant difference in sound between 4.4mm balanced and 3.5mm unbalanced other than power?

Also, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the DC Phase Linearizer and DSEE HX.

 

[TooPoorForHiFi]

In the meantime, before I fly back, I'm open to suggestions as to IEMs worth reviewing. I've not kept up with the IEM scene by any stretch of the imagination, beyond vaguely having heard some names thrown around like the 7hz Timeless and the Sennheiser IE600. If there's anything the few remaining readers of this thread would like to see covered, now's the time to throw some names out so I know what to seek out upon touchdown.

The new Acoustune HS1750CU vs IE600 would be nice

Perhaps an update / revisit to Aminus Recommends.

 

[aminus]

Your impressions are very interesting and wonderful!

Is there any significant difference in sound between 4.4mm balanced and 3.5mm unbalanced other than power?

Also, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the DC Phase Linearizer and DSEE HX.

I did not bother comparing 4.4mm to 3.5mm, my experience with Sony players in the past has been that 3.5mm is an afterthought, and I treated such as the case here. Likewise with the DSP settings, I dislike their sound so I never use them, not on my player nor on the players I demoed.

The new Acoustune HS1750CU vs IE600 would be nice

The IE600 will be covered in part two of the current article series.

Perhaps an update / revisit to Aminus Recommends.

I won't say no, but it is very unlikely, and I think why will become apparent once this current four-parter is finished.

 

[angpsi]

I would have my doubts. Firmware plays an important part, but cannot correct the inherent sound of specific components or the sound of an OS' audio stack, especially when that OS is Android and not custom.

Out of curiosity, did you try playing tracks out of the USB Audio Player Pro app (UAPP)? It bypasses the Android audio drivers and it honestly made all the difference in the world with my ZX-507.

 

[aminus]

Out of curiosity, did you try playing tracks out of the USB Audio Player Pro app (UAPP)? It bypasses the Android audio drivers and it honestly made all the difference in the world with my ZX-507.

I did not, I used the default Sony music app. The unit was a store demo, so I was not at the liberty to mess around with it to that extent, and I'm no expert on Android regardless.

 

[DaveStarWalker]

wise words from a wise man.

they are sooooo different btw

Well,

For my tastes, they are equally quite boring...

So in the end I find them quite similar.

 

[aminus]

Portable Audio Touchdown Tour Part 2: A whole assortment of IEMs and then some I

I will fully admit, I have been completely and utterly been out of touch with the IEM world, and then some, over the last year. I make no pretenses about attempting to cover every single IEM of note in that timeframe, but I will talk about what I've heard and think is worth discussion. The more observant will certainly notice a trend with what IEMs I have chosen to talk about, and certainly all of them should be familiar faces for even the uninitiated. So without further ado, let us begin.


Sennheiser:
I suppose the best place to start would be the brand that has the most relevance to me in the realm of headphones, and probably the first "new" IEM I was somewhat aware of during my hiatus. In the last year, Sennheiser has released the IE600 to some degree of critical acclaim, and the year prior they had also released the IE900, which I had unfortunately not heard before my hiatus. I did hear the IE300 very briefly and deemed it not worth the time to review.

On paper, the IE600 should really be right up my alley. After all, all I listen to these days are Sennheiser headphones, and the IE600 claims to alleviate the severe upper mid suckout that had plagued other Sennheiser IEMs. Were I a little more naive and demoing the IEMs themselves in person a little less accessible, I could even see myself taking the gamble and blind buying the IE600. Such is the degree to which I find the concept of the IE600 appealing.

In practice, things aren't quite so rosy. The IE600 has a rather severe treble peak that gravely affects timbre, and to match it the upper midrange bump that purports to right the previous wrongs in older Sennheiser IEMs is, in my eyes, excessive. It strikes me as much more bright than otherwise normal sounding, with a bass boost that, while not particularly intrusive, comes off as unnecessary and bucking to IEM trends that apparently necessitate some degree of bass shelf on every single IEM, even a single DD. Beyond that, the IE600 has a decent dynamic range and sounds relatively undampened (as if the treble peak didn't give that away) but has rather straight sounding transients and lacks microdynamic nuance. In other words, it sounds too clean, too stereotypically "hifi" and lacking in general musicality. As a whole, while I'm not entirely enthused with it, but I don't hate it either. It simply strikes me as mediocre, not entirely worth talking about, and as such the relative brevity of my comments will match this sentiment.

To cut to the chase, the IE900 is in a similar boat. It has a similar, but less prominent treble peak than the IE600, with the main differentiating factor being that the midrange is excessively recessed, as opposed to too prominent. Likewise as the treble peak issue, it comes off as equally lacking in inherent musicality and engagement, ultimately coming off as a little dull sounding this time around given the upper midrange recession. There is no winner between these two IEMs, both of them commit about an equal amount of sins in slightly different ways and, quite frankly, the whole lineup should be taken back to the drawing board. I can't say I'm terrible surprised by this outcome; I don't think any Sennheiser product past the HD650 has particularly enamored me and I probably believe to some degree that the success of the HD6X0 line may have been a fluke that Sennheiser has been trying and failing to repeat since. But hey, what do I know?


64 audio:
There is little to no relation between the various brands and IEMs I have chosen to discuss in this article, they simply cover the middle ground of what I have heard in the last month (as of writing) and what I think merits some discussion for one reason or another. Though, since we've begun by discussing a brand with close relevance to me, perhaps the best way to follow that up would be with a brand that had much relevance to me at one point, but no longer does. While there are quite a few new releases from 64 audio in the last year and then some, I will only be focusing on two; the A3t and the Duo. 


I shall start with the more unusual of the two. The Duo is a rather unique case of an open backed IEM, and works with just a single DD and a tia supertweeter in the nozzle. I've voiced my opinions on openback IEMs in relation to the Audeze iSine and LCD-i4 before; I think it's a silly self-defeating concept that fails to take advantage of both the form factor of an IEM and the form factor of an openbacked headphone, leaving one with the downsides of both for little benefit. But I've gone on about that at length elsewhere, so I will focus on the Duo as presented instead.

Calling the Duo "bad" would certainly be somewhat disingenuous and shallow; no, it's not "good" either, but perhaps it would best fall under the category of "interesting", though of course in the truest sense and not the veiled insult that it represents when deployed as a response to a manufacturer at an audio show asking you what you think of their product. To start, it's quite bassy, too bassy, and it's not what I would define as good bass either. There is fairly significant and uncontrolled bleed into the lower midrange, and the transient response leaves some tightness and refinement to be desired. In spite of this though, the Duo doesn't really sound wrong or particularly incorrect either. Certainly, it sounds much better tuned in the midrange than either of the Sennheiser IEMs, and though the tia treble response still leaves one wanting when it comes to the mid-treble, I can't say this is the worst implementation I've heard of it either, nor is it worse than the significant treble peak of either of the Sennheiser IEMs. And as for musicality... it's okay. Far from the best I've heard anywhere, but it's not strikingly poor enough at this to warrant pointing out. Though I suppose the worst sin of the Duo is that my comments on it can be so middling for a $1200 IEM. A supertweeter with a full range can sound magical with speakers, surely better can be done in a more practical form factor (read: not openback) in IEM form as well. I want to see what this taken to a much higher level can look like.

As for the A3t, relative to the Duo it can be considered rather traditional and quite normal, making it something of an ideal countersubject to the prior topic. I've heard rumors that it was in fact this IEM that 64 had, several years ago, developed, but chosen not to release out of fear of cannibalizing sales of higher end products, and now that this cat is apparently out of the bag it's not hard to see why. It is extremely similar to the old warhorse known as the U12t, which itself was one of my favorite IEMs for many years (and perhaps my first favorite IEM ever), and was my preferred IEM of the four (Fourte, U18t and Trio) that at the time occupied the very summit of 64's lineup. Admittedly, my romance with the U12t has greatly cooled over the years, and I no longer own one, but solely in the context of the rest of the 64 audio lineup it really takes no genius to figure out why the A3t was withheld for however long that it was.

The A3t taken at face value, context and history aside, is merely okay. It shares similar sins to the U12t, namely being that the midrange is a bit too recessed, and the upper midrange in particular needs more presence. But, greater than that, it shares similar sins with most other full BA designs on the market. Unsatisfactory transient decay, stiff microdynamics, poor musicality and plastic timbre all come to mind immediately, and the A3t has all of this and then some in varying amounts, some worse than others. Though perhaps the main thing it shares with the U12t is the, at least for an IEM and a BA IEM at it, noteworthy macrodynamic performance.

All this begs the question as to whether or not its older brother is worth the $2000 price tag it commands relative to the A3t's $900 (albeit limited to CIEM only, unfortunately, so it’s more like $1000 with severely reduced resale value), and the answer is pretty obviously no, though also with the caveat that no IEM is really worth $2000. This caveat is itself further supplemented by yet another caveat that no IEM is really worth $900 either, though it's certainly easier to argue that the chances that any given IEM in the future will be worth the $900 pricetag are significantly higher than those of an IEM being worth $2000. This speaks more to the state of the industry and how disappointingly low the bar for performance is for all parties involved moreso than it does anything specifically relating to the A3t or the U12t. Don't hate the player, hate the game.


Continued in Part 3.

 

[Toom]

Hey, you damned my beloved Duos with faint praise! I'll take that as a win mate.
Thanks for doing what you do, your posts always cheer me up.

 

[WilliamBlake]

Hi aminus, have you ever tried lime ears pneuma?

 

[aminus]

Hi aminus, have you ever tried lime ears pneuma?

I have not. The last Lime Ears model I heard was the Aether R, and that was so long ago that I can't even tell you what it sounded like.

 

[Hark01]

It shares similar sins to the U12t, namely being that the midrange is a bit too recessed, and the upper midrange in particular needs more presence.

Would you say that your preference curve these days is closer to Viento-B?

 

[aminus]

Would you say that your preference curve these days is closer to Viento-B?

Not really. I don't really believe in preference curves anymore, too many things that point to good sound cannot be measured and can only be heard in practice, even when it comes to something as basic as correctness in tone.

 

[aminus]

Portable Audio Touchdown Tour Part 3: A whole assortment of IEMs and then some II
This is a continuation of Part 2 of this series of articles.

Dunu:
Since I’ve begun talking about pricetags, let’s move on to a focus on two IEMs with a ball in the same court as the A3t. I have, in the past, reviewed the Dunu Luna, and my remarks, put in short, were that its tonal and timbral qualities simply did not match its dynamic and transient capabilities in terms of performance. In hindsight, the Luna's transients were too heavily colored by its timbre as well, too "metallic" with too much attack overshoot and ringing in the treble. The Zen promised to rectify those things; more forgiving, more warm, better tuned, but not quite as technical. In retrospect, this seems like it may have been on purpose to position the Zen (and shortly after the Zen Pro) as analogous to the Focal Clear relative to the Utopia that the Luna was seemingly presented as the IEM version of, beryllium vs. magnesium driver and all. I always found this somewhat foolish; it implied that the Clear was somehow better tuned and yet cheaper than the Utopia, when the reality was that the Clear had many issues the Utopia didn't and was certainly not tuned very much better (I would argue it was significantly worse). As far as Focals still go, which isn't very far, I still greatly prefer the Utopia to anything else in their lineup, though I strongly doubt I will be purchasing any headphone or speaker with metal drivers anytime soon.

Regardless, this isn't about Focals, it's about the Zen and Zen Pro. I will skip the usual spiel about single DDs and cut right to the chase; both of these IEMs sound odd, metallic, and as a whole too uneven for me to be able to actually sit down and consider normal or correct. The Zen has far too much of an upper midrange elevation, not dissimilar to the Luna, and the ever present metallic timbre colors the entire frequency band and constantly reminds the listener that they are listening to a facsimile of music, and not the real thing. On the other hand, the Zen Pro, at first blush, sounds more immediately normal (though still not fully correct) in the mids, but further listening reveals a particular dampened character to the transients and timbre that creates a disjointedness throughout the frequency range, and furthermore sounds like the inherent character of the driver is being restrained. Dunu's approach to dampening may win them more favors at a cursory glance and on graphs, but any modicum of deeper listening will reveal just how disjointed it really sounds below the surface. The original Zen, as a result, sounds more honest, regardless of its upfront tonal flaws.

With this in mind, the Zen and Zen Pro aren’t totally irredeemable IEMs. They both have an admirable level of dynamism and engagement, at least for IEMs, that is seldom heard in other single DD configurations, much less BA or hybrid setups which struggle with liveliness in general. I can probably count the number of IEMs that have a similar or greater level of inherent musicality in-and-of-itself with both hands. This speaks to the core potential of the Zen and Zen Pro which remains only partially tapped — there is much, much more that could be done here to correct the inherent tonal and timbral issues at play, and though the Zen Pro may initially seem like a step in the right direction, I really can't help but see it as a step forward and one back again with the execution. There is a definitely a way to make this line of IEMs work, and incredibly at that, but I'm not sure if Dunu knows how to fully realize it and I suspect we may not ever see it entirely pay off. Regardless, count me in as interested to see what the future holds for this series.

Oh yes, and I suppose there also is the Falcon Pro. It needs not very much discussion; soft, bloated bass with dipped upper mids and scrambled treble harmonics isn't really a recipe for success, and the result is one that barely warrants the two sentences this paragraph occupies.


Campfire Audio:
At this point, my opinions on and history with Campfire need no introduction. Controversial doesn't even start it with this brand, their releases have very much been all over the place for the last couple of years and I've never really been convinced that they know what they're doing with regards to making actual audio products, On the other hand, I would consider them undisputed experts at making attractive fashion products and building up a loyal, diehard following. Certainly not even I can fault them for that.

First, an appetizer. The Campfire Saber is, apparently, yet another limited edition, which I would have had a 50/50 chance of guessing beforehand given how many limited editions Campfire releases. More concerning is the fact that the product page for this IEM by Campfire has more words on the Damascus Steel faceplate than the actual sonic qualities of the IEM (92 words to 76). I mean, I get that Campfire IEMs are, at this point, effectively just shiny jewelry that also happens to make sound, but this is a bit blatant.

And now that I've written about as many words as on the marketing of this IEM as Campfire has on their product page regarding the aesthetics of it, allow me to match them likewise with discussing the sound. It's an incoherent, splashy mess with no mids. There is no saving grace with this IEM; it just sounds bad with no redeeming qualities, not even the Damascus Steel faceplate (which doesn't even look that good in person).

Now, the main course. The Supermoon is, to my knowledge, the most expensive or one of the most expensive in the recent number of planar magnetic IEMs that have been flooding the market. All of these IEMs use the same driver with very minimal changes beyond front dampening, mostly because the driver itself is very difficult to tinker with without screwing up the intended response entirely. This does, then, beg the question why the Supermoon is $1500 when something like the Timeless 7hz or the Letshuoer S12 are $200 and $150 respectively (disclaimer: I have heard neither of these IEMs). While of course BOM is as far from the entire story as one could get in manufacturing any product, it does also mean that Campfire have much to deliver on to make that significant difference in margin worth it. Of course, I'm not naive enough to demand the Supermoon be 10x better than either of the aforementioned to reflect the cost difference, but at the very minimum it has to be better, right?

Well, like I said, I haven't heard either of those IEMs, so I cannot comment on whether or not the Supermoon delivers on that front, but I can comment on how the Supermoon stands on its own. To begin, I shall work off of the characteristics of the Supermoon that I find typically (if not stereotypically) planar. It has a timbral homogeneity that blends instruments together and masks much of their individual tone-color, as well as dynamic compression that further adds to this overall effect. There is a significant, though not disastrous, grain to the treble that is again quite common among planar drivers in general. As a whole, saying that the Supermoon sounds like plastic would not be a stretch; I feel this way about every planar I have ever heard, so this is hardly an indictment on the Supermoon's part. What is, however, is the tone. The lower mids display an oddness that is a little difficult to describe, but comes off as somewhere between being bloated and just general feeling of uncanniness. I would imagine this wouldn't measure significantly poorly on a graph, but in practice, the Supermoon ends up coming off as a bad facsimile of music, for both this and its issues in timbre and dynamics. Mind you, relative to the Saber, which doesn't sound like music at all, this is on a completely different (and much better) level, but I cannot imagine paying $1500, or even $150 for a product that fails to accomplish its one and only goal — to deliver a convincing and engaging representation of recorded music.

To this end, have any of the IEMs I have reviewed in these last two articles really impressed me? No, not really. I see potential in many, but it is unfulfilled, and I am often left wanting instead of truly being immersed in the music. I see this not as a sign of doom and gloom, but of a setting the stage in the standards to come and the expectations that not just IEMs, but all audio must be held to. These are not impossible standards; difficult yes, but they can and have been executed before, and I think it is far more pertinent and interesting to talk about audio products from the perspective of how they could and should be better achieve this, rather than praising them for being capable of mere parlor tricks.

 

[vikinguy]

Yeah, no way of pay $150 for Supermoon.

 

[justsomesonyfan]

Portable Audio Touchdown Tour Part 1: The NW-WM1AM2 and NW-WM1ZM2

The WM1A is the DAP that I've used for the last 3 years. It's probably the single longest surviving audio product in my collection, I've sold everything I brought prior to it in one form or another. One of my fondest memories in audio is undoubtedly the first time I ever heard the 1A with my old A12t, it was likely the singular moment that converted me into a believer in sources and began my spurning of objectivist thought. Nostalgia aside though, it's also just a very good player. It has an inherent naturalness of timbre and tone backed up with surprisingly respectable dynamic performance, decay, and engagement for a portable player. I've heard more DAPs than I care to count in my time, and frankly none of them have really dethroned the WM1A in my eyes. Even its older brother, the WM1Z, offered something different as opposed to better; it was extremely warm and gooey sounding by any standards and while I can see some being enthralled with that sort of sound, I personally wasn't. And so the WM1A remained my first and only high end portable player.

Needless to say, I've been pining for an announcement of the second generation of Sony players for a minute and then some. Truth to be told, I've been aware that the project was in the works since the tail end of 2019 and poised for release the year after, but for reasons that need no mention that never came to pass and it was largely radio silence on it until the recent announcement and release. It might not be surprising that I'm more interested in the WM1AM2 than I am the WM1ZM2, but I'm no less eager to hear either regardless. So how do they stack up in practice?

Well, the WM1AM2 (or 1AM2 for short) is, to put it one way, a bit of a letdown. Sony seem to have decided that the WM1A (or OG 1A) was simply not colored enough; in this respect, the 1AM2 is a moderately warm sounding DAP, with softer transients and a somewhat manufactured and artificial sounding gloss to its timbre. With the softer transient edge comes more compression, and also lost is a fair degree of both the slam and nuance that the OG 1A had (which wasn't that much to begin with in the grand scheme of things; DAPs aren't really capable of either). As a whole, it's a bit dull sounding and unengaging; it's not quite as romantically warm and bloomy like the OG 1Z, but it's also not as clear and correct sounding as the OG 1A. What we are left with is not terrible, but not really great or even good either. It's just completely mediocre.

As for the WM1ZM2 (henceforth 1ZM2), things become a lot more complicated. The 1ZM2 sounds quite different from its predecessor, and it seems like it and the 1AM2 have traded places compared to the generation prior in terms of sound signature. The new 1ZM2 is almost (but not quite) the same flavor of neutral as the OG 1A. The main differentiating factors between the two lie in its slight warmth and a similar degree of glossiness to the timbre, though also apparent on the 1ZM2 is some degree of digititus in the treble. The 1ZM2 also retains some of the transient softness from the 1AM2, though it's not nearly as pervasive. As such, the 1ZM2 has most if not all of the dynamism of its predecessors, and it's also quite musical and engaging. There is no doubt that the 1ZM2 is a good DAP.

Herein lies the real question: is it a great DAP, and does it succeed in obsoleting the prior generation sonically? Let's not even talk about being worth the price, because face it, no DAP is worth $3.7K. The answer to both of those questions, in my humble opinion, is an unfortunate and resounding no. To begin with, I really don't hear any tangible improvements in the 1ZM2 compared to either the OG 1A or the OG 1Z. Sure, it has a different flavor of coloration compared to either of the aforementioned, and that coloration might be more appealing than others to someone, but it's not an abject improvement by any metric. On the other hand, there are a greater than insignificant number of actual tangible drawbacks with the 1ZM2 compared to the OG DAPs: the slightly artificial timbre, the softened edges applied onto every transient, the mild but present treble issues that are just enough to break immersion, it all adds up.

And even despite the 1ZM2 being closer to my preferred tonality than the OG 1Z, I struggle to decide if I actually prefer it overall. Yes, I prefer the greatly lessened warmth and bloom, but the OG 1Z was one of the most characterful and unique sounding DAPs on the market. There was a clear reason to buy one compared to the OG 1A, and though I didn’t necessarily agree with it, I was fully capable of respecting it. The 1AM2 and the 1ZM2 end up coming off as more similar than different. Sure, the 1ZM2 is an actual improvement over the 1AM2, but Sony accomplishes this by actively making the 1AM2 worse. We end up with products that exist in two completely different tiers that try to accomplish the same thing, instead of two products that are relatively speaking quite similar in performance, but with opposing goals.

One gains more clarity with such a realization when the DMP-Z1 is introduced into the picture; on immediate comparison it's clear that the DMP-Z1 is in fact the primogenitor of the M2 generation's sound. And while the DMP-Z1 is certainly a very interesting sounding device, it's not one that I would consider normal sounding, though that's a topic for another time. The long and short of it is that I just think that the latest generation of Sony players was a misstep. We have gone from an expression of musicality and naturality in two equal but opposite examples, to a hierarchy of mediocrity tuned to flavor, but not to taste. In a sense, there is not very much differentiating the M2 generation DAPs and the DMP-Z1 from the vast majority of other DAPs in the market in terms of overarching philosophy; coloration and flavoring for the sake of it instead of just trying to sound correct and normal. It's not that I don't get why they've done this either, the market wants this stuff and I imagine the idea of a mini-DMP-Z1 is extremely appealing to a lot of people who aren't me. I just personally couldn't care less for it.


Part 2 & 3 will cover a whole bunch of IEMs and Part 4 will focus more on some other sources.

Question, have you used local music or rather streamed when trying the 1am2 and 1zm2?