I listen to peak-time techno and progressive house so musicality is probably not a relevant concept for me. 
Aminus hates everything (Or, Aminus rants and reviews stuff)
- Thread starter aminus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- iems impressions rants review
Miscellaneous Chifi IEMs (Moondrop and Tanchjim):
Moondrop Aria Snow:
I have never been fond of Moondrop’s single DD excursions, dating back to the original Kanas Pro (who remembers that?). I have always found them soft, compressed and lifeless, and in the earlier iterations, rather veiled and bloated. The Aria Snow is not a dissimilar affair, though thankfully the midrange is not as bled through as the earlier KXXS and Starfield. It merely strikes one as being warm and somewhat fuzzy, honky and unrefined in the mids, while all the same struggling with dynamic range and transient sharpness.
Moondrop Aria 2:
Much similar to the above, but far shoutier in the style of the old SSR and SSP. Unpleasant and then some.
Moondrop Kato:
While the general midrange tone is more correct than the either of the present Aria models, it has a persistent sharpness in the upper mids and treble that exponentially worsens the general fuzziness and lack of precision that all of these Moondrop single DDs suffer from. To give it some credit, it’s the most dynamic of the lot so far.
Moondrop Stellaris:
A crinkly, plasticky disaster. An already lean and lightweight tuning coupled with a paper thin note weight not dissimilar to the kind found on Stax headphones that does it no favors, alongside a rather distant, unimpactful presentation; of course with all the usual planar caveats of poor timbre, dynamics, and a general lack of musicality. As far as I can tell, this was meant for (and made by) someone with no conception of what real, physical instruments sounds like; and desires music to be a weightless, ephemeral ether, decoupled from physical reality. Or, more concisely, an electrostatic fan.
Moondrop Blessing 3:
It is clear to me that Moondrop has taken a couple cues from the Crinacle target with this undoubtedly hotly anticipated release. The midrange has that distinctly round, almost blobby nature found on the Truthear Projects Red and Blue, though far lesser. It is also considerably thinner and less lower midrange focused than anything that would come out of a Crinacle collaboration. Perhaps its greatest saving grace is a sense of transient refinement and cleanliness akin to the old Moondrop S8, something I thought was lost in the original Blessing 2 and and Blessing 2 Dusk, and likewise it has seemingly gotten rid of its rubbery, one-note bass texture, though in its stead the midrange and treble has become distinctly more plasticky. An upgrade? Barely, but certainly a refreshingly different direction.
Tanchjim Hana:
It has been an extraordinarily long time since I heard a Tanchjim IEM (the old Oxygen, their debut), and their activity since is a mystery to me. No matter, the Hana is a thunderous, aggressive little thing, pounding away full force with somewhat heavyhanded bass in tandem with a borderline shrill upper midrange presentation. Almost enjoyable in how unrelenting and singleminded its approach is, but utterly lacking in any sort refinement or subtlety.
Tanchjim Darling:
Though similarly upfront and lively in presentation to the Hana, the Darling is significantly more veiled, though this also comes with the added benefit of not being as difficult in the upper mids, and perhaps even a bit less roughness and grain in the overall timbre. Regardless, the lack of top end extension is incredibly evident from the outset, and a huge, glaring flaw that greatly limits the Darling’s potential.
Tanchjim Prism:
Considering the promise shown by the Hana and Darling, one would almost expect the significantly more expensive Prism to be along the same lines, but better. That would be committing the great folly in IEMs of having expectations of sanity and clarity in a manufacturer’s lineup. With the Prism, one simply finds a Hana with all the problems of the old Oxygen reintroduced — a harsh midrange with a particularly dry and grainy timbre that almost crackles at times, and no attempt made at all to conjoin any of this with its soft, rounded bass. Perhaps eventually Tanchjim will follow its current house sound to some sort of logical, thought out conclusion, but as is, the Prism is nothing more than an earsore.
Moondrop Aria Snow:
I have never been fond of Moondrop’s single DD excursions, dating back to the original Kanas Pro (who remembers that?). I have always found them soft, compressed and lifeless, and in the earlier iterations, rather veiled and bloated. The Aria Snow is not a dissimilar affair, though thankfully the midrange is not as bled through as the earlier KXXS and Starfield. It merely strikes one as being warm and somewhat fuzzy, honky and unrefined in the mids, while all the same struggling with dynamic range and transient sharpness.
Moondrop Aria 2:
Much similar to the above, but far shoutier in the style of the old SSR and SSP. Unpleasant and then some.
Moondrop Kato:
While the general midrange tone is more correct than the either of the present Aria models, it has a persistent sharpness in the upper mids and treble that exponentially worsens the general fuzziness and lack of precision that all of these Moondrop single DDs suffer from. To give it some credit, it’s the most dynamic of the lot so far.
Moondrop Stellaris:
A crinkly, plasticky disaster. An already lean and lightweight tuning coupled with a paper thin note weight not dissimilar to the kind found on Stax headphones that does it no favors, alongside a rather distant, unimpactful presentation; of course with all the usual planar caveats of poor timbre, dynamics, and a general lack of musicality. As far as I can tell, this was meant for (and made by) someone with no conception of what real, physical instruments sounds like; and desires music to be a weightless, ephemeral ether, decoupled from physical reality. Or, more concisely, an electrostatic fan.
Moondrop Blessing 3:
It is clear to me that Moondrop has taken a couple cues from the Crinacle target with this undoubtedly hotly anticipated release. The midrange has that distinctly round, almost blobby nature found on the Truthear Projects Red and Blue, though far lesser. It is also considerably thinner and less lower midrange focused than anything that would come out of a Crinacle collaboration. Perhaps its greatest saving grace is a sense of transient refinement and cleanliness akin to the old Moondrop S8, something I thought was lost in the original Blessing 2 and and Blessing 2 Dusk, and likewise it has seemingly gotten rid of its rubbery, one-note bass texture, though in its stead the midrange and treble has become distinctly more plasticky. An upgrade? Barely, but certainly a refreshingly different direction.
Tanchjim Hana:
It has been an extraordinarily long time since I heard a Tanchjim IEM (the old Oxygen, their debut), and their activity since is a mystery to me. No matter, the Hana is a thunderous, aggressive little thing, pounding away full force with somewhat heavyhanded bass in tandem with a borderline shrill upper midrange presentation. Almost enjoyable in how unrelenting and singleminded its approach is, but utterly lacking in any sort refinement or subtlety.
Tanchjim Darling:
Though similarly upfront and lively in presentation to the Hana, the Darling is significantly more veiled, though this also comes with the added benefit of not being as difficult in the upper mids, and perhaps even a bit less roughness and grain in the overall timbre. Regardless, the lack of top end extension is incredibly evident from the outset, and a huge, glaring flaw that greatly limits the Darling’s potential.
Tanchjim Prism:
Considering the promise shown by the Hana and Darling, one would almost expect the significantly more expensive Prism to be along the same lines, but better. That would be committing the great folly in IEMs of having expectations of sanity and clarity in a manufacturer’s lineup. With the Prism, one simply finds a Hana with all the problems of the old Oxygen reintroduced — a harsh midrange with a particularly dry and grainy timbre that almost crackles at times, and no attempt made at all to conjoin any of this with its soft, rounded bass. Perhaps eventually Tanchjim will follow its current house sound to some sort of logical, thought out conclusion, but as is, the Prism is nothing more than an earsore.
Last edited:
Miscellaneous IEMs (FAudio, Oriolus, FiR):
FAudio Dark Sky:
It feels like a lifetime has passed since my first outing with FAudio. The Minor was, at the time, a total shock from a prior unknown company, and it was something I genuinely liked for quite a long time, both sonically and philosophically. FAudio were, and still are, one of the few brands experimenting with single DD configurations at a relatively high level; advanced composite domes, multi-layered acoustic chambering, all set as standard with the release of the earlier Major (an IEM I unfortunately never reviewed due to significant unit variance). To say that I have something of a soft spot for the brand is not inaccurate, and I approached the Dark Sky wanting to like it. But the Dark Sky does not live up to any preconceived hopes or expectations, with a particularly brutal upper midrange peak that decimates any semblance of listenability from the outset. How unfortunate.
FAudio Mezzo:
Piezoelectric tweeter IEMs are few and far between in spite of the technology having been used in IEMs for about half a decade at this point, most famously in the Noble Audio Khan and the Hyla CE-5, alongside its offspring the TE-5T, TE-5B and Sarda. All things considered, this is not the worst lineup of IEMs, but it unfortunately is the best that piezoelectrics have to offer, and not without reason. The treble response one gets out of them is typically shrill, splashy and intensely harsh, and the Mezzo is no exception. The rest of the Mezzo is nothing particularly noteworthy; soft tubby bass and slightly lean, uninvolving mids. This IEM is barely worth talking about in any state, and for some reason the manufacturer deemed it worthy of having three tuning switches, all of which add up to nothing more than a total waste of time.
Oriolus Traillii:
The Traillii is among the newer generation of IEMs setting an unprecedented (beyond ridiculous outliers like whatever garbage oBravo used to make) price point, one that 10 years ago would rightfully have been scoffed at, but is now accepted as norm. As time has past and I have inevitably become more and more disillusioned with the greater audio industry, I have grown increasingly opposed to high prices in audio, doubly so when nothing in a product’s pricetag warrants anything remotely approaching the kinds of figures Oriolus has deemed reasonable to command. This current generation of multi-kilobuck flagships does nothing, technologically, artisanally, or even sonically speaking, to deserve to push the envelope by such an order of magnitude in price. It is merely a natural and likely inevitable market reaction to consumer stupidity; after all, if people are willing to pay, why not? To that I say vote with one’s wallet.
As for how it sounds, it’s certainly not bad. Athletically lithe, rather crisp, very (almost excessively) clear, quite dynamic, and only mildly engaging. What Oriolus is vying after is clearly not to resemble real music played by real instruments, but the directness of execution and vision also does not give one the impression of being a mere facsimile of reality; instead it is akin to another dimension operating on different laws of physics entirely, one of sharp, geometric angularity and pristine linear surfaces, the U12t’s Beethoven’s Ninth (a sacrilegious comparison, but bear with me here) to Traillii’s Music for 18 Musicians. Doubtless this sort of sound will drive some mad and others wild, and I’m still not convinced that this IEM (or any IEM) is worth the absurd price of $6000. At the same time, it is also undeniable that the Traillii is the rare breed of audio equipment that is not only unique, but utterly convincing in execution. It is hard to put a price on artistic excellence in audio, but Oriolus have certainly created a compelling statement piece for it; and in their wake have left a wave of far less proficient tailcoat riders with comparatively nothing to show.
Oriolus Mellianus:
Not dissimilar in concept to the Traillii, but without any sort of competence or refinement of execution. If you really must have this kind of sound, save up for the Traillii.
Oriolus Szalayi:
Duck, duck, goose. The Szalayi sounds absolutely nothing like either of the previous Oriolus IEMs, instead opting for a confusing mess of veil and honk. I have absolutely no explanation as to why this exists. Who does this appeal to?
FiR Audio Radon 6:
This thing is so atrocious that my first instinct upon opening this paragraph was to apologize for my forthcoming words. I realized moments after that no such apology was necessary, because every sentence of it is absolutely deserved. I cannot remember the last time I heard an IEM simultaneously so veiled but screechy, muddled yet sharp; murky and blobby enough to compel the listener to turn the volume up, then instantly punishing with razor edged treble. Or rather, I can; airline earbuds sound like this. The Radon 6 is a glorified airline earbud. And it has the audacity to market itself as limited to 300 units? 300 too many.
FAudio Dark Sky:
It feels like a lifetime has passed since my first outing with FAudio. The Minor was, at the time, a total shock from a prior unknown company, and it was something I genuinely liked for quite a long time, both sonically and philosophically. FAudio were, and still are, one of the few brands experimenting with single DD configurations at a relatively high level; advanced composite domes, multi-layered acoustic chambering, all set as standard with the release of the earlier Major (an IEM I unfortunately never reviewed due to significant unit variance). To say that I have something of a soft spot for the brand is not inaccurate, and I approached the Dark Sky wanting to like it. But the Dark Sky does not live up to any preconceived hopes or expectations, with a particularly brutal upper midrange peak that decimates any semblance of listenability from the outset. How unfortunate.
FAudio Mezzo:
Piezoelectric tweeter IEMs are few and far between in spite of the technology having been used in IEMs for about half a decade at this point, most famously in the Noble Audio Khan and the Hyla CE-5, alongside its offspring the TE-5T, TE-5B and Sarda. All things considered, this is not the worst lineup of IEMs, but it unfortunately is the best that piezoelectrics have to offer, and not without reason. The treble response one gets out of them is typically shrill, splashy and intensely harsh, and the Mezzo is no exception. The rest of the Mezzo is nothing particularly noteworthy; soft tubby bass and slightly lean, uninvolving mids. This IEM is barely worth talking about in any state, and for some reason the manufacturer deemed it worthy of having three tuning switches, all of which add up to nothing more than a total waste of time.
Oriolus Traillii:
The Traillii is among the newer generation of IEMs setting an unprecedented (beyond ridiculous outliers like whatever garbage oBravo used to make) price point, one that 10 years ago would rightfully have been scoffed at, but is now accepted as norm. As time has past and I have inevitably become more and more disillusioned with the greater audio industry, I have grown increasingly opposed to high prices in audio, doubly so when nothing in a product’s pricetag warrants anything remotely approaching the kinds of figures Oriolus has deemed reasonable to command. This current generation of multi-kilobuck flagships does nothing, technologically, artisanally, or even sonically speaking, to deserve to push the envelope by such an order of magnitude in price. It is merely a natural and likely inevitable market reaction to consumer stupidity; after all, if people are willing to pay, why not? To that I say vote with one’s wallet.
As for how it sounds, it’s certainly not bad. Athletically lithe, rather crisp, very (almost excessively) clear, quite dynamic, and only mildly engaging. What Oriolus is vying after is clearly not to resemble real music played by real instruments, but the directness of execution and vision also does not give one the impression of being a mere facsimile of reality; instead it is akin to another dimension operating on different laws of physics entirely, one of sharp, geometric angularity and pristine linear surfaces, the U12t’s Beethoven’s Ninth (a sacrilegious comparison, but bear with me here) to Traillii’s Music for 18 Musicians. Doubtless this sort of sound will drive some mad and others wild, and I’m still not convinced that this IEM (or any IEM) is worth the absurd price of $6000. At the same time, it is also undeniable that the Traillii is the rare breed of audio equipment that is not only unique, but utterly convincing in execution. It is hard to put a price on artistic excellence in audio, but Oriolus have certainly created a compelling statement piece for it; and in their wake have left a wave of far less proficient tailcoat riders with comparatively nothing to show.
Oriolus Mellianus:
Not dissimilar in concept to the Traillii, but without any sort of competence or refinement of execution. If you really must have this kind of sound, save up for the Traillii.
Oriolus Szalayi:
Duck, duck, goose. The Szalayi sounds absolutely nothing like either of the previous Oriolus IEMs, instead opting for a confusing mess of veil and honk. I have absolutely no explanation as to why this exists. Who does this appeal to?
FiR Audio Radon 6:
This thing is so atrocious that my first instinct upon opening this paragraph was to apologize for my forthcoming words. I realized moments after that no such apology was necessary, because every sentence of it is absolutely deserved. I cannot remember the last time I heard an IEM simultaneously so veiled but screechy, muddled yet sharp; murky and blobby enough to compel the listener to turn the volume up, then instantly punishing with razor edged treble. Or rather, I can; airline earbuds sound like this. The Radon 6 is a glorified airline earbud. And it has the audacity to market itself as limited to 300 units? 300 too many.
Last edited:
Miscellaneous IEMs (Letshuoer, Craft Ears, HUM, MADOO):
Letshuoer Cadenza 12:
I have not, to this day, heard any piece of audio equipment I would consider “good” that is named after any sort of classical music terminology. It is second only to mythological figures (Norse gods, anyone?) in terms of audio naming clichés, yet somehow every every instance I can recall of it has been a failure for one reason or another. Calling the Cadenza 12 a failure would be a bit too harsh, but it’s hardly a success either. It’s ultimately little more than a mediocre BA DD hybrid; inoffensively tuned, incoherent from top to bottom, and lacking in any sort of charm or memorability.
Craft Ears Cuprum:
An unfortunate, insipid thing that reminds one of the sound of a landline phone. All mids, all honk, no bass.
Craft Ears Argentum:
An aggressive, V-shaped IEM that does nothing particularly wrong, but nothing exceptionally right either. It does an excellent job of striking the balance of being perfectly unremarkable.
HUM Dolores:
Upon picking up this IEM, I was immediately informed that it needed 5 minutes of warmup, a claim made by the manufacturer apparently due to the capacitors used in the crossover. This is a completely ridiculous premise, but, having little better to do than to entertain total inanity, I decided to play along in good faith. I listened to it very briefly right after plugging it in, said a quick prayer than HUM were not bluffing when they made their claim of requiring warmup, and let it run for the prescribed 5 minutes. My effort and patience were entirely in vain as it unfortunately made little difference: the Dolores is a murky, plasticky, telephonic mess with or without any sort of warmup. A good ruse for the aforementioned wait time, and little more than.
MADOO Type 512:
MADOO, at first, seems like an unfamiliar, wholly new brand. On a table laid from end to end with various IEMs of different sizes, colors, and certainly prices, their stark, black, machined shells stick out like a sore thumb. Ever since the Oriolus Traillii made it socially acceptable to charge a king's ransom for an acrylic shell as is without any frills or embellishments, the number of IEMs released with truly unique shell designs has seemingly tanked. Some may say that the absence of a need to design something as complicated and as irrelevant to the final performance of the product as its aesthetic appearance means that the manufacturer has more room to spend on its acoustics alone; but such naivete and idealism is quickly tempered with the sobering realization that, in the years hence where every other IEM shell seems to be some reproportioned variation of the PP8, little advancement has been made in elevating IEMs from uncanny approximations of music to achieving something close to the real thing. Thusly, one can find little fault in indulging in the primal instinct of letting shiny objects catch one's attention in an otherwise drab sea of plastic.
Of course, it only takes a little digging to find that MADOO is in fact a sister brand of Acoustune, by now no doubt a mainstay of the IEM scene. While Acoustune is focused on high end single DD implementations, MADOO seems very fixated with a particular square planar driver (it's unclear to me if this driver is the same one found on the likes of the Campfire Supermoon or the Moondrop Stellaris), and unlike Acoustune the approach is more akin to throwing whatever they can cook up at the wall to see what works, rather than the gradual, cumulative process of evolution and variation that Acoustune steadfastly holds. The Type 512 appears to be the first widely distributed IEM from the brand, though not their actual first IEM; that honor belongs to the little documented M001.
Now, to cut to how the actual IEM sounds; the Type 512 can be characterized as V-shaped in a manner familiar to much of the Acoustune lineup, with very similar general issues, especially in the treble. More unique to the Type 512 is a particularly odd incoherency between the aggressively sharp top end and the rounded, burnished low end. Some cursory research apparently points to both of these being handled by the planar driver central to the entire brand, which makes this juxtaposition even stranger. Neither side of the spectrum is particularly great, but I can’t say I’ve ever heard anything with a woofer similar to the Type 512’s, and maybe its implementation might see success some other day. But as is, it’s simply not a good IEM, and not even a mediocre one. The best it musters is intriguing.
Letshuoer Cadenza 12:
I have not, to this day, heard any piece of audio equipment I would consider “good” that is named after any sort of classical music terminology. It is second only to mythological figures (Norse gods, anyone?) in terms of audio naming clichés, yet somehow every every instance I can recall of it has been a failure for one reason or another. Calling the Cadenza 12 a failure would be a bit too harsh, but it’s hardly a success either. It’s ultimately little more than a mediocre BA DD hybrid; inoffensively tuned, incoherent from top to bottom, and lacking in any sort of charm or memorability.
Craft Ears Cuprum:
An unfortunate, insipid thing that reminds one of the sound of a landline phone. All mids, all honk, no bass.
Craft Ears Argentum:
An aggressive, V-shaped IEM that does nothing particularly wrong, but nothing exceptionally right either. It does an excellent job of striking the balance of being perfectly unremarkable.
HUM Dolores:
Upon picking up this IEM, I was immediately informed that it needed 5 minutes of warmup, a claim made by the manufacturer apparently due to the capacitors used in the crossover. This is a completely ridiculous premise, but, having little better to do than to entertain total inanity, I decided to play along in good faith. I listened to it very briefly right after plugging it in, said a quick prayer than HUM were not bluffing when they made their claim of requiring warmup, and let it run for the prescribed 5 minutes. My effort and patience were entirely in vain as it unfortunately made little difference: the Dolores is a murky, plasticky, telephonic mess with or without any sort of warmup. A good ruse for the aforementioned wait time, and little more than.
MADOO Type 512:
MADOO, at first, seems like an unfamiliar, wholly new brand. On a table laid from end to end with various IEMs of different sizes, colors, and certainly prices, their stark, black, machined shells stick out like a sore thumb. Ever since the Oriolus Traillii made it socially acceptable to charge a king's ransom for an acrylic shell as is without any frills or embellishments, the number of IEMs released with truly unique shell designs has seemingly tanked. Some may say that the absence of a need to design something as complicated and as irrelevant to the final performance of the product as its aesthetic appearance means that the manufacturer has more room to spend on its acoustics alone; but such naivete and idealism is quickly tempered with the sobering realization that, in the years hence where every other IEM shell seems to be some reproportioned variation of the PP8, little advancement has been made in elevating IEMs from uncanny approximations of music to achieving something close to the real thing. Thusly, one can find little fault in indulging in the primal instinct of letting shiny objects catch one's attention in an otherwise drab sea of plastic.
Of course, it only takes a little digging to find that MADOO is in fact a sister brand of Acoustune, by now no doubt a mainstay of the IEM scene. While Acoustune is focused on high end single DD implementations, MADOO seems very fixated with a particular square planar driver (it's unclear to me if this driver is the same one found on the likes of the Campfire Supermoon or the Moondrop Stellaris), and unlike Acoustune the approach is more akin to throwing whatever they can cook up at the wall to see what works, rather than the gradual, cumulative process of evolution and variation that Acoustune steadfastly holds. The Type 512 appears to be the first widely distributed IEM from the brand, though not their actual first IEM; that honor belongs to the little documented M001.
Now, to cut to how the actual IEM sounds; the Type 512 can be characterized as V-shaped in a manner familiar to much of the Acoustune lineup, with very similar general issues, especially in the treble. More unique to the Type 512 is a particularly odd incoherency between the aggressively sharp top end and the rounded, burnished low end. Some cursory research apparently points to both of these being handled by the planar driver central to the entire brand, which makes this juxtaposition even stranger. Neither side of the spectrum is particularly great, but I can’t say I’ve ever heard anything with a woofer similar to the Type 512’s, and maybe its implementation might see success some other day. But as is, it’s simply not a good IEM, and not even a mediocre one. The best it musters is intriguing.
Last edited:
Not so fat head
1000+ Head-Fier
Ha!!! Thanks for the laugh on the 5 minute warm-up effort.. All I can hope for, is these companies have a sense of humor, as the can't be serious..
Yo how would you compare ucotech re2 and dunu zen pro
redrol
Headphoneus Supremus
He is serious. Who cares if these companies have a sense of humor or not. I sure don'tHa!!! Thanks for the laugh on the 5 minute warm-up effort.. All I can hope for, is these companies have a sense of humor, as the can't be serious..
While i know you are asking animus that question. different price ranges first of all.
While I don't have them side by side, but i've owned them.
Very different IEMs
Zen pro has a better bass texture than the re2.
re2 is pretty dynamic, but I can't compare that rn.
ZP is pretty engaging and is neutral warm, re2 is neutral bright.
If you want a budget interesting iem, go with re2. if you have the cash, sure go for the ZP
Not so fat head
1000+ Head-Fier
Why am I having such a hard time getting the meaning of my messages across? I'm in agreement; massive difference between cables don't exist, unless one cable is built improperly. Burn in probably does exist for mechanical transducers, but it would be small. Also, does the driver actually start performing worst over time? None of this is worth an argument.. Meh..
I am just curious, regarding the HUM Dolores review, that if there is any case that a small capacitor ever needs a warm-up (not limited to this case in the review where it seems to have done nothing)? I am a bit confused that a warm-up of a capacitor has been a bad sign in my dictionary, something like a reversely connected tantalum about to turn into a mini-granade...
To be precise, the absurdity with HUM's assertion is less to do with warmup or burnin (two different concepts, by the way), and moreso fretting about silverware while the Titanic is sinking.
This is the first time I've seen a manufacturer (or anyone really, which is quite surprising now that I think about it) claim that a given IEM requires warmup. Most other instances of capacitors would involve housepet-or-larger sized components that can easily fit capacitors the size of a whole IEM with ease, and even there I rarely hear about warmup in relation to capacitors. Burnin, on the other hand, is a different story entirely.
Last edited:
Theme and Variations: 64 Audio
64 Audio U12t:
The thought recently occurred to me that 64 Audio’s original U12t has slowly but surely blossomed into an unofficial lineup of sorts. At the time of its release 5 years ago, it was largely overshadowed by the more technologically flashy Fourte and Trio, and then further doomed to obscurity by 64’s unwise decision to market it as a downmarket U18t. Thankfully, there is no greater filter for mediocrity than the passage of time, and with the effort of a handful of reviewers, the U12t’s reputation (and likely sales; I would know, I bought the damn thing twice) soon outpaced that of its peers. Today, the Trio and U18t seem largely left in the annals of history, and the Fourte only persists in the public consciousness through the sheer size of its pricetag and its infrequent, unnecessary limited edition flankers. By comparison, the numerous descendants of the U12t vastly outnumber the protégé of its elder brothers combined.
I don’t believe I’ve ever re-reviewed any single IEM 3 times before, but there’s always room for first times. The U12t was, and still is perhaps the single most influential IEM to my development as a listener and critic, and returning to it after all these years brings to mind the words of the great perfume critic Luca Turin; "like meeting an old high school teacher who had a decisive influence on my life: I may have moved on, but everything it taught me is still there, still precious, and wonderful to revisit." In the realm of the staunchly traditional multi-BA setup, it sets the stage for perhaps the best aural profile yet achieved in the genre; a moderate bass boost that loosely compensates for the inherent poor note weight that comes with BAs, and a warm, yet unromanticized midrange balance, presented with a directness, dynamism and liveliness that is still admirable 5 years later. To the ears of the freshly minted audiophile from all those years ago that was to become a tired, jaded critic, this was nothing short of revelation, and it took both a substantial amount of time and an embarrassing amount of money invested into unrelated audio ventures for the awe to subside. In the years that followed, I have often heard the complaint that the U12t was "too boring" or "too clinical", and even today I find such a remark as revealing of underdeveloped taste as disliking Mozart. If one finds themselves in such a situation, it is cause for alarm, and an indication that a reset of one’s dopamine receptors with a thorough cleansing of Bach or the ER4 (or both at once, if one is so inclined) is necessary.
Of course, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows; I sold my U12t years back for a reason. Oft criticized with the U12t is its odd treble response, with an emphasis on the lower and upper treble and a gaping hole in between, but what I find most disturbing today is its ever so slightly crooked and misshapen midrange. There is a strange, uncanny emphasis in the upper mids that I hadn’t noticed in years past, cumulative with the aforementioned lower treble emphasis, and with it an unwelcome roughness and grain. This malformed growth, a wart on otherwise smooth skin, takes the U12t's mids from admirably balanced to mildly unpleasant. And it needs no saying that, within the genre of multi-BAs, it is impossible to escape the typical caveats of unrealistic transients, poor timbre, and middling musicality; all of the above apply to all of the subsequent releases to follow. But as a standalone IEM, such mishaps take nothing away from the significance of the U12t in the zeitgeist: ever-present as the benchmark against which all IEMs daring to price themselves as kilobucks are measured. If such a thing cannot be considered a masterpiece, then what is?
64 Audio Nio:
Chronologically speaking, the Nio itself is not, in fact, the immediate successor to the U12t; that would be the U6t’s CIEM counterpart, the A6t. However technically correct this may be, it is practically untrue; the Nio is simply the earlier CIEM N8 given a new lease on life with a brand new faceplate and the then newly introduced MX module. In the era prior to the Nio's release, the N8 was seen as something a flawed masterpiece, held back by the variance between its UIEM demo unit and the actual CIEM final product that the customer would receive, and thusly the Nio was considered a return to form; a form that was never actually available for sale to the public. In the ensuing years, the Nio seems to have been largely forgotten, lost to the endless tide of nigh on daily new releases. In spite of all the hype, it seems to have failed in achieving the same staying power as its predecessor.
Most surprising to me on revisiting the Nio is how much darker (and not just bassier) it is compared to its siblings. Apparently I never noticed that this variation, on top of being a development of the bass, was in the parallel minor. Also obvious to me now is just how dependent the current iteration of the Nio is on the MX modules that were first shipped with it; while the M15 and M20 are interchangeably acceptable with the U12t, U6t and A3t, they become oppressively bassy with the Nio. With that in mind, the Nio’s midrange clears up, and one is finally allowed to hear the midrange of the Nio for what it is: a surprisingly handsome baritone in a field full of heldentenors. The upper midrange shrillness of the U12t still remains; in part thanks to the stronger emphasis on lower midrange richness, some of the spotlight has been shifted from it, though one is still unfortunately reminded of its presence on a semi-regular basis. Certainly not an upgrade on the U12t's midrange balance, moreso an alteration.
On the other hand, what was most definitely not a step in the right direction was the decision to turn this IEM into a hybrid. The tonal balance of the U12t was clearly never designed to accommodate such a heavyhanded approach to bass response; it lacks the sort of lower midrange taper that many of the more successful (by hybrid standards, at least) hybrids like the IER-Z1R, Blessings 2 (both iterations) and 3 or Hyla CE-5 sport. In addition, the preexisting bass presence on the U12t itself is certainly more than plentiful, enough to vaguely compensate for its inherent deficiencies as a BA woofer design, leaving one to question just how necessary a DD woofer is. With such troubles in mind, the problem at hand is not a matter of something so nebulous as incoherency or poor taste, it’s that the Nio’s woofer is just not very good. It’s soft, blubbery, timbrally homogenous and smoothed over, precisely what you don’t want in a woofer; and cumulative with the emphasized darkness and lower midrange presence of the Nio, it is simply too much. Still, it’s not like the Nio is a terrible IEM; it still holds most of the charming traits of its father, and much like a wayward, prodigal son, it can be ascribed as something of a noble failure.
64 Audio U6t:
In spite of having already heard this IEM quite a number of times and having referenced it in my Canjam SG U4s coverage, I apparently failed to ever review it or its older CIEM counterpart the A6t, so here is my apology for that oversight. Simply put, the U6t was the first of the variations to operate on immediately appealing premise of "the same thing but cheaper", and at first glance, one is tempted to simply stop there with regards to giving the U6t time of day. Such would be highly reductive; it seems instead to be an attempt at normalizing the oddities in the midrange balance of the U12t by further dipping the upper midrange. This works, but at a cost: it is a very warm and dense IEM, far more than I would personally consider permissible. Against its brethren, going to the U6t is like wearing a wonderfully soft and heavy cashmere sweater in the dead of summer: warm, comforting, and extremely inviting, until warmth turns to heat and heat turns to oppressive sweat. Nevertheless, the U6t is, for a brief moment, still an enjoyable, pleasant experience, and there’s no reason not to listen to what it has to say until it overstays its welcome.
64 Audio U18s:
The U18s is unique in this set in that it has not one but two predecessors; it is the cross-pollination of the U12t and the more expensive but far inferior U18t. The tonal balance of the U18t was highly flawed, but more troubling was its total incapability to express dynamics or musicality in any form. In a sense, the U18s was an attempt to forcefully course correct the first issue, though unfortunately no attention has been paid to the second, more pressing one, and the result is a dark, stiffly affected IEM that sounds akin to the U12t with all edges (and charm) sanded off. Worse still is the realization that this basic premise is nothing new, and that the same thing but better already exists: it’s called the U6t.
64 Audio A3t:
Following the simple premise of the U6t, we now take it to its logical conclusion and divide it in half yet again, arriving at the theme stripped down to its most basic harmonic progression; bare chords with no melody. As with all things, such minimalism isn’t necessarily wrong or uncalled for, what matters more is execution; and it is enlivening to see that under such constraints, the brilliance of the U12t's theme is at last allowed to shine through unadorned. The A3t is unquestionably the most tonally balanced of the set; it lacks the unevenness and oddities of the U12t, does away with the cloying warmth of the U6t, and has none of the unnecessary complication of the Nio, U4s or U18s. What remains is all the most appealing aspects of the U12t — the agreeable tonal balance, lively dynamism and revealingly honest presentation, expressed with the least caveats of all the above. If you must take just one thing away from this review, it is that the old adage of overachievement under highly restricting circumstances is a tried and true recipe for success. My only complaint is that there is no UIEM version of the A3t; someone should tell 64 to axe the completely needless U18s and produce a U3t in droves instead.
64 Audio U4s:
It appears that, far too many years on, the hybrid craze still persists in some form; at the very least, I find little other reason for the U4s' existence. The process of iterative simplification that was at benefit to the U12t, U6t, and A3t applies similarly to the U4s; but in a likewise fashion, the same flaws have been handed down the family tree like royal hemophilia. The murky, overcooked bass and minor mode darkness in the treble returns, but one loses that charismatically warm and burnished midrange tone in the Nio. As some form of compensation, the upper midrange troubles that so plagued the elder U12t and Nio are tempered, but not fully cured; it seems that while the roughness in the upper midrange specifically has been mediated, the transition to the lower treble is still a cause of much consternation for the U4s, and instead one finds harmonics of instruments in that region affected by an unwanted sharpness. Regardless, this is all small fry compared to the same fundamental issue in the bass that the Nio had; a hybrid that spotlights a bad woofer makes about as much sense as an eau de cologne where the citrus has gone off, and one is left wondering if the great hybrid experiment was worth any of the blood, sweat and tears shed in pursuit of the unachieved ideal.
64 Audio U12t:
The thought recently occurred to me that 64 Audio’s original U12t has slowly but surely blossomed into an unofficial lineup of sorts. At the time of its release 5 years ago, it was largely overshadowed by the more technologically flashy Fourte and Trio, and then further doomed to obscurity by 64’s unwise decision to market it as a downmarket U18t. Thankfully, there is no greater filter for mediocrity than the passage of time, and with the effort of a handful of reviewers, the U12t’s reputation (and likely sales; I would know, I bought the damn thing twice) soon outpaced that of its peers. Today, the Trio and U18t seem largely left in the annals of history, and the Fourte only persists in the public consciousness through the sheer size of its pricetag and its infrequent, unnecessary limited edition flankers. By comparison, the numerous descendants of the U12t vastly outnumber the protégé of its elder brothers combined.
I don’t believe I’ve ever re-reviewed any single IEM 3 times before, but there’s always room for first times. The U12t was, and still is perhaps the single most influential IEM to my development as a listener and critic, and returning to it after all these years brings to mind the words of the great perfume critic Luca Turin; "like meeting an old high school teacher who had a decisive influence on my life: I may have moved on, but everything it taught me is still there, still precious, and wonderful to revisit." In the realm of the staunchly traditional multi-BA setup, it sets the stage for perhaps the best aural profile yet achieved in the genre; a moderate bass boost that loosely compensates for the inherent poor note weight that comes with BAs, and a warm, yet unromanticized midrange balance, presented with a directness, dynamism and liveliness that is still admirable 5 years later. To the ears of the freshly minted audiophile from all those years ago that was to become a tired, jaded critic, this was nothing short of revelation, and it took both a substantial amount of time and an embarrassing amount of money invested into unrelated audio ventures for the awe to subside. In the years that followed, I have often heard the complaint that the U12t was "too boring" or "too clinical", and even today I find such a remark as revealing of underdeveloped taste as disliking Mozart. If one finds themselves in such a situation, it is cause for alarm, and an indication that a reset of one’s dopamine receptors with a thorough cleansing of Bach or the ER4 (or both at once, if one is so inclined) is necessary.
Of course, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows; I sold my U12t years back for a reason. Oft criticized with the U12t is its odd treble response, with an emphasis on the lower and upper treble and a gaping hole in between, but what I find most disturbing today is its ever so slightly crooked and misshapen midrange. There is a strange, uncanny emphasis in the upper mids that I hadn’t noticed in years past, cumulative with the aforementioned lower treble emphasis, and with it an unwelcome roughness and grain. This malformed growth, a wart on otherwise smooth skin, takes the U12t's mids from admirably balanced to mildly unpleasant. And it needs no saying that, within the genre of multi-BAs, it is impossible to escape the typical caveats of unrealistic transients, poor timbre, and middling musicality; all of the above apply to all of the subsequent releases to follow. But as a standalone IEM, such mishaps take nothing away from the significance of the U12t in the zeitgeist: ever-present as the benchmark against which all IEMs daring to price themselves as kilobucks are measured. If such a thing cannot be considered a masterpiece, then what is?
64 Audio Nio:
Chronologically speaking, the Nio itself is not, in fact, the immediate successor to the U12t; that would be the U6t’s CIEM counterpart, the A6t. However technically correct this may be, it is practically untrue; the Nio is simply the earlier CIEM N8 given a new lease on life with a brand new faceplate and the then newly introduced MX module. In the era prior to the Nio's release, the N8 was seen as something a flawed masterpiece, held back by the variance between its UIEM demo unit and the actual CIEM final product that the customer would receive, and thusly the Nio was considered a return to form; a form that was never actually available for sale to the public. In the ensuing years, the Nio seems to have been largely forgotten, lost to the endless tide of nigh on daily new releases. In spite of all the hype, it seems to have failed in achieving the same staying power as its predecessor.
Most surprising to me on revisiting the Nio is how much darker (and not just bassier) it is compared to its siblings. Apparently I never noticed that this variation, on top of being a development of the bass, was in the parallel minor. Also obvious to me now is just how dependent the current iteration of the Nio is on the MX modules that were first shipped with it; while the M15 and M20 are interchangeably acceptable with the U12t, U6t and A3t, they become oppressively bassy with the Nio. With that in mind, the Nio’s midrange clears up, and one is finally allowed to hear the midrange of the Nio for what it is: a surprisingly handsome baritone in a field full of heldentenors. The upper midrange shrillness of the U12t still remains; in part thanks to the stronger emphasis on lower midrange richness, some of the spotlight has been shifted from it, though one is still unfortunately reminded of its presence on a semi-regular basis. Certainly not an upgrade on the U12t's midrange balance, moreso an alteration.
On the other hand, what was most definitely not a step in the right direction was the decision to turn this IEM into a hybrid. The tonal balance of the U12t was clearly never designed to accommodate such a heavyhanded approach to bass response; it lacks the sort of lower midrange taper that many of the more successful (by hybrid standards, at least) hybrids like the IER-Z1R, Blessings 2 (both iterations) and 3 or Hyla CE-5 sport. In addition, the preexisting bass presence on the U12t itself is certainly more than plentiful, enough to vaguely compensate for its inherent deficiencies as a BA woofer design, leaving one to question just how necessary a DD woofer is. With such troubles in mind, the problem at hand is not a matter of something so nebulous as incoherency or poor taste, it’s that the Nio’s woofer is just not very good. It’s soft, blubbery, timbrally homogenous and smoothed over, precisely what you don’t want in a woofer; and cumulative with the emphasized darkness and lower midrange presence of the Nio, it is simply too much. Still, it’s not like the Nio is a terrible IEM; it still holds most of the charming traits of its father, and much like a wayward, prodigal son, it can be ascribed as something of a noble failure.
64 Audio U6t:
In spite of having already heard this IEM quite a number of times and having referenced it in my Canjam SG U4s coverage, I apparently failed to ever review it or its older CIEM counterpart the A6t, so here is my apology for that oversight. Simply put, the U6t was the first of the variations to operate on immediately appealing premise of "the same thing but cheaper", and at first glance, one is tempted to simply stop there with regards to giving the U6t time of day. Such would be highly reductive; it seems instead to be an attempt at normalizing the oddities in the midrange balance of the U12t by further dipping the upper midrange. This works, but at a cost: it is a very warm and dense IEM, far more than I would personally consider permissible. Against its brethren, going to the U6t is like wearing a wonderfully soft and heavy cashmere sweater in the dead of summer: warm, comforting, and extremely inviting, until warmth turns to heat and heat turns to oppressive sweat. Nevertheless, the U6t is, for a brief moment, still an enjoyable, pleasant experience, and there’s no reason not to listen to what it has to say until it overstays its welcome.
64 Audio U18s:
The U18s is unique in this set in that it has not one but two predecessors; it is the cross-pollination of the U12t and the more expensive but far inferior U18t. The tonal balance of the U18t was highly flawed, but more troubling was its total incapability to express dynamics or musicality in any form. In a sense, the U18s was an attempt to forcefully course correct the first issue, though unfortunately no attention has been paid to the second, more pressing one, and the result is a dark, stiffly affected IEM that sounds akin to the U12t with all edges (and charm) sanded off. Worse still is the realization that this basic premise is nothing new, and that the same thing but better already exists: it’s called the U6t.
64 Audio A3t:
Following the simple premise of the U6t, we now take it to its logical conclusion and divide it in half yet again, arriving at the theme stripped down to its most basic harmonic progression; bare chords with no melody. As with all things, such minimalism isn’t necessarily wrong or uncalled for, what matters more is execution; and it is enlivening to see that under such constraints, the brilliance of the U12t's theme is at last allowed to shine through unadorned. The A3t is unquestionably the most tonally balanced of the set; it lacks the unevenness and oddities of the U12t, does away with the cloying warmth of the U6t, and has none of the unnecessary complication of the Nio, U4s or U18s. What remains is all the most appealing aspects of the U12t — the agreeable tonal balance, lively dynamism and revealingly honest presentation, expressed with the least caveats of all the above. If you must take just one thing away from this review, it is that the old adage of overachievement under highly restricting circumstances is a tried and true recipe for success. My only complaint is that there is no UIEM version of the A3t; someone should tell 64 to axe the completely needless U18s and produce a U3t in droves instead.
64 Audio U4s:
It appears that, far too many years on, the hybrid craze still persists in some form; at the very least, I find little other reason for the U4s' existence. The process of iterative simplification that was at benefit to the U12t, U6t, and A3t applies similarly to the U4s; but in a likewise fashion, the same flaws have been handed down the family tree like royal hemophilia. The murky, overcooked bass and minor mode darkness in the treble returns, but one loses that charismatically warm and burnished midrange tone in the Nio. As some form of compensation, the upper midrange troubles that so plagued the elder U12t and Nio are tempered, but not fully cured; it seems that while the roughness in the upper midrange specifically has been mediated, the transition to the lower treble is still a cause of much consternation for the U4s, and instead one finds harmonics of instruments in that region affected by an unwanted sharpness. Regardless, this is all small fry compared to the same fundamental issue in the bass that the Nio had; a hybrid that spotlights a bad woofer makes about as much sense as an eau de cologne where the citrus has gone off, and one is left wondering if the great hybrid experiment was worth any of the blood, sweat and tears shed in pursuit of the unachieved ideal.
Last edited:
To be honest, I think Bach + ER4 cleansing seems pretty fun (and something I probably need after over-obsessing on analyzing gears myself time to time...)!
Thanks for the thoughtful review again, as well as the interesting idea.
Last edited:
Did aminus ever end up reviewing the Monarch MK2. Curious what his thoughts would be. I personally found them good but not as amazing as many people hold them to be.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Users who are viewing this thread
