Separate names with a comma.
Why is it gone? It's a nice device.
I received my Get the other day. I was an early Indiegogo investor. I also have Fiio BTR1.
I can confirm most of what has been said so far. Good effort for a V1 product. Main feedback comments for me are:
'Analogue' volume pot. This was/is the USP for me - I can never get the correct volume with the 'stops' you find on mobile devices and in my case, an iPhone. So this is great to have - although as discussed it is too loose, and because of it's location, it is very easy to accidentally change the volume. Also the 'range' is a bit... long? Nothing at all in the first 10% of the range, then going all the way up to extremely, dangerously loud.
The rest of the device gets a 7/10 for build quality from me. The buttons are a bit plasticy - might feel nicer if the where made of metal, and the circular cover holding the clip came loose. But overall for a new maker without the buying power of big manufacturer it's really pretty good.
Hiss. I am using the GET with my beloved Shure SE535. I don't have golden ears, in fact in theory my 47 yo ears should be well past their best, especially given the abuse they have had over the years. Still, sadly for me the hiss is so prominent that it renders the Get effectively unusable for me. I usually listen at moderate levels, and sometimes late at night at very low levels. In both scenarios the level of background noise is the thing I notice most, masking the music and the quality of sound that may be there. The BTR1 has no issues with hiss at these, or any levels - but because it uses the 'transport' default volume steps - it's impossible to find the correct volume level!
One other thing that springs to mind is that the Get maintains better Bluetooth connectivity than the BTR1 - which will drop out more often (possibly because of it's metal case).
My take on the Get is that it is a good effort for a V1 product from a V1 maker - albeit it not in reality applicable to my use-case. I can see that the team are passionate about it, and I would buy a 'V2' Get, although it would need some form of switchable gain, and a much improved 'feel' to the volume control.
Interesting post. Considering that the BTR1 doesn't do AAC (and I assume the GET does), how do you find the SQ compares between the two? (Maybe you can't provide a comparison due to the hiss factor)
Yup, these are just about the same impressions I had in the review I posted a few pages back.
I think most of it comes down to what headphones the Get V1 works nicely with, vs. what most people will expect or actually use them with.
With my more sensitive/lower-impedance testing headphones, I heard the hiss and they got too loud too quickly.
With my Elear, however, no hiss and much more reasonable volume curve.
It's great that there's a little bluetooth adapter out there that's designed to power fullsize cans, but I imagine that most people will buy it with plans to use IEMs.
It’s not really possible or fair to compare them tbh, at least not with the SE535. I might try the Get with my HD600 tomorrow and see what happens.
Ordered the Get on the 12th. Expecting shippment in January. I do hope that a January batch should resolve (at least) the volume wheel issues: the loose wheel friction and the incinsustant very high volume level while slightly turning the wheel, right from the beginning.
If these issues will not be resolved on my unit's batch, then I may cancel my order and reluctantly continue wating for the Radsone Earstudio or for a future revised Get version.
Regarding the hiss issues, these should be resolved (I hope) with a proper impedance cable.
Waiting for more detailed reviews, especially with two headphone types: low impedance iem (mine is the Shure SE846) and 32 ohm over the ear headphones (mine is the A-Audio Legacy). Now, I also got the FiiO F9 Pro IEMs, which have impedance of 28 ohm.
What impedance values may apply to each of my headphones characteristics?
Sorry wrong thread
Just got my Earstudio's today. Doing this comparison on a pair of Shure SE846.
Using the regular 3.5mm jack, they sound very similar to the Get's, in that they both sound very good for unbalanced output. The Get has abit of boosted bass, while the Earstudio's have abit boosted high's. The AK XB10 sound the most balanced to my ears, but please keep in mind, with the exception of the Get's (whose bass-boost is absolutely noticeable from the get-go), these emphases are not huge, and should not dictate which one of these you should go for.
But just like the Get's and the unbalanced XB10 output, once you compare it to the balanced output on the earstudios and XB10's, the soundstage definitely opens up, instrument separation is increased, and possibly as a consequence of this, clarity appears to be improved abit.
Comparing 2.5mm earstudio to 2.5mm XB10, the XB10 still has a wider soundstage, and I can pick out the microdetails just better, but since the high's aren't as boosted as the earstudio's, some may think the earstudio's have better clarity.
The earstudio's give you far more technical control, like how fast the decay is, jitter filtering, etc. And the ability for firmware updates, such as the recent one that allows us to change the volume on system sounds (i.e. sound of it when it powers on and powers off), is absolutely fantastic. Before I updated the firmware, the sound of it turning on was genuinely deafening, it was awful. Also, the earstudio's have an option for EQ as well, so you can customize this to give you the exact sound signature you're looking for. Very nice for people who like that.
This level of customization is rarely seen in these bluetooth receivers, so it's very nice.
Also the noise floor (hiss) is barely audible, and most won't notice it at all even with high sensitivity IEMs like the SE846 and Noble K10, so that's a plus. It's definitely the lowest of the 3.
There's merits for all 3:
AK XB10 subjectively sound the best to me, and despite costing more than the rest, I am happy I purchased them and would do it again if an IEM warranted it (currently using it between SE846 and Noble K10, both balanced). Really wish the build was nicer though... Feels crazy cheap...
The Earstudio's are a far cheaper, excellent alternative to the AK XB10, provided you can use them balanced. They sound great, level of customization is great, I haven't used them enough to test battery life but they claim it's longer, and really, even if it's the same as the rest, this still wins by many standards (provided you can use balanced).
The Get is excellent for unbalanced sources with higher impedances than typical IEMs, as many of us have found the noise floor on the Get's to be unbearable on high sensitivity IEMs. The Get really sounds very similar to the other 2 if you're using unbalanced, which many people are, so there's not many benefits for going for the rest in that case, but that noise floor with high-sensitivity IEMs...
P.S. Bonus round, I also received the Aqua+ from kickstarter.
Since it costs 2x as much as the earstudio's and the Get's, with only an unbalanced output, it's by far the least worth it of all 4, but it's build is the nicest, and comes with a leather case. BUT, the leather case adds some bulk, and you have to take it off every time you want to charge the thing....... And it charges wirelessly via Qi charging, so having to litter your home or workplace with qi chargers, or bringing the (very small) qi charging pad with you is definitely a con...
Sound wise, they sound similar to all 3 unbalanced. They have a button on it that you push, which supposedly upsamples all music to 32bits, which is ridiculous because you can't add detail that wasn't there to begin with. Instead, what you will notice is a VERY intense DSP filter being applied. Have to admit, it does widen the soundstage abit, but it boosts the highs and low frequencies so much, and pushes the mids back, as to try to give you "greater clarity" and "better bass", while "widening" the soundstage simply by pushing the mids back. It makes the music more "fun" for most people, but the fact that they try to pass off upsampling as this magical thing that will make your 128kbps MP3 sound like lossless feels insulting.
In any case, don't go for this one. It doesn't sound bad by any means, but I feel they justify the increased cost because of that stupid button.
When you can get the Get or the earstudio's for half as much, or even the AK XB10 for slightly more, they beat this any day of the week. It's just too overpriced when you compare it to the competition. Now if the get's and earstudio's weren't half the price, then we'd be having a different conversation...
Oh and a little background note, before I tried balanced, I genuinely believed that going balanced would do nothing more than just give you more power and a slightly cleaner sound due to the way that it's wired. Definitely depends on what you're hooking it up to, but in the case of the earstudio's and the XB10's, there's definitely an audible difference.
Great review of the EarStudio
What can you say about the DCT thing? How does it influence the sound and what level do you prefer?
Also which DAC Setting do you prefer?
pls let me clear. is it with BT 5.0 or BT 4.2? The title here says it is 5.0, but this link tells a different story, https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bluewave-wireless-hifi-headphone-amplifier-bluetooth-headphones#/
It's bt 5.0. they upgraded mid campaign.
TY for your reply. This is awesome then. Afaik, BT 5.0 should be extending range of connection. is there anyone here who can say its connecting range (ft) with/without any obstacle?
The BT 5 is in this case just marketing blabla. The BT Chip (which is also used by other devices like earstudio) is certified for BT 5 (but the certification was easy as this kind of device needs to implement nothing new for BT 5 - so qualcomm just had to spend a few bucks for recertification)
If you read the Bluetooth specifications (or at least on wiki whats new on BT 5) you notice following;
BT 5 brings big improvements for BT Low Energy. This is good for Stuff like Fitbit and so on.
But for A2DP - that what is used by BT audio Receivers - the communication is done by Bluetooth BR/EDR classic.
And this wasn't changed since BT 4.x on receiver side or on the protocol
So for audio BT 5 is no improvement like higher Datarate.
Yes, the sender is allowed to send with a higher output power in classic mode. But this "feature" does not need a higher Protocol number on Receiver side. Also Receivers with BT 4.x (or even older) profit if the sender is transmitting with more power.
BT 5 in smartphone (or other sender) = good.
BT 5 on receiver side = just marketing
(for classic stuff. For LE Stuff it's great)
BTW: it's BT 5 not BT 5.0.
Bluetooth dropped it's Point numbers starting with BT 5
iphone 8 and iphone X are both bluetooth 5. But you don't get a headphone jack. Just saying, bluetooth is more backwards compatible. And I read bt 5 will extend range or increase data speed. But headfi wants both at the same time.
Are you sure? Sometimes for legal reasons they have to say things like that. Only way to tell is by listening. I remember bluedio supporting aptx without permission supposedly and went back to delete the feature in software supposedly and people tried to hack it to restore aptx supposedly. But at the end of the day there is nothing to indicate what you are using while bluetooth adapts to rf conditions in the real world.