[CK Moustache]

InEar StageDiver SD-2


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

Poor unboxing experience – plain plastic bag with carrying case, in-ears, two cleaning wipes, 6.35 to 3.5 mm adapter, three pairs of silicone tips.
It seems like InEar later switches to a more appealing and proper packaging, though.

Perfect shell design that provides an excellent fit, seal and ergonomics.
Build quality is high.
I quite like the glossy black shells.

The storage/carrying case is very good as it isn’t overly large and provides excellent protection along with being softly padded with silicone on the inside.

Replaceable cable with 2-pin connectors.
I really like the silver cable’s aesthetics (InEar seemingly later switched to a black cable instead).
Twisted conductors; soft and supple.

Two BA drivers per side, two-way design, single-bore construction.

Sound:

Largest included ear tips.

Tonality:

Warm-neutral.

The lows are elevated by around 5 dB by diffuse-field standards, which means that the SD-2 have got about 2 dB stronger bass quantity when compared to my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors, and around 5 dB when compared to my Etymotic ER-4S.
It extends flat into the real sub-bass without any roll-off.
As the climax is already reached in the area of the lower fundamental range, with the elevation already taking place in the lower midrange, the SD-2 definitely have a somewhat warm tilt in the lows and also lower midrange – definitely comparable to my HiFiMan RE400i, although they are ultimately less warm in the lower mids but equally so in the midbass and lower fundamental range.

The midrange appears natural in tone but is nonetheless on the ultimately warmer side of neutral, with en emphasis on lower voices’ body.
The level takes a slight step back in the upper mids/presence range, although my SD-2 are ultimately still less relaxed here compared to my InEar ProPhile 8 wherefore they reproduce voices more intimately/closer to the listener than the ProPhile 8 that are more recessed in the presence range for a less “flat studio neutral” but more “natural neutral” tuning, whereas they are ultimately flatter in the lows and less relaxed in the highs than the SD-2.

The treble is generally and evenly in the background and features a remarkable level of evenness (no sudden dips or peaks) that is rather rarely reached, and as a result the upper-end presentation has got a high sense of realism and naturalness that comes very close to that of Etymotic’s in-ears. It comes back with a sort of “peak” just a little below 10 kHz, but one couldn’t actually call it such as it still remains below neutral in quantity.
Extension past 16 kHz is also surprisingly (exceptionally) good without any audible roll-off before 16 kHz.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Very decent but cannot fully keep up with many of the better triple- and quad-BA in-ears (as well as some dual-BA models) around the same price (e.g. Fischer Amps FA-3E, Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE900, Westone W4R, Audio Technica ATH-IM03, Pai Audio MR3, Noble Audio SAVANNA or Jays q-JAYS (2nd generation)) in all areas, while it is ultimately somewhat above that of my Shure SE425.

The “problem” is definitely the SD-2s’ back-venting of the BA woofer – while it leads to a more visceral, body-oriented, dynamic driver-like presentation, the softer and slower implementation of the InEars’ back-venting leads to fast and complex bass attacks as well as transients sounding too soft for Balanced Armature standards, which is especially noticeable with fast and demanding tracks where the SD-2 cannot fully keep up and sound somewhat smeared.
While the control and speed are ultimately still slightly superior to some dynamic driver implementations, most of the Balanced Armature competitors are simply ahead in terms of bass technicalities and speed.

Then again, also thanks to the even tuning, the driver/crossover implementation sounds coherent, and the sound is generally natural and even, although just not with the speed, tightness and control that I’m used to and demand from multi-BA in-ears in this price range.

Otherwise, apart from to rather slow and soft woofer implementation, the general level of resolution is good to decent, but the slightly darker than neutral tuning ultimately emphasises the rather soft perception of transients to some degree.
To be fair, though, medium-paced music doesn’t stress the woofer or in-ears in general and they remain clean sounding as long as no sheer speed and technicalities are required.

Soundstage:

What’s quite remarkable, especially in this price range for multi-BA in-ears, is the SD-2s’ large, three-dimensional and lifelike soundstage reproduction that I previously only heard from several more expensive and/or custom-moulded multi-BA IEMs (with only very few exceptions that however ultimately don’t fully reach the InEars’ soundstage quality), and it’s definitely their core strength apart from the tonal evenness.

As such, the soundstage isn’t only very large and three-dimensional (wherefore layering and the perception of spatial depth are excellently reproduced as well), but also quite precise.
Instruments and single layer levels are easy to differentiate and also separated quite precisely wherefore this leads to a highly realistic presentation.
Spatial control/imaging precision is on a fairly high technical level as well, although a bit of blur occurs once the lows on the track are too technically demanding and/or fast, since then the rather soft and slow implementation of the back-venter BA woofer also starts to show up when it comes to instrument separation.

Ultimately one shouldn’t fully expect the spatial precision and size of in-ears such as my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors or NocturnaL Audio Atlantis, nonetheless the SD-2 are quite a unicorn when it comes to the three-dimensional soundstage reproduction among comparably priced multi-BA in-ears.

Conclusion:

Warm-neutral tuning with a very even and realistic, mildly relaxed treble presentation and convincing three-dimensional soundstage packed into highly ergonomic shells.
While the general level of resolution is decent, the bass and transients are however somewhat too much on the softer and slower side for Balanced Armature standards, wherefore the SD-2 are just a tiny bit shy of getting the “Recommended” award.


Photos:

 

[appleboy11]

Apple USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter (A2155)


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

Nicely inexpensive.

Contrary to its name, the A2155 is much more than just an “adapter”, as despite its pretty tiny form factor, it houses a fairly smart sound card with a built-in DAC, ADC, automatic detection of whether anything is plugged into it, and even supports in-line remote control commands.

Rather decent unboxing experience (for the price); very nicely and cleanly designed packaging that can also be used as a carrying case (since there is no other included pouch or case other than the cardboard packaging itself).

Small.
Clean design.
White.
No Apple logo on it – the only sign that it’s made by Apple (aside from its design, but other companies have subsequently manufactured comparable-looking small DACs) is the faint grey text on the cable.

While the USB-C plug (that most likely contains all of the active electronics) and multi-purpose 3.5 mm socket appear to be well-made, the cable between them, while fairly soft and nicely flexible, doesn’t appear sturdy or durable at all but pretty fragile instead, as it is unfortunately the case with most of Apple’s cables.

Surprisingly, the A2155 supports three-button in-line remote control commands (volume up, play/pause, volume down) when used with my Windows 10 computer.

What’s definitely nice: it can be basically left plugged in all the time, as it automatically senses if anything is plugged into it and accordingly adjusts its features. If nothing is plugged in, the output is disabled automatically and it doesn’t even show up in the Windows sound menu anymore but will show up again and is selected automatically once something is plugged into it, and the setting options change accordingly to the type of plugged in headphones (e.g. with/without built-in microphone).




Sound:

My ZOTAC ZBOX CI547 nano running Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit is the only source that I’m using.

I’m only using my Apple USB-C DAC purely as a DAC for in-ears and headphones, and haven’t tested its ADC capabilities yet.

Volume Control:

Logically, the volume is controlled by Windows’ system-wide standard 100 attenuation steps (plus mute). Unfortunately, even the quietest possible volume setting above mute (≙”1”) is much too loud for me personally, so I need to further lower the volume in foobar2000 and YouTube drastically. Therefore, listening very quietly just above the audible threshold is not directly possible without any further software tweaks.

Hiss Performance:

Using my near-extremely sensitive Shure SE846, there is only the tiniest bit of barely perceptible hiss when no music is playing or when an empty audio file is played.

When used with my Ostry KC06A that are even a bit more sensitive to picking up hiss, the amount of audible hiss in quiet passages and empty audio files or when nothing is played is very little and close to being inaudible.

Using my extremely sensitive Campfire Audio Andromeda that are the most sensitive out of the three, the audible hiss is still very little, which makes the Apple USB-C DAC an amazing performer in terms of hiss performance with very and/or extremely sensitive in-ears.
As for comparisons, it even slightly surpasses my iBasso DX90, is only beat by my RME ADI-2 DAC and Leckerton Audio UHA-6S.MkII, and audibly outperforms the FiiO Q5 with attached AM1 module or my Chord Electronics Mojo.

Frequency Response (no Load):


FR unloaded

There is no real surprise here; the unloaded frequency response is just as flat as it is supposed to be.

Output Impedance (Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10 as Load):


FR loaded – Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10

Based on the frequency response deviation, the Apple DAC’s output impedance is calculated to be around only 0.3 Ohms, which is truly excellent and therefore perfectly suitable for all low impedance multi-BA in-ears.

Subjective Listening Impressions:

Neutral, clear, clean and very precise. Basically as audibly transparent, good-sounding and clean-sounding to my ears as a device could be, and therefore clearly “not broken”, which again is no real surprise but the standard for most modern audio devices.
Precise and tight bass reproduction with sensitive multi-BA in-ears.
Subjectively large (i.e. normally sized) and very accurate soundstage; slightly on the oval side.

Seriously, there’s absolutely no subjective sonic fault that I could find, and this is no real surprise either since the A2155 has shown to surpass surpass the CD Red Book standard when it comes to objectively measured audio performance.

In other words, excellent transparent performance regardless of price. There is absolutely no reason at all to pay more for a USB DAC, at least when it comes to pure sound quality with headphones.




Conclusion:

Recommended.

The Apple A2155 USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter is, despite its very low and extremely competitive price, packed with many features, surpasses CD Red Book standards, has got an excellently low output impedance, comes extremely close to being ideally hiss-free with the most sensitive in-ears (wherefore it is just a shy bit below absolute perfection/“Highly Recommended” but still surpasses even many of the better devices in this regard; in addition, unfortunately the lowest possible volume setting (in Windows 10) is too loud for me personally (without further reducing the software gain in the music player interface)) and sounds audibly transparent.

Aside from some people probably wishing for “more power” for their respective listening levels with the headphones they use, and probably for more features (such as dedicated volume control buttons or more inputs and outputs), just based alone on pure sound quality or a more luxurious appearance and/or better build quality (the cable could indeed appear more durable), there is absolutely no reason to pay any more for a DAC.


Photos:

Sir I'm new to audiophilia could u help me with this apple dongle I've been using my phone (Samsung m31) for driving my blon bl03 should i buy this. Will it be an upgrade to my phone 3.5mm

 

[CK Moustache]

Sir I'm new to audiophilia could u help me with this apple dongle I've been using my phone (Samsung m31) for driving my blon bl03 should i buy this. Will it be an upgrade to my phone 3.5mm

Depends on whether your phone's headphone output is rather good or rather bad (hiss, output impedance, distortion, measured frequency response, wrongly calculated coupling capactors in the signal path, weird stuff sometimes implemented by some manufacturers such as noise gates or dynamic bass boost). The BL03, being dynamic driver in-ears, should not be too source-dependent/-picky (most likely their sensitivity isn't extremely high and their impedance response should be flat as well), so even a device with a headphone output that measures just "average" would drive them sufficiently and reproduce a good sound (as long as a few key points such as the unloaded and loaded frequency response are fine). But if you'd like to give the Apple USB-C DAC dongle a try (e.g. in case you're planning on switching to low impedance, high sensitivity multi-driver in-ears or if you suspect your phone's headphone output to be one of the worse), you'd be getting a lot of performance out the Apple DAC, especially and even more so given how little it costs.

 

[FastAndClean]

are you The Headphone Collector?

 

[CK Moustache]

are you The Headphone Collector?

If you're referring to this, then yes.

More info is in this thread's 2nd post.

 

[CK Moustache]

ORIVETI O400


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

ORIVETI’s second BA-only in-ears.

Very nice unboxing experience (except for that the cardboard box was somewhat difficult to open); nicely arranged accessories and a wide range of different ear tip styles (various single-flange silicone tips including AZLA tips, double-flange silicone tips, foam tips and double-flange tips).
High quality, premium appearing round storage/carrying case manufactured from genuine leather and with beautiful red stitching and padded interior; however I wouldn’t mind if it were just slightly more spacious and were even better protected against moisture and dust getting in (as the lid does not really close hermetically, which is something that unfortunately most boutique-styled IEM cases that place form/aesthetics over ultimate protection and function have in common, but after all it’s still a better and more protective case than the one from my Campfire Audio Andromeda or Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE900).

Excellent, flawless build quality.
I really like that one can see the drivers, acoustic tubing, filters, wiring and crossover network through the shells.
Really nice smoke blue translucent colour scheme; can appear a bit purple-ish in some lighting situations.

Beautiful cable; I really like its visual appearance.
Eight conductors that are braided below and above the y-splitter. Premium looking plug, connectors, y-splitter and chin-slider.
Very soft and supple; very high quality.
2-pin connectors.

Four BA drivers per side; four acoustic ways; quad-bore design.

Sound:

Largest included black single-flange silicone ear tips (same type as those that were already installed).

Tonality:

Fairly neutral midrange and treble with nicely integrated sub-bass elevation. Harman-oriented, if you will, but with less strongly boosted bass (therefore more oriented around the Harman over-ear target).

The mids and highs generally follow the diffuse-field target quite well, with somewhat less level around 2 kHz wherefore the presence range is not intrusive but rather somewhat relaxed sounding. Level is back at neutral in quantity at 3 kHz and 4 kHz, with a mild but not narrow dip around 5 kHz, and neutral quantity right above that again towards 9 kHz, with a very mild, rather broad elevation around 7.5 kHz, wherefore the tuning is ultimately very slightly on the v-shaped/mildly loudness-compensated side to my ears. The level around 10 kHz is just a bit in the background again when listening to sine sweeps and therefore ultimately takes just a little bit of sharpness/splashiness from overtones and cymbals without making them sound dark at all, just to come back to neutral again already at 11 kHz and subsequently above that.
Super treble extension is good past 16 kHz.
Listening to sine sweeps generally shows a smooth treble presentation (that, for most parts, sounds fairly natural with music as well), with neither of the dips seeming to be placed in the positions where they are coming in as sudden, narrow or strongly recessed but generally quite mildly recessed, wherefore the highs, while ultimately not 100% flat and linear, sound mostly natural and clear together with the mild 7.5 kHz lift that is overall really just a notch above neutral in quantity, yet at the same time are not offensive or sharp but have a slightly milder character, but one shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that the O400 were inoffensive and forgiving with badly mixed/mastered tracks that have exaggerations in the high frequency range, since ultimately their upper-end neutrality (and “mercilessness”) above 3 kHz is not too far away from Etymotic’s in-ears, but in the end just a bit more “forgiving” in comparison, combined with a milder, more relaxed presence range presentation (“natural neutral/relaxed neutral” on the ORIVETI compared to Etymotic’s “no compromise flat studio neutral” approach in the upper midrange/presence range). If there’s anything to criticise about the highs’ reproduction, it’s that the O400s’ appears ultimately just a notch less authentic and refined compared to Etymotic’s in-ears that sound even more authentic and refined to my ears in terms treble tuning when it comes to my ears; but even though the ORIVETI are ultimately a tad below Etymotic’s products in this area to my ears, they are nonetheless among the best in-ears especially in their price range in this regard.

The midrange follows a tuning that could be considered “natural neutral” as the lower mids are completely flat without any hint of warmth thanks to the brilliantly integrated low bass boost, with a subsequently flat central midrange and, compared to Etymotic standards and what I perceive when listening to sine sweeps, an upper midrange/presence range that is recessed moderately enough to place voices a bit further away from the listener, thus making them somewhat less intimate, yet present enough to not making brighter voices and lower voices’ overtones appear as recessed or dark but correct. Thankfully to this, the midrange tuning and timbre is reproduced correctly to my ears even in the presence range.

In my opinion, while the O400s’ midrange and treble are already tuned well and sound natural as well as coherent, the “star of the show” when it comes to tuning is clearly the bass, and I’d go as far to writing that this is the best sub-bass elevation that I have ever heard from any in-ears so far.
Listening to sine sweeps, I hear the bass’ elevation as starting to climb around 500 Hz, and it reaches its climax nicely low around 30 Hz (with a lift of around 7 dB compared to diffuse-field standards), with already a bit of punch in the upper bass around 100 Hz, but the “main action” is definitely happening in the lower midbass and actual sub-bass, with a fantastically implemented elevation that nicely stays out of the fundamental range and therefore really just accentuates the true bass without adding any warmth to the sound or colouring the mids.
Therefore, and as 200 Hz are about in-line with 1 kHz, bleeding of the bass into the midrange is avoided completely and instead it stays nicely out of it with adding just the slightest possible hint of warmth to the low fundamental range.

All in all, one can definitely say that the O400 are tremendously well-tuned in-ears with an extremely good integration of a mild loudness compensation/mild v-shape with the lows’ climax sitting nicely low in the true sub-bass, and in terms of a true sub-bass-only focus, the ORIVETI manage to place the focus on the actual sub-bass even more than the Etymotic ER2XR, my Shure SE846 and my Earsonics ES3.
Due to the way they are tuned, they also sound largely neutral/”natural neutral” most of the time since the moderate bass elevation is placed nicely low and really only shows its presence when the recording/track reaches this low.
On a personal note, I am undeniably still quite impressed by just how well the lows are tuned (as a really nice and quite addictive addition to the rest of the entire frequency range that sounds natural as well).

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

When it comes to technical performance, it can generally said that the O400 are definitely and, if one can say so, quite easily worth the price.

These in-ears’ bass character is really interesting and ultimately just great – the lows have got a somewhat dynamic-driver like body and rumble but BA-like speed and control (there is no muddiness or softness even in demanding and fast passages/tracks) wherefore they reproduce a controlled, tight punch with a clean and fast decay, yet punches feel dynamic and have got some sort of almost tactile vibrations wherefore the bass sounds natural and is highly involving; it just feels “right”.

Speech intelligibility is really high for this price range, and the general resolution and level of transparency in the midrange are high as well.

When it comes to high notes, the O400 don’t disappoint either but feature a high level of details and remain clean sounding even in busy and fast passages of the music.
Especially noteworthy is the generally clean and precise separation across the entire frequency range that is definitely a major contributor to the ORIVETI sounding very controlled, resolving and clean even with fast, dense and busy music.

Soundstage:

The O400s’ imaginary soundstage shows no congestion and sounds quite open and spacious to my ears (not NocturnaL Audio Atlantis/Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors/Campfire Audio Andromeda tier in terms of size and openness, but still very good; it expands further than the space between my ears and is ultimately perceived as somewhat larger than the Etymotic ER2XRs’ soundstage that doesn’t appear small to my ears either but is in fact the largest soundstage among all Etymotic ER series in-ears). Since the in-ears don’t sound flat but manage to layer well, the virtual room sounds three-dimensional and therefore very authentic to me; ultimately the soundstage is just a bit more on the oval than round side to my ears.

Thankfully the imaging is really precise and the ORIVETIs’ soundstage also handles very fast, dense, complex and demanding music material tremendously well without losing much control even when pushed to the limits by the music.
Especially these in-ears’ very clean spatial separation is really noteworthy as their imaging ability is really clean and precise, with the “empty space” between and around instruments/tonal elements being reproduced very accurately without any blur.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Etymotic ER2XR:

Both in-ears’ tuning direction is generally quite comparable.

The ER2XR are elevated a bit stronger in the sub-bass and bass in general, and have therefore got a bit more upper bass punch and somewhat more warmth in the low fundamental range in comparison.
The O400 have got the less intimate/more relaxed midrange presentation (voices are less placed less closely to the listener on the O400 and appear closer to the listener/more intimate/direct on the ER2XR) while both in-ears’ midrange timbre is similar.
The ER2XR have got the slightly more even/refined treble tuning to my ears when listening to music and thus sometimes slightly more realistic treble response/high note timbre in direct comparison; the treble tuning is generally comparable with the exception being in the upper highs where the O400 are slightly brighter than the Etymotic in comparison.

The O400 feature the slightly better separation in general.
They have also got the somewhat higher transparency and resolution.
Treble details are about comparable but the ORIVETI are ultimately still a bit ahead here as well, especially in fast passages.
The sub-bass reproduction is cleaner on the O400 whereas the ER-2XRs’ is a bit soft in comparison; the ORIVETI are generally a bit tighter/faster in the lows.

In terms of soundstage size, I hear the O400s’ as appearing a bit wider and generally somewhat larger than the ER2XRs’.
The imaging is somewhat more precise on the ORIVETI that have also got the better instrument separation in comparison.

Earsonics ES3:

Both in-ears’ bass elevation starts about similarly, but the difference is that the ES3, while they also avoid any lower midrange warmth just like the O400, have got the stronger elevation in the upper bass as well as midbass wherefore they are ultimately tuned a bit bassier/punchier than the ORIVETI that really mainly concentrate their elevation on the true sub-bass (that’s also a little stronger elevated on the ES3, although just slightly).
The O400 have got the more linear upper midrange and treble tuning (wherefore they sound more realistic) whereas the ES3 have a more recessed upper midrange and middle treble and a brighter upper treble elevation.

Bass control, tightness and details are higher on the O400.
The same goes for the midrange where the ORIVETI sound more transparent and resolve better.
This is also true for the O400s’ treble whose resolution is higher and features the cleaner note separation.
The note separation is generally cleaner and superior on the O400.

The O400s’ soundstage a bit larger to my ears.
The spatial separation and imaging are also somewhat more precise on the ORIVETI (especially the ability to portray “empty space” around and between tonal elements; their soundstage also remains better controlled in fast and busy passages).

NocturnaL Audio Atlantis:

The Atlantis have got the thicker, warmer lower fundamental range and bass with a punchy upper bass and strong midbass whereas the O400 are tuned without any lower fundamental range warmth and slightly higher quantity in the lowest possible sub-bass, while otherwise the Atlantis are audibly bassier in the low midbass and upper sub-bass in comparison.
The middle treble is a bit brighter on the O400; otherwise their highs are quite comparable although Atlantis have ultimately got the somewhat more refined sounding treble response to my ears.

The Atlantis’ bass is tighter and faster.
Likewise they also feature the generally somewhat higher transparency and resolution and also even somewhat cleaner separation.

The Atlantis’ soundstage appears larger to my ears and also even somewhat more precise imaging.

Shure SE846 (white “Treble” Filters):

Both in-ears’ tuning direction is generally quite comparable.
The SE846 have got somewhat more upper bass quantity in comparison wherefore it’s reproduced punchier; as their bass radiates comparatively more into the lower fundamental range than the O400s’ that are more “sub-bass-only-focused” with pretty much no fundamental range warmth, the Shure have got a bit of warmth in the low fundamental range while the ORIVETI truly limit their elevation in the lows to nothing but the actual low bass.
Both have got comparable lower midbass and sub-bass quantity, while the O400 are actually even slightly more elevated in the true sub-bass which is audible in the rarer cases when the audio material really extends this low.
Both in-ears’ midrange tuning is comparable.
Extension in the super treble is easily won by the ORIVETI as the Shure simply start to roll off far too early and thus lack treble overtones. Maybe as a result of this, but also generally, the O400 have got the more correct midrange and treble timbre to my ears whereas the SE846 appear somewhat artificial, especially with their treble that appears as the decay and reverb were lacking (which is definitely a result of their at best mediocre treble extension).
As for tuning, the O400 are slightly brighter in the upper highs before the super treble where the Shure are more or less lacking.

In terms of technical performance, the Shure have a bass that is generally a bit tighter and features the comparatively higher control as well as details in the lows. Sub-bass control is almost similarly good, but the SE846 are again just slightly ahead here.
The O400 have got the slightly higher speech intelligibility to my ears whereas the SE846 have got ultimately the overall very slightly higher midrange transparency and fine details/”true” resolution in this area in direct comparison (their midrange detail presentation appears minimally more “effortless” to me).
Treble resolution and separation is clearly higher on the O400.
When it comes to separation in general, the ORIVETI are generally audibly better which gives them an audible advantage over the Shure in busy and fast passages as well as dense arrangements, as except for the bass where the Shure have definitely got an advantage in terms of control and quality, the O400 are ahead in the rest of the frequency spectrum when it comes to control and separation, and they therefore just sound generally audibly cleaner.

To my ears, the O400s’ perceived soundstage is larger.
The ORIVETI also feature the cleaner imaging and sharper instrument separation in comparison, and their reproduction of “empty space” around and between tonal elements appears also cleaner as well as more effortless.

Conclusion:

Highly Recommended.

Excellent tuning with a truly fantastic integration of the moderate bass elevation that really only concentrates on the lowest registers and doesn’t add any warmth to the fundamental range, natural and realistic midrange reproduction, as well as cohesive (although ultimately a notch below Etymotic’s in-ears’ treble response) and realistically tuned treble that is ultimately set to be just a notch on the brighter side in the upper highs.
Combined with the technical performance that is excellent in the in-ears price range and even generally very good and highly competitive, with especially the high control and excellent note and instrument separation as well as three-dimensional and therefore authentic soundstage being worthy of note, the O400 represent such a great overall package and even place them clearly among the upper range of my personally favourite IEMs for recreational music listening.


Photos:

 

[DoConor]

ORIVETI O400


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

ORIVETI’s second BA-only in-ears.

Very nice unboxing experience (except for that the cardboard box was somewhat difficult to open); nicely arranged accessories and a wide range of different ear tip styles (various single-flange silicone tips including AZLA tips, double-flange silicone tips, foam tips and double-flange tips).
High quality, premium appearing round storage/carrying case manufactured from genuine leather and with beautiful red stitching and padded interior; however I wouldn’t mind if it were just slightly more spacious and were even better protected against moisture and dust getting in (as the lid does not really close hermetically, which is something that unfortunately most boutique-styled IEM cases that place form/aesthetics over ultimate protection and function have in common, but after all it’s still a better and more protective case than the one from my Campfire Audio Andromeda or Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE900).

Excellent, flawless build quality.
I really like that one can see the drivers, acoustic tubing, filters, wiring and crossover network through the shells.
Really nice smoke blue translucent colour scheme; can appear a bit purple-ish in some lighting situations.

Beautiful cable; I really like its visual appearance.
Eight conductors that are braided below and above the y-splitter. Premium looking plug, connectors, y-splitter and chin-slider.
Very soft and supple; very high quality.
2-pin connectors.

Four BA drivers per side; four acoustic ways; quad-bore design.




Sound:

Largest included black single-flange silicone ear tips (same type as those that were already installed).

Tonality:

Fairly neutral midrange and treble with nicely integrated sub-bass elevation. Harman-oriented, if you will, but with less strongly boosted bass (therefore more oriented around the Harman over-ear target).

The mids and highs generally follow the diffuse-field target quite well, with somewhat less level around 2 kHz wherefore the presence range is not intrusive but rather somewhat relaxed sounding. Level is back at neutral in quantity at 3 kHz and 4 kHz, with a mild but not narrow dip around 5 kHz, and neutral quantity right above that again towards 9 kHz, with a very mild, rather broad elevation around 7.5 kHz, wherefore the tuning is ultimately very slightly on the v-shaped/mildly loudness-compensated side to my ears. The level around 10 kHz is just a bit in the background again when listening to sine sweeps and therefore ultimately takes just a little bit of sharpness/splashiness from overtones and cymbals without making them sound dark at all, just to come back to neutral again already at 11 kHz and subsequently above that.
Super treble extension is good past 16 kHz.
Listening to sine sweeps generally shows a smooth treble presentation (that, for most parts, sounds fairly natural with music as well), with neither of the dips seeming to be placed in the positions where they are coming in as sudden, narrow or strongly recessed but generally quite mildly recessed, wherefore the highs, while ultimately not 100% flat and linear, sound mostly natural and clear together with the mild 7.5 kHz lift that is overall really just a notch above neutral in quantity, yet at the same time are not offensive or sharp but have a slightly milder character, but one shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that the O400 were inoffensive and forgiving with badly mixed/mastered tracks that have exaggerations in the high frequency range, since ultimately their upper-end neutrality (and “mercilessness”) above 3 kHz is not too far away from Etymotic’s in-ears, but in the end just a bit more “forgiving” in comparison, combined with a milder, more relaxed presence range presentation (“natural neutral/relaxed neutral” on the ORIVETI compared to Etymotic’s “no compromise flat studio neutral” approach in the upper midrange/presence range). If there’s anything to criticise about the highs’ reproduction, it’s that the O400s’ appears ultimately just a notch less authentic and refined compared to Etymotic’s in-ears that sound even more authentic and refined to my ears in terms treble tuning when it comes to my ears; but even though the ORIVETI are ultimately a tad below Etymotic’s products in this area to my ears, they are nonetheless among the best in-ears especially in their price range in this regard.

The midrange follows a tuning that could be considered “natural neutral” as the lower mids are completely flat without any hint of warmth thanks to the brilliantly integrated low bass boost, with a subsequently flat central midrange and, compared to Etymotic standards and what I perceive when listening to sine sweeps, an upper midrange/presence range that is recessed moderately enough to place voices a bit further away from the listener, thus making them somewhat less intimate, yet present enough to not making brighter voices and lower voices’ overtones appear as recessed or dark but correct. Thankfully to this, the midrange tuning and timbre is reproduced correctly to my ears even in the presence range.

In my opinion, while the O400s’ midrange and treble are already tuned well and sound natural as well as coherent, the “star of the show” when it comes to tuning is clearly the bass, and I’d go as far to writing that this is the best sub-bass elevation that I have ever heard from any in-ears so far.
Listening to sine sweeps, I hear the bass’ elevation as starting to climb around 500 Hz, and it reaches its climax nicely low around 30 Hz (with a lift of around 7 dB compared to diffuse-field standards), with already a bit of punch in the upper bass around 100 Hz, but the “main action” is definitely happening in the lower midbass and actual sub-bass, with a fantastically implemented elevation that nicely stays out of the fundamental range and therefore really just accentuates the true bass without adding any warmth to the sound or colouring the mids.
Therefore, and as 200 Hz are about in-line with 1 kHz, bleeding of the bass into the midrange is avoided completely and instead it stays nicely out of it with adding just the slightest possible hint of warmth to the low fundamental range.

All in all, one can definitely say that the O400 are tremendously well-tuned in-ears with an extremely good integration of a mild loudness compensation/mild v-shape with the lows’ climax sitting nicely low in the true sub-bass, and in terms of a true sub-bass-only focus, the ORIVETI manage to place the focus on the actual sub-bass even more than the Etymotic ER2XR, my Shure SE846 and my Earsonics ES3.
Due to the way they are tuned, they also sound largely neutral/”natural neutral” most of the time since the moderate bass elevation is placed nicely low and really only shows its presence when the recording/track reaches this low.
On a personal note, I am undeniably still quite impressed by just how well the lows are tuned (as a really nice and quite addictive addition to the rest of the entire frequency range that sounds natural as well).

Frequency Response:


ER-4S-Compensation


ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

When it comes to technical performance, it can generally said that the O400 are definitely and, if one can say so, quite easily worth the price.

These in-ears’ bass character is really interesting and ultimately just great – the lows have got a somewhat dynamic-driver like body and rumble but BA-like speed and control (there is no muddiness or softness even in demanding and fast passages/tracks) wherefore they reproduce a controlled, tight punch with a clean and fast decay, yet punches feel dynamic and have got some sort of almost tactile vibrations wherefore the bass sounds natural and is highly involving; it just feels “right”.

Speech intelligibility is really high for this price range, and the general resolution and level of transparency in the midrange are high as well.

When it comes to high notes, the O400 don’t disappoint either but feature a high level of details and remain clean sounding even in busy and fast passages of the music.
Especially noteworthy is the generally clean and precise separation across the entire frequency range that is definitely a major contributor to the ORIVETI sounding very controlled, resolving and clean even with fast, dense and busy music.

Soundstage:

The O400s’ imaginary soundstage shows no congestion and sounds quite open and spacious to my ears (not NocturnaL Audio Atlantis/Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors/Campfire Audio Andromeda tier in terms of size and openness, but still very good; it expands further than the space between my ears and is ultimately perceived as somewhat larger than the Etymotic ER2XRs’ soundstage that doesn’t appear small to my ears either but is in fact the largest soundstage among all Etymotic ER series in-ears). Since the in-ears don’t sound flat but manage to layer well, the virtual room sounds three-dimensional and therefore very authentic to me; ultimately the soundstage is just a bit more on the oval than round side to my ears.

Thankfully the imaging is really precise and the ORIVETIs’ soundstage also handles very fast, dense, complex and demanding music material tremendously well without losing much control even when pushed to the limits by the music.
Especially these in-ears’ very clean spatial separation is really noteworthy as their imaging ability is really clean and precise, with the “empty space” between and around instruments/tonal elements being reproduced very accurately without any blur.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Etymotic ER2XR:

Both in-ears’ tuning direction is generally quite comparable.

The ER2XR are elevated a bit stronger in the sub-bass and bass in general, and have therefore got a bit more upper bass punch and somewhat more warmth in the low fundamental range in comparison.
The O400 have got the less intimate/more relaxed midrange presentation (voices are less placed less closely to the listener on the O400 and appear closer to the listener/more intimate/direct on the ER2XR) while both in-ears’ midrange timbre is similar.
The ER2XR have got the slightly more even/refined treble tuning to my ears when listening to music and thus sometimes slightly more realistic treble response/high note timbre in direct comparison; the treble tuning is generally comparable with the exception being in the upper highs where the O400 are slightly brighter than the Etymotic in comparison.

The O400 feature the slightly better separation in general.
They have also got the somewhat higher transparency and resolution.
Treble details are about comparable but the ORIVETI are ultimately still a bit ahead here as well, especially in fast passages.
The sub-bass reproduction is cleaner on the O400 whereas the ER-2XRs’ is a bit soft in comparison; the ORIVETI are generally a bit tighter/faster in the lows.

In terms of soundstage size, I hear the O400s’ as appearing a bit wider and generally somewhat larger than the ER2XRs’.
The imaging is somewhat more precise on the ORIVETI that have also got the better instrument separation in comparison.

Earsonics ES3:

Both in-ears’ bass elevation starts about similarly, but the difference is that the ES3, while they also avoid any lower midrange warmth just like the O400, have got the stronger elevation in the upper bass as well as midbass wherefore they are ultimately tuned a bit bassier/punchier than the ORIVETI that really mainly concentrate their elevation on the true sub-bass (that’s also a little stronger elevated on the ES3, although just slightly).
The O400 have got the more linear upper midrange and treble tuning (wherefore they sound more realistic) whereas the ES3 have a more recessed upper midrange and middle treble and a brighter upper treble elevation.

Bass control, tightness and details are higher on the O400.
The same goes for the midrange where the ORIVETI sound more transparent and resolve better.
This is also true for the O400s’ treble whose resolution is higher and features the cleaner note separation.
The note separation is generally cleaner and superior on the O400.

The O400s’ soundstage a bit larger to my ears.
The spatial separation and imaging are also somewhat more precise on the ORIVETI (especially the ability to portray “empty space” around and between tonal elements; their soundstage also remains better controlled in fast and busy passages).

NocturnaL Audio Atlantis:

The Atlantis have got the thicker, warmer lower fundamental range and bass with a punchy upper bass and strong midbass whereas the O400 are tuned without any lower fundamental range warmth and slightly higher quantity in the lowest possible sub-bass, while otherwise the Atlantis are audibly bassier in the low midbass and upper sub-bass in comparison.
The middle treble is a bit brighter on the O400; otherwise their highs are quite comparable although Atlantis have ultimately got the somewhat more refined sounding treble response to my ears.

The Atlantis’ bass is tighter and faster.
Likewise they also feature the generally somewhat higher transparency and resolution and also even somewhat cleaner separation.

The Atlantis’ soundstage appears larger to my ears and also even somewhat more precise imaging.

Shure SE846 (white “Treble” Filters):

Both in-ears’ tuning direction is generally quite comparable.
The SE846 have got somewhat more upper bass quantity in comparison wherefore it’s reproduced punchier; as their bass radiates comparatively more into the lower fundamental range than the O400s’ that are more “sub-bass-only-focused” with pretty much no fundamental range warmth, the Shure have got a bit of warmth in the low fundamental range while the ORIVETI truly limit their elevation in the lows to nothing but the actual low bass.
Both have got comparable lower midbass and sub-bass quantity, while the O400 are actually even slightly more elevated in the true sub-bass which is audible in the rarer cases when the audio material really extends this low.
Both in-ears’ midrange tuning is comparable.
Extension in the super treble is easily won by the ORIVETI as the Shure simply start to roll off far too early and thus lack treble overtones. Maybe as a result of this, but also generally, the O400 have got the more correct midrange and treble timbre to my ears whereas the SE846 appear somewhat artificial, especially with their treble that appears as the decay and reverb were lacking (which is definitely a result of their at best mediocre treble extension).
As for tuning, the O400 are slightly brighter in the upper highs before the super treble where the Shure are more or less lacking.

In terms of technical performance, the Shure have a bass that is generally a bit tighter and features the comparatively higher control as well as details in the lows. Sub-bass control is almost similarly good, but the SE846 are again just slightly ahead here.
The O400 have got the slightly higher speech intelligibility to my ears whereas the SE846 have got ultimately the overall very slightly higher midrange transparency and fine details/”true” resolution in this area in direct comparison (their midrange detail presentation appears minimally more “effortless” to me).
Treble resolution and separation is clearly higher on the O400.
When it comes to separation in general, the ORIVETI are generally audibly better which gives them an audible advantage over the Shure in busy and fast passages as well as dense arrangements, as except for the bass where the Shure have definitely got an advantage in terms of control and quality, the O400 are ahead in the rest of the frequency spectrum when it comes to control and separation, and they therefore just sound generally audibly cleaner.

To my ears, the O400s’ perceived soundstage is larger.
The ORIVETI also feature the cleaner imaging and sharper instrument separation in comparison, and their reproduction of “empty space” around and between tonal elements appears also cleaner as well as more effortless.




Conclusion:

Highly Recommended.

Excellent tuning with a truly fantastic integration of the moderate bass elevation that really only concentrates on the lowest registers and doesn’t add any warmth to the fundamental range, natural and realistic midrange reproduction, as well as cohesive (although ultimately a notch below Etymotic’s in-ears’ treble response) and realistically tuned treble that is ultimately set to be just a notch on the brighter side in the upper highs.
Combined with the technical performance that is excellent in the in-ears price range and even generally very good and highly competitive, with especially the high control and excellent note and instrument separation as well as three-dimensional and therefore authentic soundstage being worthy of note, the O400 represent such a great overall package and even place them clearly among the upper range of my personally favourite IEMs for recreational music listening.


Photos:

Excellent review. I hope you will be part of the Etymotic Evo world tour to read your opinion on this one compared to the Er2xr and the Oriveti O400 or the SE846.

 

[CK Moustache]

Excellent review. I hope you will be part of the Etymotic Evo world tour to read your opinion on this one compared to the Er2xr and the Oriveti O400 or the SE846.

I won't be. Still it wouldd be very interesting to see how the EVO are tuned in the bass compared to IEMs such as the ORIVETI O400, Shure SE846, Earsonics ES3, Etymotic ER2XR, Moondrop Starfield and Massdrop Plus (and also to see how similar their midrange and treble tuning is compared to the other ER series IEMs). I'm really looking forward to seeing frequency response measurements once they're shared anywhere.

 

[CK Moustache]

EarFun Free 2


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Decently designed packaging/unboxing experience but sparse set of accessories (charging case, charging cable, in-ear phones, three pairs of silicone ear tips).

Additional aptX support, unlike the previous generation; definitely nice at this price point, along with the newly introduced touch and volume control.

Charging case supports USB-C and wireless charging.
Looks nice and is compact. Small LED on the front to indicate the battery status upon pressing the button located on the back or when the lid is opened; unfortunately it doesn’t change its colour/status above 30% of charge, so one only knows when the battery is drained by already 70%.
What’s very nice is that the lid doesn’t fall shut unintentionally but is held in place in any position that it is opened.
The in-ear pieces are securely held in place by magnets.

The ear pieces themselves look neither too generic nor are they especially recognisable, nonetheless they have somewhat more of a unique design when compared to the first generation, and also feel somewhat more premium thanks to ditching the rubber-covered buttons in favour of touch-sensitive plastic surfaces.
Build quality is definitely okay for the price.

While the touch control commands are a very nice addition and while they are thankfully not nearly as sensitive to unwanted activation as on the JadeAudio EW1, the EarFun Free 2 are sometimes even somewhat too insensitive since multi-touch gestures aren’t always recognised at such (which isn’t ideal, but still a much better behaviour than constantly unwanted accidental touch activation as it is the case with the EW1). But ultimately they work and are clearly an improvement over the first generation Frees’ buttons, wherefore I am using the Free 2s’ touch control (whereas I did not use the Frees’ buttons) surprisingly more often than I thought I would.

Very good fit and seal.
Insertion depth is surprisingly rather deep and therefore very securely held in place.

The Free 2 turn on and off automatically when they are taken out of the charging case respectively back in.

The signal stability is very good when used with my Apple iPhone 4 or BlackBerry Classic – no dropouts or the like.

One 6 mm dynamic driver per side.

Sound:

Largest included silicone ear tips.

Bluetooth sources used for listening to music: ZOTAC ZBOX CI547 nano running Windows 10 (SBC), Acer Aspire Ethos 8951G running Windows 7 (SBC), BlackBerry Classic (aptX), Apple iPhone 4 (AAC). (Bluetooth sound quality with the EarFun Free 2: BlackBerry Classic ≳ iPhone >> all of the others.)

Thankfully the Free 2 are nicely close to being hiss-free even in quiet passages.

Volume Control:

Volume control through touch gestures (single tap on the left or right faceplate). Followed by a soft and thankfully not too loud beep on the corresponding side.
16 volume steps in total and synced with the playback device’s volume control (not with my Acer laptop though which allows for individual Windows volume control (100 steps) plus the Free 2s’ 16 steps). Finer adjustment steps possible on the source device if supported (supported on my ZOTAC and iPhone but not my BlackBerry).
Quietest possible listening level above mute nicely quiet on my Windows 7 laptop thanks to the individual volume control; still rather acceptable on my Windows 10 desktop and iPhone 4, and unfortunately definitely louder my regular listening level on my BlackBerry. Generally I wouldn’t mind if listening more quietly were possible when used with my iPhone or BlackBerry, and that’s unfortunately a thing that most wireless in-ears suffer from.

The status reports (“connected”, “disconnected”) are unfortunately really loud and cannot be attenuated. Unlike on the first generation Free, they are played through both of the Free 2s’ sides.

Tonality:

W-shaped consumer-oriented tuning with strong accentuation of the low bass and upper treble.

Heavy bass elevation that peaks at 30 Hz in the true sub-bass with a quantity of around 15 dB over the central midrange at 1 kHz.
The upper bass at 100 kHz is already elevated by ca. 10 dB.
The root at 300 Hz is elevated by ca. 5 dB over the central midrange.
The bass elevation starts to climb at around 600 Hz, with already some warmth in the area between 400 Hz and 100 Hz.
So while there is undeniably some lower midrange/fundamental range warmth and bleed, it isn’t excessive. What’s noteworthy is that the Free 2 are slightly less warm in the lower fundamental range than the first generation Free that I had.

Therefore the lower mids have got some warmth but aren’t overly thick (they are a little less elevated compared to the first generation), without any irregularities above that in the central midrange. Above that, one can find a slight relaxation dip in the presence range which is a quite common thing and is responsible for placing voices a little less intimately to the listener. What follows is a moderate peak at 3 kHz that leads the midrange to being ultimately slightly on the brighter and leaner side, but just not coloured enough to appear too unnatural (no t shouty or intrusive) or unpleasant. Nonetheless the midrange timbre therefore appears not entirely right, and is also a slight step back compared the first generation that was tuned with less 3 kHz presence.

No dips follow after that upper midrange peak, but instead the Fun 2 have got two more elevations in the highs, a strong one at 7.75 kHz that starts to climb around 6 kHz and drops a bit after the climax, just to be followed by another, even stronger elevation just barely above 9 kHz.
Above 14 kHz, level rolls off gently.

Unfortunately those two treble peaks are the in-ears biggest flaws, as since the lows are tuned well and the midrange is mostly fine as well, the upper highs are just too bright and therefore not natural sounding at all, with a quite artificial timbre, and also noticeably brighter when compared to the first generation Free whose peak was already bright and strong but still fitted into the exaggerated consumer oriented tuning, whereas the Free 2 exaggerate this peak even more, to the point of the elevation just being annoying; that the treble appears quite soft helps somewhat with making the brightness more tolerable than it would have been with a harder treble character, but ultimately it’s still just too much brightness that also leads to sibilants being accentuated to some degree, which is something that many modern budget in-ears have nicely avoided in their tuning, but not so the EarFun Free 2.
While the Free were tuned well for exaggerated consumer tuning standards, the Free 2 just overdo it in the highs and are therefore quite a bit away from being “refined”.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Best sound quality with my BlackBerry that transmits audio with the aptX codec; slightly inferior with my iPhone (slightly higher treble compression and compression in general, sometimes slight artefacts; slightly less defined and softer bass).

Generally quite good for true wireless standards (average-ish for most parts when judged by low-priced wired in-ear standards) and this price range.
Can compete with wired in-ears (not too far from my Shure SE215m+SPE in terms of resolution) and beat models such as my SoundMAGIC E10, but definitely don’t reach the technical performance of really good dynamic driver in-ears such as the Fidue A65, Etymotic ER2XR, Fostex TE-02 or iBasso IT01, and are also behind my Moondrop Starfield.
Therefore, the Free 2s’ technical performance seems to be pretty much identical to the first generation Free.

The bass’ control is surprisingly good given the very strong elevation. While it has got some “typical” dynamic driver softness, it isn’t muddy and feels still rather controlled with more complex tracks.

The midrange resolution is decent for the price and doesn’t show any weakness either.

The highs are reproduced in a quite soft way wherefore one shouldn’t expect the cleanest separation, but in return this helps somewhat with making the strong elevation more acceptable. Nonetheless the definition and transients could and should be better, and sometimes one can also hear slight treble artefacts.

Soundstage:

Quite normal.

Expands a bit wider than the base between my ears and has got a rather decent front projection as well, as it could be expected from a v-shaped tuning like this.
Subjectively, there is about as much depth as much spatial width wherefore the presentation appears circular.

Imaging capabilities are just okay and average for the price range; the soft transients from the highs also carry over to the instrument placement as well as separation, and while the soundstage doesn’t collapse overly with dense, fast and complex material, it is generally on the softer/less precise side, so pin-point imaging should not be expected.

Conclusion:

Definitely improved features and functionality compared to the first generation while maintaining the same low price and a highly comparable, for most parts well-done bass and midrange tuning (for customer tuning standards), but unfortunately with a treble tuning that is flawed and unnatural (brighter upper highs compared to the first generation Free) wherefore it makes the treble timbre and realism appear overly unnatural.
Technical qualities are average for the price and performance range – no real glaring flaws but nothing that’s particularly outstanding either.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

Let's change things up somewhat.

From now on, not all future reviews will follow the structure introduced in post #3 but may be written more freely, with a more subjective conclusion and sound analysis (more comments on what I personally like or dislike about the products); the existing ranking/recommendation scheme will be abandoned for a more subjective conclusion. What will however definitely remain are the paragraphs "Caption", "Source", "Frequency Response" and "Sound".
In addition, the "Frequency Response" section may not always feature the ProPhile 8 compensation anymore while the ER-4S compensation will remain.
Last but not least, the rating in post #4 will be changed to a more subjective rating and feature "[Thumbs Up]", "" (equals "neither Thumbs Up nor Thumbs Down") and "[Thumbs Down]" as new elevation/rating system, depending on whether I personally like the product or not (this will now also be reflected in new reviews' star ratings posted to the "Head Gear"section (my "only full stars" rule will still apply, though)).

 

[CK Moustache]

HiFiMan RE400i


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

Plastic packaging appears cheap, but that’s okay.
Ear tip selection doesn’t seem to follow any real pattern – while many different pairs are provided, they sometimes differ considerably in length and properties; it would have been much better and more logical to include three different sizes of tips for each type of tip. Quality and texture is good, though.

Round storage case that is simply just an unbranded case without any logo. Protective, though.

Cable feels and looks cheap; cannot really be described as flexible. Strain relief not good and no chin-slider either. Quite microphonic.
The three-button remote control has a pleasant pressure point. Although the individual keys are not so easy to recognize as such haptically, it's still quite easy to distinguish the two volume keys from the centre key due to the size of the remote control. What I don't like so much is that the remote control is located on the left side. By the way, I also doubt whether the remote control is actually mfi-certified, because on my Apple iPod Nano 7G, the volume buttons remain without function after being pressed twice, no matter for how long, until I remove the in-ears and plug them into the jack socket of my iPod again (that even though I’ve got a genuine pair of RE400i without any defects), and on my Apple USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter, a short press of the volume up button results in an irreversible maxing out of the volume.

Shells made of metal. Look very nice. Their build quality is good.

One dynamic driver per side.

Sound:

Largest included black dual-flange silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Fairly neutral leaning somewhat towards the warmer side.
Actually quite comparable to my InEar StageDiver SD-2 but with a brighter/less dark upper treble response.

Mild to moderate warmth in the root with the bass’ maximum quantity reaching around 5 dB in quantity above flat neutral at ca. 100 Hz in the upper bass. Flat extension into the sub-bass.

Ultimately a bit of warmth in the lower mids but not as much as my SD-2.
Flat central midrange with slightly reduced presence range but in the end still correct and neutral timbre.

Treble on the smooth and neutral/slightly darker side with a mild lift in the upper highs that ultimately leads to cymbals not always sounding sounding right but somewhat artificial/metallic. Never sharp or peaky.

Overall smooth, heading into a neutral direction and pleasant. Ultimately not as even as Etymotic’s in-ears but still some of the very best neutral-ish tuned dynamic driver in-ears regardless of price.

Perhaps the highs are brighter with shorter ear tips and/or a shallower insertion.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

To my ears, there is no such elevation in the highs but just a mild lift.

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Decent but nothing that’s outstanding or special.

Somewhat on the softer/slower side without really becoming muddy. Would still be appropriate for the ~100$ original price and is clearly nothing to worry about when purchased at around half of that or below; good value.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Compared to the Etymotic ER2SE:

Apart from the bass and root, the two are tuned quite comparably neutral, with the ER2SE however still taking the lead in the end due to their higher treble linearity and evenness (my RE400i are a bit more forward in the lower upper and upper highs, with comparatively more metallic, less realistic sounding cymbals compared to the Etymotic).
In the bass and root, the HiFiMan have got an elevation that is stronger than the ER2SEs’ by around 4 dB, which makes them sound bassier and warmer (therefore their tuning would be more comparable to the ER4XRs’).

The HiFiMans’ bass texture is softer compared to the Etymotic, and the ER2SE sound somewhat tighter in the lows, too. The Etys’ bass control is superior.
In terms of resolution, I see the ER2SE one or two leagues above my RE400i – they just sound cleaner and their minute detail resolution is higher, just like their speech intelligibility and note separation in fast and busy parts of the music.

The ER2SEs’ soundstage appears larger than that of my HiFiMan in direct comparison, especially in terms of spatial depth and three-dimensionality, while the spatial width is more or less comparable.
The imaging (instrument placement and separation) and especially the portrayal of “emptiness” around and between instruments is more precise on the ER2SE.

Conclusion:

Smooth, neutral-ish sound that is heading somewhat into the warmer direction.
Rather “typical” dynamic driver technical performance but not muddy yet.
Cable could be better, just like the ear tip selection.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

TempoTec Sonata HD Pro


Source:

Purchased at a discount for the purpose of a product review.


Miscellaneous:

Unboxing experience nicer than expected – decent packaging with accessories such as a micro USB to USB-C cable, USB A to USB-C adapter (made of metal just like the cable’s plugs) and a Hi-Res sticker.
A cheap feeling carrying case that is made of metal is included as well – I would have preferred a zipped pouch or hard case, but it’s still better than nothing at all, and nicely padded on the inside.

Nice build quality and finish.
I like the design.
Nice translucent orange volume control buttons.
I don’t like the big DSD logo etching on the back of the device.
Reasonable size.
What I really like is that the female micro USB socket feels solid and that one can use any suitable cable with the DAC.
Short connection cable is supple and looks nice.
Unfortunately there is no LED/operation indicator.

What’s definitely nice is that it automatically detects whether a 3.5 mm plug is inserted or not and accordingly enables/disables the output (doesn’t show up in the Windows sound menu anymore if the headphone jack is plugged out).

Sound:

My ZOTAC ZBOX CI547 nano running Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit is the only source that I’m using.

I’m only using my Sonata HD Pro in 16 Bit 44.1 kHz mode, just like any other DAC that supports the Red Book standard.

Volume Control:

Independent hardware volume control on the HD Pro (12 steps without any muting feature) in addition to the source device’s digital control.
Coarse steps; I would have wished for more than 12, but ultimately the independent control is a definite plus as it allows for finding a desirably quiet listening level even with extremely sensitive in-ears as well as quick volume adjustments while listening to music or watching a film without having to interfere with the Windows software slider.

Tactile activation point neither too stiff nor soft – ultimately somewhat more on the stiffer side.

The last volume setting seems to be saved.

Hiss Performance:

Practically hiss-fee – even less audible hiss than my Apple USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter (A2155) that is already among the very best devices on the market when it comes to hiss performance with extremely sensitive in-ears (such as my Campfire Audio Andromeda and Ostry KC06A) regardless of price point. Hiss only becomes more audible with extremely sensitive IEMs when used at higher hardware volume control settings.

Even quieter than my RME ADI-2 DAC from its PHONES output and just a hair “hissier” than its IEM output that’s basically hiss-free (just the tiniest, slightest imaginable bit of hiss audible with my Andromeda on some days with very high concentration) – that’s definitely state of the art hiss performance and among the best of the best devices in this regard.

Frequency Response (no Load):

No surprise here – as flat as it is supposed to be, with a slow roll-off filter applied.

Output Impedance (Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10 as Load):

Based on the frequency response deviation, the output impedance is calculated to be below only 0.2 Ohms, which is very low and therefore perfectly suitable for all low impedance multi-BA in-ears with a high impedance swing.

Subjective Listening Impressions:

Neutral, clean and audibly transparent with no abnormalities that could be heard. No real surprise since independent objective measurements indicate excellent performance anyway.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Compared to my Apple USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter (A2155):

With the Sonata’s software volume being set to 100% and its hardware volume to 1/12 and, and the Apple’s volume set to 1%, the Sonata’s base volume is lower, which is a definite benefit for me, and since it can be further lowered using the Windows software volume, listening very quietly just barely above the audible threshold is easily possible even with extremely sensitive in-ears.

Sonata ever so slightly “softer”/”smoother” cymbal/high note edge rendering in direct head-to-head comparison with extremely sensitive, low impedance in-ears – Apple “harder”/”sharper” in comparison, which is about the only “big” audible difference in terms of small, subtle differences that one may or may not perceive (pretty much only) in a direct head-to-head comparison (definitely a matter of individual preference, and I slightly prefer the Apple’s “harder” presentation in a critical listening, direct a-/b-comparison scenario whereas I don’t care much at all for concentrated but more recreational music listening), with the only other nuance of differences that I can perceive in this forced direct comparison being the spatial reproduction that appears slightly smaller but with a more “focused” centre image on the Sonata aHD Pro nd a “wider” presentation on the Apple that however results in a slightly “less focused” centre image image presentation when compared to the HD Pro (something that I personally probably prefer on my TempoTec a little over my Apple, but then again only really in a direct “critical” comparison whereas the small difference in spatial reproduction becomes much less obvious with a bit more time between switching between these devices).

Take what you want out of this more “critical listening” focused direct comparison (conducted with very sensitive, low impedance in-ears – as it is true in most cases, there should be no audible differences with inefficient, lower sensitivity full-sized headphones since those minor differences described just above that may be audible in a direct comparison when extremely sensitive low impedance IEMs are used as critical loads are already gone entirely when I use both devices with less sensitive, higher impedance in-ears) – what’s very clear though is that both devices are perfectly clean and audibly transparent, neutral sounding.

Realistically speaking, the Apple USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter (A2155) already offers nearly top-tier audio performance despite its super low price (after all it is audibly transparent thanks to objectively surpassing CD Red Book standards and) and is only despised by some people because of their anti-Apple and anti cheap audio products bias; so except for being even closer to being entirely hiss-free with extremely sensitive in-ears than the Apple dongle already is when an “empty” audio file is played, it is mainly some additional useful features (additional and independent analogue 12-step volume control and micro USB input; although at the cost of some of the Apple’s features missing (in-line remote control commands and in-line microphone support)) and build quality/appearance as well as accessories that make the Sonata HD Pro a device that is worthy of costing more than the A2155, with both performing excellently when it comes to audio reproduction with critical low impedance, high sensitivity loads (the TempoTec even a little more so despite being priced comparatively very low as well).

Conclusion:

State of the art hiss performance with extremely sensitive in-ears, very low output impedance, and otherwise very good objective acoustic measurements as well. Ability to listen very quietly just above the audible threshold thanks to the incorporation of additional independent analogue volume control (unfortunately only 12 coarse steps, though).
Last but not least, the accessible pricing is very fair as well, and even without keeping the price in mind, the Sonata HD Pro is one of the very few small, portable USB DACs that are able to match or surpass the Apple A2155 USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter’s objective audio performance.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

ORIVETI OV800


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Supposed to be ORIVETI’s successor to their O800 which were their first BA-only in-ears. Supposedly same basic sound signature that can be boosted in the highs respectively lows by altering the crossover through switches built into the housings.

Really nice unboxing experience that mirrors the one I had with the O400; nicely ample selection of various single-flange silicone ear tips, foam tips and double-flange silicone tips.
I also just noticed that the design on the packaging’s lid resembles the both the in-ears colour as well as multi-BA driver layout and configuration, which is definitely a nice touch.

High quality, premium appearing round storage/carrying case manufactured from genuine leather and with beautiful red stitching and padded interior; however I wouldn’t mind if it were just slightly more spacious and were even better protected against moisture and dust getting in (as the lid does not really close hermetically, which is something that unfortunately most boutique-styled IEM cases that place form/aesthetics over ultimate protection and function have in common, but after all it’s still a better and more protective case than the one from my Campfire Audio Andromeda or Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE900).
In direct comparison, it looks slightly different from the one that came with the O400.

High build quality without any flaws.
Nice dark green, burly wooden faceplates. The shells themselves are made of semi-transparent dark green resin and reveal a look at the drivers and acoustic infrastructure, which is quite nice.
Semi-open port on the faceplates (that, by the way, does not have any measured influence on the frequency response).
What I don’t like is that the two switches to adjust the crossover and therefore alter the bass and treble output are very small and can be only accessed with the supplied cleaning tool; unfortunately there is no additional older for it in the storage case.
The switch labelled “1” adjust the bass output whereas the one labelled “2” adjusts the treble output.
Nozzle ending (nozzle made of metal) not flat but convexly shaped; according to the product page in order to achieve a specific radiation pattern.

Beautiful looking silver cable.
I especially like its visual appearance; the connectors are made from metal and just look astonishing in my eyes, and I prefer their looks (I especially really like the triangular metal chassis near the 3.5 mm connector) over the ones from the O400s’ cable while I, on the other hand, somewhat prefer the dark copper over the silver aesthetics.
Very soft and supple.
Unfortunately the integrated chin-slider very difficult to move/adjust.
2-pin connectors.

8 BA drivers per side, three acoustic ways, triple-bore design.

Sound:

Largest included black single-flange silicone ear tips (same type as those that were already installed).

Tonality:

Reference flat midrange with prominent upper and midbass punch coupled with some lower fundamental range warmth without spilling into the lower midrange/higher fundamental range and a treble approach that picks up on the flat neutral midrange tuning but adds just a bit of a mild lift at the very top in the upper highs/beginning super treble. Therefore one could consider the OV800 as widely flat neutral but with a punchy/impactful loudness compensation in the actual bass and a hint of loudness compensation in the high treble.

The OV800s’ tuning comes very close to being perfectly flat neutral in the midrange and treble with a mild clarity lift at the upper end, yet they are ultimately just missing the last few percent of perfect realism in their treble timbre when judged by Etymotic and InEar ProPhile 8 smoothness and linearity standards, and closely listening to sine sweeps reveals why: while the mids and highs are flat neutral with a studio-reference approach and don’t show any real elevations or dips (except for a mild lift at 10 kHz), there is ultimately a bit of unevenness around 4 kHz, 6 kHz, 8 kHz and 10 kHz (the latter is a mild lift, though, so not really any unevenness per se) wherefore there is sometimes just a small hint of artificiality and metallicness to the high notes’ timbre wherefore the OV800 end up sounding just a bit less realistic and even than my Etymotic ER-4S and InEar ProPhile 8 in the highs, although they are, to my ears, more realistically and evenly tuned up there when compared to my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors (and considerably more realistic than my Campfire Audio Andromeda) and in the end about comparable in treble timbre realism to the NocturnaL Audio ATLANTIS which are definitely in-ears that I cannot fault for anything in their high notes’ timbre either, although they definitely have a different (more relaxed; UERM/UERR/ProPhile 8-like direction) approach in comparison to the flat neutral ORIVETI.

What’s especially nice to hear is that the entire midrange (along with most of the treble) closely follows the diffuse-field target wherefore the ORIVETI are among the very few in-ears that actually ortray an absolutely flat, realistic and correct midrange tonality and timbre without subduing or lifting the presence range as most other in-ears do; therefore they remind me highly of my beloved Etymotic ER-4S and most other Etymotic in-ears in the midrange, which is definitely a good thing. Here, the OV800 are simply just correct and accurate.

The bass’ lift starts around 300 Hz, climbs quickly and reaches its climax around 80 Hz with about 7 dB in quantity; it stays around this level throughout the entire lows without any real roll-off in the sub-bass, although subjectively the focus is somewhat more on the mid- than sub-bass because of the lows losing some definition below 30 Hz.
As it is, the bass is definitely quite punchy and impactful and carries some warmth in the low fundamental range while nicely staying out of the upper fundamental range and lower midrange wherefore there is no midrange colouration. Theoretically, if I hadn’t known ORIVETI’s O400, I would say that the integration of the OV800s’ lows’ lift were clean and perfect, but since the O400 are just so outstandingly well tuned in the lows and have the by far best integrated sub-bass lift that I have ever heard wherefore they have become my favourite recreational listening in-ears, I have to say that while the OV800s’ lows are better implemented than most competitors’ that have got more lower midrange colouration, they are ultimately just not as clean and naturally smooth integrated sounding as the (perfect) O400.

Therefore, the generally smooth tuning is perfect in the midrange, close to perfect in the treble (although a step below Etymotic/ProPhile 8 realism), and while on its own nearing very good in the bass beat by ORIVETI’s own and exceptionally good O400.

All above was the description of the OV800 in the default “down” switch position as it is the tuning that I personally prefer; the effect of both switches can be seen in the graph further below.
Enabling the bass switch adds a bit more than 2 dB of extra boost below 100 Hz while also adding slightly more warmth in the lower fundamental range, and it can be definitely heard that the sound becomes bassier and more impactful, punchier and warmer.
Dialling in the treble boost adds a bit more than 2 dB of extra brightness around 6 kHz andlifts the area between 10 kHz and 20 kHz by up to 4 dB. The sound immediately becomes brighter and splashier without losing too much timbral realism, although while the sound doesn’t become sharp or artificial, high notes gain a slight bit of metallicness in their timbre due to the 6 kHz lift. Except for the 6 kHz brightness that is more present on the OV800, enabling the treble boost brings their upper and super treble response actually fairly close to the O400s’ treble tuning.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation (both Switches off)

ER-4S-Compensation (both Switches on)

Effect of both Switches

Resolution:

On its own, the resolution is good to really good and an audible step up from most $400 range models in direct comparison (it is highly doubtful that anyone would really miss anything), but compared to other highly resolving flagsip level in-ears in this price range such as my InEar ProPhile 8 and the NocturnaL Audio ATLANTIS, the OV800 are ultimately just lacking somewhat behind and cannot fully compete when compared head to head, though it should be noticed that the difference isn’t overly large in this performance range. Therefore I would say that the technical performance is respectful and good on its own but not completely where I would personally like it to be for multi-BA in-ear standards in this price range if I were looking for new in-ears for myself.

The bass has got a somewhat “rumbly” character to it that is somewhat heading into a “dynamic driver-like” direction while still being clearly distinguishable as a Balanced Armature implementation – not unlike my Campfire Audio Andromedas’ presentation, although ultimately not fully the same as the Andromeda are softer and rumblier in comparison. Due to this, the bass becomes more tactile without appearing soft yet, but unfortunately at the cost of becoming somewhat blunted on fast tracks.
Unfortunately the lows’ definition decreases towards the sub-bass and is of lower quality compared to the midbass and upper bass; the O400, while being comparable in midbass quality, have got a more resolving and audibly better defined sub-bass than the OV800. That said, the OV800s’ comparatively weakest department is the bass that is just somewhat less clean and detailed than the midrange and treble; activating the bass switch leads to more speed and control being lost in the lows that also start to sound even more strained.

Fortunately it is a different story with the midrange and treble – while not fully reaching ProPhile 8 or ATLANTIS levels of separation and resolution in demanding passages, the midrange is definitely a highlight and sounds very clean, even stands out a bit over the rest, and is detailed, layered and well-separated; perhaps this area is even a bit more resolving on the OV800 than on my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors (or somewhere around that level).

The same as for the midrange applies to the highs that are just as clean and well-separated in complex passages and around UERM levels of quality.

Soundstage:

To my ears, the soundstage is three-dimensional and nicely open and large.
While the sheer size doesn’t fully reach the dimensions that I perceive on my Andromeda, I perceive the OV800s’ stage as a good bit larger than my ProPhile 8s’ and also as somewhat larger than the O400s’.
Overall, it appears a bit more oval than round to my ears

The imaging is very clean with sharply separated single instruments and a clean rendering of “empty space” between individual instruments or tonal elements, even in fast, dense, complex and demanding scenarios. Ultimately the NocturnaL Audio ATLANTIS render an even slightly cleaner soundstage due to the OV800s’ less defined bass, but they come very close.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Unless stated otherwise, all of the switches were in the “off” position during the comparisons.

NocturnaL Audio ATLANTIS:

The ATLANTIS are tuned considerably warmer in the fundamental range/lower midrange in comparison and follow a midrange and middle treble tuning that is close to that of my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors and therefore a more “relaxed” take on “neutral” compared to the “flat studio neutral”, Etymotic-like approach that the ORIVETI are after with the OV800. As a result, the ATLANTIS have got an audibly more distant, more relaxed presence range and middle treble tuning in comparison.
The NocturnaL Audio in-ears are, however, slightly brighter in the upper highs. As for realism/timbre, both are about equally good in the treble, but just with a different approach (flat neutral on the ORIVETI and relaxed neutral on the ATLANTIS). Super treble extension goes to the OV800.

The ATLANTIS have got the superior quality, tighter bass with the OV800 sounding softer in comparison, with audibly inferior definition and details.
Likewise, the midrange resolution is slightly higher on the ATLANTIS that resolve a bit better and feature the higher transparency, although the difference is less pronounced than when compared to the lows.

To my ears, the ATLANTIS’ soundstage is even larger and more spacious (even more width and slightly more spatial depth) and a little more precise when it comes to imaging.

Campfire Audio Andromeda:

When it comes to tuning, the Andromeda are clearly more artificial sounding – their lower midrange and fundamental range is much warmer, followed by a clearly recessed, relaxed upper midrange/presence range and lower treble, and topped off with a sharply elevated and bright upper treble with a roll-off towards super treble; the OV800 are definitely tuned considerably more realistically while still maintaining a strong bass punch that however doesn’t interfere with the lower mids nearly as much as the Campfire Audios’ lift in the lows.

In comparison, the OV800 feature the considerably more transparent midrange while details/actual resolution (outside of tuning) are rather close, though still ahead on the ORIVETI in busy situations.
Treble details/separation in the highs is an area where the Andromeda are ultimately ahead, though.
The bass softer and “rumbles” more on the Andromeda (which can definitely be a fun factor) but while the control is comparable; on fast and dense, complex recordings, though, this leads to a looser, less focused presentation in the lows whereas the OV800s’ bass remains somewhat cleaner in those situations and renders somewhat more details in the lows.
The OV800 have generally got somewhat more control and handle fast, busy and complex situations better/with higher authority whereas the Andromeda start to lose control (mainly because of their softer, rumblier bass); it’s definitely a different sort of presentation.

The Andromeda have got the larger, more open soundstage and as a result more openness to my ears; instrument separation is comparable and even somewhat ahead on the OV800 (mainly noticeable in fast and complex passages).

InEar ProPhile 8 (both Switches activated):

My ProPhile 8 (both switches activated) are tuned audibly somewhat warmer compared to the OV800 (both switches off) and a bit bassier, whereas the OV800 become bassier once their bass switches are turned on, however they have less fundamental range spillage/warmth in their lower mids wherefore they are less warm and coloured compared to the InEar (that even still have a slightly warmer lower midrange/upper fundamental range with their bass switches deactivated). As a result, the OV800 generally have the “better”/”cleaner”/”tonally more correct” bass implementation no matter what switch position on either in-ears.
The OV800 are generally tuned more “studio reference flat neutral” throughout the entire midrange compared to the InEar that have more of a “natural neutral” voicing in their central frequency band, comparable to that of my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors. As a result, voices are portrayed slightly closer to the listener on the OV800 (somewhat Etymotic-like but ultimately still with a comparatively slightly more relaxed presence range) and a little further in the back on the ProPhile 8.
The upper treble around 9 kHz is accentuated more on the ProPhile 8 (both switches up) wherefore their upper highs are brighter even when one activates the OV800s’ treble switches. However, despite being sounded brighter in the upper highs, as the ProPhile 8 ultimately have a more linear/even treble response compared to the OV800 whose highs are somewhat less even (I’m hearing some unevenness (not to be confused with peaks/elevations; these areas are still about neutral in quantity) around 4 kHz, 6 kHz, 8 kHz and an elevation at 10 kHz; less so with the treble switch in the “down” position, but the response is ultimately still not as flat and smooth as it could be) in comparison and when performing sine sweeps, wherefore the InEars’ treble timbre is in the end somewhat more accurate and realistic despite being brighter, whereas the OV800 have a slightly artificial touch to their highs. Super treble extension past 14 kHz is superior on the ORIVETI.

The ProPhile 8 have got the somewhat higher resolution, control and transparency in general.
Especially the InEars’ lows are audibly more detailed, controlled, better separated, layered and tighter. With activated bass switches on the ProPhile 8, their attack is softer in comparison to the OV800 with disabled bass switches while the InEar are still better controlled; activating the bass switches on the ORIVETI leads to them sounding softer and more strained in comparisons.

As for imaging, the ProPhile 8 are more precise in comparison whereas the OV800 have got the generally larger appearing soundstage with more depth as well as perceived spatial width and therefore sound more three-simensional, open and spacious (that said, I never really perceived my ProPhile 8 as really “good” when it comes to sheer soundstage sizing for their class/performance range).

ORIVETI O400:

The O400 are tuned comparatively more u-shaped with a greater focus on sub-bass integration and a brighter upper treble and super treble tuning, although the OV800 are about comparably bright in the upper and super highs with their treble switches activated; the OV800 are, on the other hand, generally brighter in the area around 9 kHz and 10 kHz.
In terms of bass tuning, while the O400 have a perfect slope that peaks in the true sub-bass and therefore doesn’t interfere with the rest of the lower-note spectrum (they are overall probably generally the best tuned in-ears in the lows), the OV800 are sounded with a thicker, warmer midbass and upper bass, with an undeniably audibly warmer fundamental range, and while it doesn’t interfere with the lower midrange by too much, it’s clearly audible, especially compared to the O400 whose lows’ boost, in contrast, blends in considerably better with the rest.
When it comes to midrange flatness, the OV800 are superior and reproduce a neutral, Etymotic-like tuning compared to the O400s’ more relaxed, safer upper midrange approach.

On the technical side, the OV800 aren’t as much as a “step up” as one may perhaps think given the price difference – while their midrange transparency/level of details is generally somewhat higher, which also applies to treble details and separation as well as separation in general, they don’t resolve considerably better and are just a small upgrade in this regard; in fact their technical superiority over the O400 is only somewhat noticeable (not just barely, but still not as much as one may think) in very fast, dense and complex passages, and while both are on par in terms of upper bass and midbass quality, the O400 even outperform the OV800 when it comes to sub-bass tightness and layering in general and not just when pushed closer towards the limits.
So the OV800 are definitely capable on their own, but the O400 are generally just so good that I don’t miss anything most of the time unless the music becomes overly busy.

The OV800 portray an imaginary soundstage that I perceive as comparatively more spacious (deeper and especially a bit wider); separation is superior as well in direct comparison with the 8-BA IEMs rendering a cleaner “empty space” between single instruments, but again that’s only really somewhat noticeable with extraordinarily fast recordings where the O400 start to become somewhat hazy/less clean sounding whereas the OV800 don’t yet.

To conclude this to me highly interesting direct comparison: while the OV800 have a “flat studio neutral” midrange tuning that I personally prefer, and while they are ultimately technically somewhat superior (although only really noticeable to me in very fast, dense and complex passages), I ultimately personally definitely prefer the O400 over them – their bass quality and implementation of the very lows’ lift is just simply outstanding and surpasses about everything I have heard so far, and most of the time the technical performance is much more than just sufficient for my needs, so that I pick their much nicer bass implementation (that basically makes most other in-ears for recreational, non-flat-neutral music listening redundant for me (honestly, they have become and still are my go-to benchmark and reference for this purpose)) over the bit of more “confidence” (separation) that the OV800 have in fast and complex passages.

Conclusion:

Excellently flat neutral midrange tuning, very good treble tuning (although a little less smooth when compared to my InEar ProPhile 8 or Etymotic ER-4S) that follows the same neutral approach with a mild lift at the very top, punchy midbass that doesn’t bleed into the lower midrange. The O400 that have the best ever bass to midrange transition to my ears are tuned better in the lows, though, while the OV800 feature the more linear, more neutral midrange and treble.

Clean and resolving and somewhat of an upgrade over the O400 in terms of transparency, although not as much of a difference in resolution as one might imagine; lacks a bit behind the competition in direct comparison while the performance is a step up from the $400 tier and not lacking on its own.
Lower bass quality (definition, details, tightness) should be definitely better, though, and is audibly superior on the O400.

Spacious and detailed soundstage with clean imaging that’s ultimately somewhat behind the ProPhile 8.

Decent/good IEMs but the main problem is that the O400 are simply so outstanding and outperform about anything when it comes to bass tuning implementation while simultaneously delivering very good technical performance across the board.

Although not the “generally technically best” IEMs in my inventory (but nonetheless very good without anything really being left to be desired for me even in very fast, dense and technically demanding situation), the O400 are generally just so good that I consider them my “exit IEMs” (as in “I don’t really need or want anything more than them”) for recreational music listening, wherefore it will be definitely very difficult for any other IEMs regardless of price point to surpass them when it comes to the whole package, especially in terms of lows’ tuning – that said, they have become the “gold standard” and recreational listening reference for me that any other IEMs have to live up to, and from my point of view, the OV800 do not succeed in surpassing them even though their midrange and treble tuning is more neutral compared to the O400s’ more relaxed upper mids and brighter upper treble.

The OV800 are technically confident and offer an upgrade in terms of separation and transparency over the O400 in complex and fast, dense passages whereas the general resolution doesn’t differ as much; the problem is however how exceptionally well the O400 are tuned in the lows so that they make even the OV800 that are objectively tuned better in the lows than my Campfire Audio Andromeda, InEar ProPhile 8 and the NocturnaL Audio Atlantis (transition from bass to fundamental range/midrange; all three are comparatively warmer/more coloured in the lower mids and upper fundamental range) seem too warm and upper-bass-focused.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

ORIVETI AFFINITY II


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Nice unboxing experience.

Comes with a very nice real leather storage case (same as the one the OV800 come with).
Also comes with interchangeable quick-change connectors (3.5 mm TRS, 2.5 mm TRRS, Pentaconn), which should be nice for those who frequently use source devices with different types of outputs (not me); unfortunately no 6.3 mm TRS connector available.

0.78 mm 2-pin connectors.

Silver cable looks and feels nice (braided and twisted connectors) although it’s perhaps just a tad stiffer than I’d like at this price point. I personally prefer the aesthetics of copper, though, so the old first-generation AFFINITY is more to my visual preferences.

The metal 2-pin connectors look and feel excellent. Side- and polarity markers exist.

The y-splitter (made of metal) with its clear plastic surrounding looks somewhat cheap for the price – I definitely prefer the first generation’s design in this area while the silver-black theme of the second is visually more pleasant.
The chin-slider moves neither too easily nor stiffly but is on the firmer side wherefore it shouldn’t move accidentally, which is good.

Unfortunately, while the interchangeable plugs seem a good idea in the first place, they are quite long and therefore create some unnecessary lever action that may wear the source device’s socket over time. Perhaps straight instead of angled connectors would have been shorter, but as they are I definitely find the connectors somewhat too long for primarily portable use.
In addition, while the thread locking is a good idea as it securely locks the connector piece to the cable, the collar doesn’t screw onto the threads completely but leaves a small gap, which, while it doesn’t compromise functionality, is somewhat of a visual no-go at this price point.
On the plus side, build quality and haptics of the plugs are good.

Sound:

I’m not a “cable person” (outside of aesthetics, haptics and potential sound differences with multi-BA in-ears due to different impedance compared to the original cable), so I haven’t performed any tests in this direction.


Conclusion:

Nice aesthetics aside, I think that there are somewhat too many small and bigger issues with the AFFINITY II especially at its price point. As it is, the first generation was the overall better complete package despite offering less features.

 

[CK Moustache]

Moondrop Starfield


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

Decent unboxing experience.

Very nice shell design with bevelled faceplates. I really like them.
Made of metal. Can feel somewhat cold upon insertion.
Beautiful dark blue metallic colour that changes quite a bit and appears different depending on the environmental lighting.
Two vents on the inner side of each shell (only one affects the sound).

Beautiful small storage case with golden accents. I wouldn’t mind if it were just a tiny bit roomier, though.

Very soft, flexible cable with four conductors that are braided below and twisted above the y-splitter. Nicely blue metallic colour just like the shells.
Thankfully 2-pin connectors instead of MMCX.
Nice round y-splitter that is made of metal.
Unfortunately no chin-slider.

One dynamic driver per side.

Sound:

Largest included silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Neutral with strong, warm, mainly sub-bass-focused boost in the lows.
Basically very similar to Etymotic’s ER2XR but warmer and bassier in the lows while simultaneously maintaining about the same starting point of the lows’ elevation and peak frequency, and ultimately a bit closer to my ER-4S in the highs and upper midrange.

If the lower of the two vents on the inner half of the shell (the upper one has got no effect on the tuning at all) remained free, which is extremely unlikely due to where it is positioned, the Starfield could even be considered as “flat neutral”, but as this is definitely not the case since the vent will be blocked more or less completely by the users’ ears due to the shell design, instead they feature a very nice, strong sub-bass oriented boost in the lows and are tuned generally a lot like the Etymotic ER2XR, with the exception that the Starfield are closer to my ER-4S in the upper midrange/presence range compared to the ER2XR that are just slightly more relaxed here in comparison, and that the Starfield are, while starting identically with their bass boost, ultimately bassier and warmer by 4 to 5 dB than the ER2XR in the very low frequencies.

This results in a generally very pleasant tuning that can be considered generally flat/neutral in the midrange and treble, with an extra dose of warmth in the fundamental range without colouring the lower mids by too much (although there is undeniably more lower midrange warmth compared to Etymotic’s XR dynamic driver equivalent, so it is ultimately a coloured lower midrange response), followed by a bass lift that extends in a very nice slope that peaks in the true very low sub-bass wherefore the Starfield have got a very prominent subwoofer-like character if the recording really reaches as low as the true low sub-bass (that boost is around 14 dB above flat neutral in the lowest sub-bass, and around 7.5 dB in the upper bass).

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation (blocked lower Vent)

ER-4S-Compensation (free lower Vent)

ProPhile 8-Compensation (blocked lower Vent)

ProPhile 8-Compensation (free lower Vent)

Effect of Blocking the lower Vent

Resolution:

Generally decent for dynamic driver in-ears in this price range although ultimately definitely not the most technical sounding in-ears; somewhat below the ER-2XR in terms of speed, tightness and controlled when pushed closer to the performance limits where the Starfield sound softer and mushier, less separated when compared to the Etymotic.

The bass tends to sound somewhat soft and the general resolution and control decrease with very fast and demanding recordings, however most of the time this is not really a problem. Overall, I would say that the Starfield are about average without any glaring faults in the technical department, and place tuning over ultimate performance. At the price point (where one rarely finds in-ears with such a smooth and even midrange and treble response) and for dynamic driver in-ears, this is absolutely okay, though, and for what they are, I personally like my Starfield without expecting the speed and technical performance of my better in-ears.

Soundstage:

Appears natural and three-dimensional to me. Nothing that really stands out nor suffers – it just sounds like it should.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Comparisons:

Etymotic ER2XR:

The midrange and treble tuning is highly comparable, with my Starfield even leaning slightly more towards to my ER-4S. In direct comparison, the ER2XR have got the ever so slightly more even response wherefore they sound a smidgen smoother and more realistic, although it is a super close case.
The general response in the lows is similar, with the Starfield basically being the warmer and bassier alternative to the Etymotic ER2XR (up to 5 dB difference in the very low sub-bass).

Both sets aren’t far apart when it comes to resolution although the Etymotic are ultimately a bit ahead, which is especially audible in the lows in very fast and demanding scenarios where the Starfield just sound softer, slower and lose control earlier.

Shure SE215m+SPE:

My Shure are tuned warmer in the lower midrange/fundamental range and have a more prominent upper bass punch whereas my Starfield are boosted even more in the lower bass.
While the Shure have got a dark, downwards-sloping signature from the midrange towards the high treble, the Starfield are neutral. As a result, the SE215m+SPE are a warm, punchy, dark and smooth easy listen whereas the Starfield focus more on midrange and treble neutraliny and linearity with a good bit of increasing boost towards the sub-bass.

The Shure are tighter and faster in the lows while the Starfield are generally just slightly more resolving.

My Shure’s soundstage appears flatter but wider to me while my Starfields’ deeper and thus more three-dimensional.

iBasso IT01 & IT01 v2:

My Starfield are a good bit bassier below 100 Hz but have a greater focus on the true low sub-bass as this is where their peak frequency lies whereas they are quite comparable above that.
The IT01 are less even and neutral in the midrange and treble which results in a less realistic, more plasticky, less smooth response in comparison.

When it comes to technical performance, the iBasso area good bit ahead and more resolving, with a clearly tighter and faster bass.

Conclusion:

Basically just like the Etymotic ER2XR with a highly similar tuning but more warmth and a stronger bass boost. Ultimately a bit below the Etymotic when it comes to technical performance (especially speed and control in the bass in more demanding scenarios). The shallower, more traditional fit and audibly weaker passive noise isolation (that is also a result of the venting) make them a good alternative for the times when one doesn’t want as deep and secure insertion but in-ears that are easier and quicker to insert and take off – which was definitely a major reason for why I even bought them in the first place.


Photos: