CK Moustache (previously active as "HiFiChris") – Audio Review and Measurement Index Thread
May 17, 2021 at 10:30 AM Post #46 of 54

CK Moustache

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Posts
272
Likes
355
Location
EU
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.

InEar StageDiver SD-2 Photo 1.png



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.jpg

ER-4S-Compensation

PP8.jpg

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.

InEar StageDiver SD-2 Photo 2.png



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:

InEar StageDiver SD-2 Photo 3.png
 
May 25, 2021 at 4:59 AM Post #47 of 54

appleboy11

New Head-Fier
Joined
May 24, 2021
Posts
1
Likes
0
Location
India
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).

Apple USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter Photo 3.png


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):

no load.jpg
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):

TF10 final.jpg
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.

Apple USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter Photo 1.png


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:

Apple USB-C to Headphone Jack Adapter Photo 2.png
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
 
May 25, 2021 at 7:05 AM Post #48 of 54

CK Moustache

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Posts
272
Likes
355
Location
EU
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.
 
Jun 2, 2021 at 11:12 AM Post #51 of 54

CK Moustache

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Posts
272
Likes
355
Location
EU
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.

ORIVETI O400 Photo 2.png



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.jpg

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation.jpg

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.

ORIVETI O400 with Ear Tips Photo 2.png



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:

ORIVETI O400 Right.png


ORIVETI O400 Driver.png


ORIVETI O400 Left.png


ORIVETI O400 Cable.png


ORIVETI O400 Cable Photo 2.png
 
Last edited:
Jun 9, 2021 at 5:57 AM Post #52 of 54

DoConor

New Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Posts
34
Likes
18
Location
Ivory Coast
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.
 
Jun 9, 2021 at 6:15 AM Post #53 of 54

CK Moustache

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Posts
272
Likes
355
Location
EU
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.
 
Jun 13, 2021 at 5:46 AM Post #54 of 54

CK Moustache

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Posts
272
Likes
355
Location
EU
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.

EarFun Free 2 Case.png



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.jpg

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation.jpg

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.

EarFun Free 2 Nozzle.png



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:

EarFun Free 2 Case with Earphones and LED.png


EarFun Free 2.png
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top