[CK Moustache]

JadeAudio EW1


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

JadeAudio is a new online direct selling sub-brand of FiiO.

Very nice amount of features at the low price point (aptX, touch controls, touch volume adjustment).

Only average at best unboxing experience – uninspired brown cardboard box with thin black plastic mould (that holds the ear pieces and charging/carrying case) inside.
Four pairs of silicone tips.

Bluetooth 5.0 with SBC, AAC and aptX support.

No wireless charging of the charging/carrying case.
Micro USB charging input.

The charging/carrying case’s inside (not the outside that is absolutely fine, though) and the EW1 feel fairly cheap.
The battery indicator consists of one LED that flashes in different patterns to signalise the battery status.

Fairly uninspired and generic shell design. I really like the faceplates’ very dark blue metallic colour, though.
No battery status indicator when in the shells (the only thing that indicates that the batteries inside the ear pieces are not fully charged yet is when the ear pieces’ individual LEDs are on).

Good fit.

Nicely stable and good Bluetooth connection without any dropouts on my smartphones (BlackBerry Classic and Apple iPhone 4).

One 6 mm dynamic driver per side.

Sound:

Largest included silicone tips.

My main Bluetooth sources used for listening to music: BlackBerry Classic (aptX), Apple iPhone 4 (AAC), ZOTAC ZBOX CI547 (SBC).

Unfortunately, and it is very audible, the built-in audio architecture doesn’t have the best signal-to-noise-ratio, so the EW1 are definitely quite hissy.

Volume Control:

Very convenient: touching the left earphone’s faceplate once lowers the volume whereas touching the right earphone’s once raises it. Well, at least in theory, as the touch gestures don’t work all the time, and by far the biggest inconvenience and design mistake is that the touch-sensitive surfaces are so large that when the EW1 ear pieces are in my ears, it happens quite frequently that random touch commands are performed by the EW1 touching my tragi, which is highly annoying and also unpleasant as the audible feedback (beep) when a command is performed is very loud.

By the way, the volume control is not independent but synced with the playback device.
As a result, which is unfortunately true for nearly all Bluetooth in-ears, the EW1 are far too loud for me even at the quietest possible volume setting above mute.

Very bad as well: extraordinarily loud status info (“power on” etc.) whose volume, as it seems, cannot be changed, and cannot be deactivated either.
Also, it’s annoying that each time a touch gesture (except for volume attenuation) is registered, there’s an absurdly loud beep, too.

Tonality:

Warm v-shape with very, near absurdly, strong upper treble peak.

The bass elevation starts to rise around 700 Hz, is about 10 dB north of flat-neutral (reference: my Etymotic ER-4S) around 100 Hz (upper bass), and climbs even a bit more towards the true sub-bass where it reaches an elevation of around 12 dB above flat-neutral.
Therefore, the bass is punchy and warm, but yet gentle-ish enough to not become too boomy in the fundamental range.

The lower mids are on the fuller, warmer side, perhaps comparable to those of my Shure SE215m+SPE.
The upper midrange and presence range are on the darker, more relaxed side, wherefore bright voices are reproduced in a more relaxed manner.

The treble is generally somewhat more on the relaxed side as well but not by much; it’s not what could be considered as a dark presentation but rather one that is somewhat below neutral in quantity and mostly inoffensive.
However, this only holds true for the treble frequencies up to 6 kHz, since above that, the level rises again, and forms a very strong and bright elevation around 9 kHz that is neither very narrow nor really wide. As a result, the upper highs are very bright and splashy; thankfully this very strong elevation is at a very high frequency wherefore it is not really annoying and high enough to avoid exaggerated sharpness, and it isn’t the most relevant frequency for real-world music reproduction either, nonetheless this peak is undeniably much too strong and therefore plasticky and artificial (subjectively, it is most likely placed there to create an impression of “air” and details, but due to the nature of its absurd exaggeration, it just doesn’t really fit in).
Above that, in the super treble past 10 kHz, what can be heard is a generally very bright sound, too.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

For what it’s worth, to me, the best sound quality could be achieved using the aptX codec.

Nonetheless, even with aptX, the EW1 don’t reach the sound quality of cheap wired in-ears and it is fairly easily audible that they are wireless Bluetooth in-ears (audible compression, grain and a sound that appears forced – which it probably, and likely, also is (most wireless in-ears take advantage of tailoring the frequency response to a certain target curve through DSP as this technology has become fairly inexpensive over time, which is generally a thing I appreciate, but not if it sounds as if the technology were pushed above its limits), as the measured impulse response is definitely, and by quite much, inferior to other recent “true wireless” in-ears such as the Shanling MTW100 (BA version) or EarFun Free).
To keep it short, the EW1 simply don’t resolve as well when connected to an aptX source as other “true wireless” in-ears that are not capable of aptX reception.

To start with the bass, it sounds somewhat compressed and forced.
It is neither really tight and fast, nor slow and spongy – it just falls somewhere in-between, and is probably a bit closer to the latter, and nowhere close to the speed and tightness of my Shure SE215m+SPE.
Details in the lows don’t seem as separated, nonetheless bass lines are still distinguishable as such, although there’s definitely room for improvement. However, the lows and lower register details sound more compressed than when compared to cheap wired in-ears, which quite easily gives away that the EW1 are Bluetooth in-ears.

Going up towards the midrange, the details and sound appear a bit grainy and compressed, and I am sure that the EW1s’ audible hissing additionally contributes to this.
It’s clearly not a well-separated or detailed midrange.

The treble and its separation sound rather soft, which in this case is however beneficial to the sound due to the strong upper treble peak that the EW1 possess. Nonetheless, the note separation and details appear somewhat grainy as well, and are only concealed but not actually improved by the peak’s brightness.

Soundstage:

Large and wide, which is quite typical for a v-shaped tuning like this.

Due to the subjectively perceived soundstage size, the instrument placement seems to be fairly accurate. Nonetheless, with more complex material, the soundstage starts to collapse and the spatial details begin to show some smear.

Conclusion:

Their colour is beautiful and they offer many features for the low price point, however the JadeAudio EW1 are unfortunately clearly flawed in several areas (hissy, too loud, status info too loud and cannot be attenuated or disabled, beeps to indicate that the touch inputs were recognised too loud and cannot be attenuated or disabled, touch inputs are not recognised all the time, touch-sensitive surfaces too large wherefore touch control actions are often accidentally performed by the user’s ears’ tragi, fairly compressed sound that appears “forced” even with an aptX connection).


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

MEE audio Pinnacle P1


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Excellent unboxing experience with many premium accessories.

The included carrying case with magnetically closed lid and serial number looks nice but is less dust- and moisture-proof than regular ones. It offers a sufficient amount of internal space, though.

Both included cables have got twisted conductors and appear of really high quality.

Unique and beautiful design that I personally really like. Shells made of metal.
Good build quality

One dynamic driver per side.

Sound:

Largest included single-flange silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

“Balanced”/unique.

Unfortunately not as natural and realistic as one might expect at the price point.

Ca. 8 dB of bass boost compared to in-ears with diffuse-field flat oriented lows (Etymotic ER4SR/ER-4S). Starts around 750 Hz and increases with a hump. Rather warm fundamental range and lower midrange. Starts to lose some quantity below 45 Hz, so more midbass- than sub-bass-oriented.

The midrange timbre and tuning just doesn’t sound realistic. The area between 1.5 and 3 kHz is recessed while the rest above 3 kHz is on a more or less normal level again (actually somewhat elevated around 5 kHz), which results in voices to sound somewhat strange and confused; at the same time relaxed and close as well as at the same time dark and bright. This makes especially male voices appear rather intimate whereas mainly female voices sound distant while mainly bright female voices appear rather intimate again.
Therefore the midrange appears to sound off in terms of timbre and proximity.

Between 9 and 11 kHz, the P1 form an emphasis that makes cymbal crashes appear splashy. Therefore, they don’t sound realistic all the time and can be a bit sharp at times, too, as well as sometimes a little sibilant.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Decent but definitely not great. Slightly above that of my Sennheiser IE 80, probably slightly above the RHA T20 as well (the latter, however, at least judging from the three sets that I have had, are not really consistent and seem to have undergone some tuning changes over time). That’s not a big achievement though as the former are quite soft and slow sounding while the latter are not the most technically convincing dynamic driver in-ears either (but a bit above my Sennheiser) and have got an uneven treble response.

Around the same price, the Lear LHF-AE1d resolve audibly better and are tuned much more realistically (their bass is softer and slower than the P1s’, though), and the iBasso IT01, Fostex TE-02, DUNU Falcon-C, iBasso IT01s, Etymotic’s ER2 in-ears and DUNU’s Titan models (except for the Titan 6), along with the Fidue A65, perform better on the technical level and are more realistically tuned in the midrange (most are more realistic in the treble, too).

The bass is relatively tight for a dynamic driver implementation and decays pretty fast, however it doesn’t seem to have the fastest attack, resulting in it sounding somewhat undifferentiated. In terms of details, it sounds somewhat dull, too, but is overall still okay, yet I would expect better performance at the 199.99$ retail price.
Towards the sub-bass, the lows soften somewhat more while muddiness is just yet avoided.

The lows and lower mids appear generally somewhat veiled.

Otherwise, the mids and especially highs resolve pretty well and feature good note separation.

Soundstage:

An aspect that is fairly nice about these in-ears is their soundstage that appears spacious, open and three-dimensional.
As it is wide and features a good forward projection, the sensation is quite spherical, with generally good layering, and something that can definitely be enjoyed.

Instrument separation, imaging precision and placement are fairly precise and clean as well, although there is ultimately still some room for improvements.

Conclusion:

Definitely not bad but clearly with some shortcomings when it comes to tuning/tonality. Rather decent resolution for a dynamic driver implementation, however not among the better/best ones at the price point.
Large, open, enjoyable soundstage.

 

[CK Moustache]

Sennheiser IE 80


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

Back in the day, they were Sennheiser’s most expensive (in-ear) model (years ago before the IE 800 that I bought as well and that are on a clearly higher level when it comes to technical performance), and generally considered as expensive for dynamic driver in-ears.

The small graph on the back of the packaging that illustrates how the small screw on the faceplate changes the bass quantity is straight misleading and impertinent as it shows the frequency response to vary from fairly flat to bassy and warm even though the latter is already the case in the screw’s minimum position.

Nice selection of ear tips.
I really like that there is a Sennheiser logo on the included shirt clip.

Really nice and unique carrying case that contains a “drawer” that is securely held in place by a magnet and has even got integrated holders for spare ear tips as well as a build-in holder for the bass adjustment/cleaning tool and last but not least a small compartment for small silica gel pads.
However, as nice and unique as it is, it is ultimately not very practical at all as it takes some time to store the in-ears inside, and likely not the best solution for the cable’s durability either.

The cable doesn’t feel premium at all but is at least not of the cheapest possible kind. It’s removable, though (2-pin connectors).
A chin-slider is not lacking and it reads “IE 80” on the y-splitter, which is a nice touch that I personally like.

While I like the unique shell design and while the build quality seems to be good, the light plastic shells don’t necessarily feel premium.
One does not get much tactile feedback from turning the bass adjustment screws as they don’t feel very precise and don’t give much feedback either as there are no tactile notches.

Very comfortable fit.

The engineering behind how the bass adjustment screw works is pretty unique and shows that definitely some thoughts went into its design. It’s a completely acoustic design and basically just a variable valve that control’s the dynamic driver’s front cavity vent opening that was re-located from the inner half of the shell where one would normally expect it towards the faceplate for easier access and so that it isn’t unintentionally covered/blocked by the user’s ear; for this, Sennheiser used a fairly clever internal routing that one can see on disassembly photos of the IE 80 on the internet.

One dynamic driver per side.

Sound:

Largest included single-flange silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Bassy, very warm v-shape already when the valves are fully open (i.e. minimum position) to bass-heavy, even warmer v-shape with the valves fully shut (i.e. maximum position.

No matter at what setting the bass adjustment screws are, the lows clearly radiate into the central mids as they already start to climb around 900 Hz.
With the screws in the minimum position, the climax is around 150 Hz with a quantity of around 10 dB compared to in-ears with a flat bass tuning such as the Etymotic ER4SR/my ER-4Sm and a roll-off below 100 Hz towards 20 Hz that are about in-line with the central midrange wherefore the sound is very full, warm and with a strong upper bass punch, but not much rumble from the sub-bass.
When the screws are turned into the maximum position, the bass peaks around 40 Hz with a quantity of around 15 dB, with no roll-off below that, and about an extra 4 dB boost at 100 Hz, wherefore the sound gains a lot of sub-bass and midbass energy.
Needless to say, the midrange, as a result, is always very warm, full and coloured, also somewhat mushy, and even warmer and mushier, more veiled with the screw set to maximum (which is beneficial for the mid-and sub-bass perception but definitely not for the midrange and fundamental range).

The central midrange and upper midrange are mostly accurate to somewhat more on the relaxed side, and thankfully not much recessed.

Going up, one can spot a peak around 5.5 kHz as well as another one around 7 kHz and finally a last one around 10 kHz wherefore the full, bassy and warm sound is ultimately more of a v-shaped signature.
Ultimately, those peaks lead to the highs being on the more metallic side, however as they aren’t sharp and as the warmth and bass are the dominating elements, they are not annoying or obtrusive, which is something where the IE 80 fortunately differ from Sennheiser’s older, less expensive dynamic driver in-ears.
Interestingly, those peaks appear much worse and unfitting when performing sine sweeps or looking at frequency response measurements, while in real world listening scenarios, they are not bothering at all, which, as mentioned, is most likely due to them acting as some sort of compensation for the lows’ bloom and warmth.

Quickly compared to my Shure SE215m+SPE, the Sennheiser are always warmer, fuller, thicker and more coloured sounding in the lower midrange.
IE 80's screw set to minimum: Both have got comparable bass quantity at 100 Hz but the Sennheiser roll off below that whereas the Shure peak in the lower midbass and keep constant sub-bass level below that.
IE 80s’ screw set to maximum: The Sennheiser are clearly warmer and bassier at any frequency below 1 kHz.
Both have got almost similar treble quantity around 5 kHz. Above that, however, the Shure are definitely on the dark, relaxed side, whereas the Sennheisers’ treble is on the brighter side, however less even.

The question whether it is best to have the screw in the minimum or maximum position is a tough one, as the former rolls off audibly towards the sub-bass and only really highlights the higher upper bass and root, whereas the latter does introduce a nice sub-bass boost, however adds even more warmth and thickness to the already really warm sound (it makes the lows even slower and softer, too). Despite the rolled-off sub- and midbass (compared to the root and higher upper bass), I prefer the screw in the minimum position due to aforementioned introduced disadvantages that come with the screw set to the maximum position.
Generally, I only really like my IE 80 for slow, acoustic singer-songwriter stuff.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation (Screw set to minimum Position)

ER-4S-Compensation (Screw set to maximum Position)

Generally, the treble peaks on the graph don’t match with the frequencies that I perceive when performing sine sweeps, and I also perceive them as much quieter in amplitude. With the bass screw set to the maximum position, however, I hear the lows as being slightly stronger than on the graph.

ProPhile 8-Compensation (Screw set to minimum Position)

ProPhile 8-Compensation (Screw set to maximum Position)

Effect of the Bass Screw

Resolution:

While the midrange resolution and speech intelligibility seems to be subjectively above that of my Shure SE215m+SPE to some degree, the Sennheisers’ bass is just mushy, slow and lacks control even in the screw’s minimum position, and becomes even worse by increasing it, which also affects the rest of the resolution that is reduced audibly, wherefore the IE 80 are only halfway decently resolving (which is a bit of a stretch for the price anyway) with the bass screw in the minimum position.

Generally, the resolution isn’t great for the price at all, especially in terms of bass quality; the in-ears sound slow, soft and just lack details. The general transient response is audibly pretty bad.

Good treble separation? Definitely not. The presentation is quite smeary and not differentiated at all.

Only when the music material is slow, doesn’t contain many instruments/tonal elements and generally doesn’t have high demands on the in-ears, the IE 80 sound decently controlled and resolving with a nice midrange; however even already with “averagely paced” music and tracks that don’t have a very demanding bass line, the drivers clearly show their lack of control and just sound plain slow, which should not be present at this price point at all.
In contrast, my Shure SE215m+SPE, Moondrop Starfield or the Etymotic ER2XR don’t give in nearly as early nor nearly as much with fast and more demanding music material, which just shows that the Sennheisers’ limits are reached really early whereas the other dynamic driver in-ears still have got (partially plenty) of reserves in comparison and generally sound tighter, faster and better controlled, while the IE 80, when compared to my Shure, are slightly ahead when it comes to pure midrange resolution (but are outperformed by my Moondrop and the Etymotic).
In pre-conclusion, slow and not really demanding, mild acoustic singer-songwriter music is really about the only niche where the IE 80 perform and sound decent.

Soundstage:

The only area that the IE 80 really manage to set themselves apart from many other dynamic driver in-ears is their very large, very open, three-dimensional soundstage.
It expands greatly into all dimensions and presents a large sphere of music that my Shure SE215m+SPE (whose stage is pretty wide, but without much spacial depth to speak of, and ultimately not as wide as the Sennheisers’) don’t have (which also applies to the ER2XR and also somewhat to my Starfield when compared to the IE 80s’ soundstage size).

While this is something that makes the IE 80 nice and rather special, the imaging precision isn’t very high at all, and similarly to the resolution, the soundstage struggles to keep up and collapses the more complex and the faster the music gets.

Conclusion:

The Sennheiser IE 80 are in-ears that only sound nice when used with slow, undemanding, sparsely occupied recordings wherefore they are predestined for slow acoustic singer-songwriter stuff that really suits them and where they sounds nice, effortless, open, spacious, pleasantly warm as well as full, and where their fairly low technical performance in relation to the price isn’t brought to the limits. Therefore, they are clearly not all-rounders but niche in-ears with a large soundstage that perform well on slow recordings but almost fail with everything else as their drivers’ limits are reached very early.

 

[CK Moustache]

EarFun Free


Source:

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


Miscellaneous:

Don’t come with many accessories, but enough so that it’s a complete package – three pairs of silicone ear tips, a charging case that’s also used for storing the Free, and a charging cable.

Bluetooth 5.0 with AAC and SBC codec support. Unfortunately no aptX, but that isn’t really to be expected at this price point anyway.

The charging case itself can be charged wirelessly.
It is compact, looks very nice (in my opinion) and has got four white LEDs that light up when the lid is opened and indicate the battery status. I like that the surface is hard matte plastic and not shiny (should reduce scratches).
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 strongly held in place magnetically – a bit too strongly, in my opinion, as removing them requires some more force than I’d like.

The ear pieces themselves look rather generic and don’t have any special design elements that are unique.
Design and build quality are okay for the price but don’t feel premium, although not cheap either.

The faceplate with the EarFun logo is made of rubber as there’s a small button under each that’s used for playback and phone call controls. Even though the accentuation force isn’t too high, it’s not a pleasant thing and an inferior solution to using a touch-sensitive surface.
There’s no volume control on the Free – the volume is controlled by the source device (I personally don’t mind, but some could).

The fit and seal are good as the insertion depth is surprisingly deep even though the nozzle and ear piece shape don’t look like that (which is also why the ear tips that look smaller than expected and usual fit and seal easily and well in my large ear canals). The comfort is good and since the fit and seal are good, the Frees’ ear pieces stay in my ears securely and don’t fall out.

The right ear piece is the master unit.
The Free turns on and off automatically when taken out of the charging case respectively back in.

The signal quality and stability are excellent when used with my Apple iPhone 4 or BlackBerry Classic – no dropouts or the like.

One 6 mm graphene-coated dynamic driver per side.

Sound:

Largest included silicone ear tips.

Bluetooth sources used for listening to music: ZOTAC ZBOX CI547 nano, BlackBerry Classic, Apple iPhone 4. (Bluetooth sound quality with the EarFun Free: BlackBerry ≳ iPhone >> Zotac.)

The Free hiss slightly in quiet and silent passages of the music, so the amplifier chip that’s used probably doesn’t have state-of-the-art signal-to-noise ratio and/or the dynamic driver that is used is very sensitive.

Volume Control:

There is no built-in volume control – the Bluetooth source device acts as such.

The status reports (“connected”, “disconnected”) aren’t overly loud, which is nice, but they are not very quiet either and I wish they were just somewhat quieter; they only come through the right ear piece.

Unfortunately, the Free also suffer from the same problem that pretty much all Bluetooth in-ears suffer for me: the quietest possible volume setting above mute is much too loud for me personally and clearly above my normal listening volume.

Tonality:

Heavily consumer-oriented fun-oriented v-shape sound signature with the main focus on the lower bass and upper treble, which isn’t a surprise given that they are affordably priced dynamic driver in-ears; really good and naturally tuned midrange.

Heavy bass elevation that peaks at 30 Hz in the sub-bass with a quantity of 16 dB over the central midrange at 1 kHz.
The upper bass at 100 kHz is already elevated by ca. 12 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.

The lower mids and fundamental range is, not much surprisingly given the heavy bass elevation, on the warm and full side and gives the sound an undeniably warm and full tilt, but doesn’t overshadow the midrange (since its elevation rises towards and peaks in the sub-bass), which is nice.
Other than that, the central and upper midrange mostly follow a slightly-less-than-flat-neutral target and are not far off the Etymotic ER2SE, wherefore the mids sound realistic and natural.

The lower and middle treble are mostly neutral, with the 5 kHz range showing a moderate dip, followed by the highs rising again just a little below 7 kHz, just to then form a strong and bright peak around 8 kHz.
The super treble above 10 kHz shows an even down-slope/roll-off.

As a result, the sound is v-shaped and clearly exaggeratedly consumer-oriented, but done so in a surprisingly nice way with a really good tuning of the midrange, wherefore one could even consider the sound as natural but with a loudness compensation adjustment for listening in a loud, noisy environment; solely the bright 8 kHz peak appears artificial and plasticky even though it doesn’t come across as too sharp as it acts as a counterweight to the strong lower bass elevation.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Good. Do not sound like typical wireless in-ears from a few years ago (for example, they are clearly better than the MEE audio X7 Plus), and are more controlled than comparably priced wired in-ears such as my SoundMAGIC E10.
Aside from the bass quality that is superior on the Shure, the Free are not much behind my (non-wireless) Shure SE215m+SPE in terms of resolution, which is definitely a good thing, however as the Free lack aptX codec support, their sound quality will ultimately depend quite strongly on how good the streaming source’s Bluetooth audio transmission quality is (it is rather bad on my Zotac desktop PC, but very good on my BlackBerry and iPhone). One should not fully expect the technical performance of really good dynamic driver in-ears such as the Fidue A65 or iBasso IT01, let alone the Etymotic ER2XR, though.

Especially surprising is the bass control despite the very strong elevation.
The lows soften towards the sub-bass and lose some texture but without becoming muddy, and the bass doesn’t feel uncontrolled even with more complex tracks.

The midrange resolution is good for the price and doesn’t show any weakness; there’s also no obvious sign here that the Free are wireless in-ears.

Treble separation is slightly on the softer side but still defined and precise. This, however, also helps with the 8 kHz peak.

Transients are a bit on the softer side but far from blurry or the like.

Therefore, the Free perform well in the technical department, and it’s clear that the dynamic driver that was used is of the better and more capable sort.

Soundstage:

Expands wider than the base between my ears and stretches almost to the outside of my shoulders. Therefore definitely wider than average and not congested in any way.
Subjectively, the spatial depth is almost similarly present wherefore the soundstage is almost perfectly circular; it appears realistic and three-dimensional.
This, however, is pretty much always the case with a v-shaped tonal tuning.

The imaging is nicely accurate and still remains intact even with fast, dense and complex material, although some mild to moderate blur then starts to occur.

Conclusion:

Good sounding and affordably priced in-ears with a strongly consumer-oriented v-shaped tonality (but well-tuned midrange and generally tuned well for what they aim for (personally, I like the tuning and sound)), but they unfortunately suffer from the same problem that pretty much all Bluetooth in-ears do: they are much too loud for me.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

Shanling MTW100 – Balanced Armature Driver Version


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Available either with one graphene-coated 6 mm dynamic driver per side (white shells) or full-range Knowles Balanced Armature driver (black or red shells), as reviewed here.

Nice unboxing experience.
I like the charging cable’s vibrant green colour.
The black and orange charging/carrying case is much more compact than I thought and looks and feels fantastic. There’s also a colour-matched little lanyard that can be attached to it (which I have done). However, this beautiful case also comes with a trade-off, as its surface is made of glossy black plastic without any further pouch or silicone cover protection, wherefore it is highly likely also prone to scratches.
There’s another thing about it that isn’t as nice – the lid: while it shuts firmly and is held in place magnetically, it feels quite loose and floppy when open, and can also easily fall shut unintentionally, which is accompanied by a quite painfully loud noise (it would have been much better if its nice looking hinge were stiffer and/or had some sort of soft close mechanism so that it didn’t fall shut unintentionally this loudly).
Other than that, it holds the in-ear pieces in place nicely (through magnets), seems to be protected well against dust, and has got three nice little LED battery status indicators.
Additionally, the MTW100 also come with a selection of no less than seven pairs of differently sized silicone tips, which is definitely commendable.

The MTW100s’ ear pieces look very nice as well and feature high build quality along with small LEDs that act as battery indicators when the ear pieces are put back into the charging/carrying case. While the outside is made of glossy black plastic and has got built-in capacitive touch buttons, the inside is made of matte soft-touch plastic that fortunately doesn’t feel or look cheap as such surfaces sometimes do.
The nozzles are quite short.

As the nozzles are fairly short and the ear tips are rather uniquely shaped instead of oval, getting an instant seal is a bit trickier than usual but manageable – while I’m able to achieve a good and constant seal, at least slightly longer nozzles would have been beneficial.
In terms of fit and size, the MTW100s’ earpieces fit and are held securely in my large ears while there’s still plenty of free space around them. Comfort is decent.

Touching either earpiece’s touch-sensitive faceplate for three seconds and then releasing the finger enters the surrounding awareness mode that lowers the volume by ca. 6 dB and passes the environmental noise through the listener through built-in microphones. However, this is accompanied by a horribly loud beep when it is activated respectively deactivated (and the microphone-amplified exterior noise is very hissy, too, but otherwise the pass-through feature works well), so it’s something that I will clearly avoid to activate.
Playback control gestures (double-tapping etc.) work well and are accompanied by a soft, gentle beep on the corresponding side most of the time, however sometimes this beep is also horribly loud.

It seems like the right in-ear piece is the master unit as it is the one that is the last to disconnect/lose connection if the transmission signal is weak, and as covering it when the signal is weak results in a short playback interruption (happens with my ZOTAC ZBOX CI547 and Acer Chromebook 14 CB3-431, both of which seem to have weak Bluetooth antennas (the former more than the latter)).

The connection, at least with my Apple iPhone 4 (and BlackBerry Classic), is superbly stable and the in-ear pieces never lose the connection in a radius of around nine to ten metres (around eight to nine with my BlackBerry) (no dropouts or signs of unstable connection with either mobile phone).
If the transmission/connection is weak or unstable (which is the case when used with my Chromebook and ZBOX), the treble wobbles sometimes, which never happens when the signal is strong and the connection is stable (which is the case when used with my iPhone and BlackBerry – stable and correct treble reproduction).

Bluetooth 5.0 with AAC and SBC codec support; unfortunately no aptX codec support.

By the way, the tuning is achieved by the use of (unfortunately not user-configurable) DSP (which nowadays probably applies to most of the better-tuned wireless headphones), which is something that I actually generally welcome to be implemented into wireless in-ears as it makes achieving a certain target tuning that may be otherwise more complicated to get close to easier.

Carrying/charging case can be charged via USB-C or with a wireless charger (the latter only on the BA driver version).

Sound:

Main wireless sources: ZOTAC ZBOX CI547, Acer Chromebook 14 CB3-431, Apple iPhone 4, BlackBerry Classic (wireless sound quality: BlackBerry ≥ iPhone > Chromebook >> ZBOX; connection stability: iPhone > BlackBerry >> ZBOX >>> Chromebook)

Largest included silicone ear tips.

What’s definitely nice to hear is that the hiss one can hear in quiet or silent passages of the music in a quiet environment is only very gentle and soft.

Volume Control:

The MTW100 don’t have any volume control; instead it’s controlled solely by the source device. What’s unfortunate, and unfortunately this is true for so many Bluetooth in-ears, is that the lowest possible volume level is too loud for me personally with the devices that I have tried the in-ears with so far (BlackBerry Classic, Apple iPhone 4, Xiaomi Redmi 4A 4G, ZOTAC ZBOX CI547, Acer Chromebook 14 CB3-431), which requires me to lower the volume in the player software in addition to having the master volume set to the lowest possible setting, which is unfortunately not possible with every player or software.

Another clear flaw they have for me, something that unfortunately many Bluetooth devices suffer from, is that their voice and status notifications (beeps, “connected”, “disconnected”, etc.) are horribly loud (therefore I definitely also don’t want to ever encounter the status notifications that the battery is low).

Unfortunately, as it seems, none of these horribly loud beeps and status notifications can be activated or attenuated, which is definitely sad and something that unfortunately many Bluetooth devices suffer from.

Tonality:

Gentle, warm v-shape.

Compared to what would be diffuse-field flat, the bass is elevated by ca. 9.5 dB and starts to climb around 750 Hz and then reaches its climax around 100 Hz with an elevation that can be kept down until around 30 Hz, with only a small drop below that. Therefore the sub-bass extension is definitely good and not lacking.
Definitely somewhat comparable to that of my Shure SE215m+SPE, with the exception that the Shure are more elevated between 20 Hz and 200 Hz.
Also with some parallels to the Brainwavz B100, although the B100 are a bit thicker in the upper fundamental range and start to roll off earlier in the bass (and are a little less elevated).
Additionally also with similarities to my Campfire Audio Andromeda that are however a bit thicker in the upper fundamental range and a bit less elevated between 20 Hz and 300 Hz.

The lower mids are only gently and moderately warm – the lows definitely don’t overshadow the mids and don’t spill into them by much at all.
Generally, the mids sound quite natural but are overall somewhat more on the gentler, inoffensive, darker side with the upper mids and presence range being slightly in the background wherefore voices are placed a bit more in the background instead of being intimate and, as a result, gain a touch of darkness.
In comparison, my Shure are somewhat more present in the upper mids at 2 kHz, while my Andromeda are definitely and audibly more recessed in the upper mids and presence range. The Brainwavz, compared to the Shanling, are a bit darker in the upper mids and presence range.

There’s a small elevation around 4 kHz audible when doing sine sweeps that adds just a bit of metallicness to higher notes’ timbre, but it’s ultimately only ca. 2.5 dB above neutral wherefore it is harmless and only barely noticeable on its own.
Otherwise, the highs are mostly neutral and form a mild peak between 8 kHz and 9 kHz that acts as a very welcome balance to the bass elevation.
Super treble extension is good up to 12 kHz after which the level rolls off.
Compared to the Shanling, my Shure are tuned much darker in the highs. The Brainwavz are darker in the highs, too, whereas my Campfire Audio Andromeda are brighter, sharper and splashier in the upper highs, right around the edge of being sibilant, whereas the MTW100 avoid this nicely.

In conclusion, the MTW100 (BA version) are tuned nicely without any forced exaggeration.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Unfortunately the MTW100 don’t support the aptX codec, so their technical performance is much more dependent on the source device’s Bluetooth transmission quality (whereas I have found that the sound quality is similar from all aptX supporting sources if a receiver that supports aptX too, is connected to any of those sources that transmit aptX).
From the mainly used sources listed above, the MTW100 perform the best when used with my BlackBerry (should be SBC codec), very closely followed by my iPhone (AAC), very closely followed by my Chromebook (should be SBC codec – would be even almost at the same level as the iPhone if the Chromebook’s signal strength were not so low which results in constant high frequency wobble), with the ZBOX (should be SBC codec) falling behind.
With the best wireless sources, there’s no to only very little compression noticeable, whereas one can notice a clearly compressed sounding bass with the worse of the sources, along with transients and treble details/separation that is somewhat on the softer side.

With the good sources, the technical performance is almost on the same level as that of decent sounding single-BA in-ears in a comparable price range, such as the Braiwnavz B100, although the MTW100 are ultimately just slightly behind when it comes to separation sharpness and bass definition. Otherwise and generally speaking, control is good and the in-ears don’t smear when used with fast and complex music, show good speech intelligibility and midrange resolution, have got a rather tight bass that is only on a bit on the softer side and don’t lose too much texture towards the sub-bass, and shows good, although ultimately slightly hazy, treble separation.

Soundstage:

Just like the resolution, the MTW100s’ soundstage depends on how well the source device’s Bluetooth transmission chip was configured and implemented for high quality audio playback, wherefore the imaging is much more diffuse than precise when used with my ZBOX, whereas the soundstage is the most precise and cleanest when used with a source with good Bluetooth implementation, such as my iPhone or BlackBerry, with whom the Shanling reproduce an imaginary soundstage that, while ultimately rather on the more compact, smaller side and a little wider than deep, places and separates instruments believably, and appears just a slight touch less clean when compared to comparably priced non-wireless single-BA in-ears.

Conclusion:

Beautiful design, high build quality, good sound (well tuned (warm and gentle v-shape), good technical performance that’s just slightly behind that of comparable non-wireless in-ears (but will ultimately depends on the source device’s Bluetooth chip quality as only SBC and AAC wireless transmission codecs are supported by the Shanling MTW100 whereas aptX isn’t)), but unfortunately not free from some typical wireless in-ear issues (very loud status notifications/information, very loud quietest possible volume).
Additional things that could be improved: charging case’s lid and nozzle length.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

Akoustyx R-120


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

The unboxing experience is generally nice with a well-designed, compact package that contains the in-ears, several differently sized silicone ear tips of high quality, some Comply foam ear tips, three pairs of differently sized ear hooks (called “Freebit ear interface”) that can be put on the in-ear shells, one pair of silicone covers that can be put on the shells, and a nice carrying case made of neoprene.

I like the shells’ dark blue colour and that they are translucent.
While it’s generally good that the shell design is unique, I don’t particularly find it the most attractive. Less attractive without any “Freebit ear interfaces” or silicone covers installed, so I have the silicone covers installed on the shells all the time.
I like how and where the MMCX sockets are located.
Perceived value/build quality of the shells is on the lower end – the blue plastic seems to be rather thin; my Shure SE425s’ and Knowledge Zenith AS06s’ shells definitely appear thicker and more premium to me.

Excellent fit and comfort.

High quality cable; removable with MMCX connectors. Supple and flexible thanks to twisted conductors. Looks and feels premium.
Nice three-button remote control, located on the left hand side.
A chin-slider is present.

Two Balanced Armature drivers per side; single-bore nozzle.

Sound:

Largest included single-flange silicone ear tips.

Silicone covers installed on the shells (not that it would really make any difference, though).

Tonality:

Flat-neutral leaning more towards to bright-/lean-neutral; mostly diffuse-field oriented.

The tonality is somewhere in-between my Etymotic ER-4S, the ER3SE, the ER2SE, my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors and the diffuse-field target.

The lows that are generally flat neutral extend flat and linearly into the real sub-bass (no roll-off) and are generally elevated by ca. 1.5 dB compared to my Etymotic ER-4S that are absolutely flat and lifeless in the bass, which makes the R-120s’ minimal bass elevation appear quite similar to that of the Etymotic ER3SE and ER2SE in quantity, with the exception that the Akoustyx’ minimal elevation extends a little further towards the midrange wherefore they have got slightly more warmth in the upper fundamental range and lower midrange in comparison to Etymotic’s SE models.

The midrange is generally flat, neutral and highly realistic sounding without any real tendency towards warmth or brightness, while the presence range around 2 kHz is slightly relaxed compared to the central midrange at 1 kHz wherefore the R-120 are a bit less “brutal” and direct with imperfections on the track compared to the ER4SR and my ER-4S and more comparable to the ER3SE in this area, and still more direct here than my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors.

Going up in the treble, Akoustyx’ dual-BA in-ears deviate somewhat more from the more Etymotic (ER3SE) target oriented signature that they closely follow below, and are closer to the diffuse-field target compared to the Etymotic (ER-4S, ER4SR) target (that is basically a slightly milder approach to the rawer diffuse-field target), which makes them sound rawer, more direct, but also brighter in the upper middle and upper highs.
Listening to sine sweeps, the area between 4 kHz and 10 kHz, especially in the middle around 7 kHz, is on the brighter side to my ears and sounds brighter than the central midrange at 1 kHz to me. Compared to my Etymotic ER-4S and the ER4SR, the output from the R-120 is about 3 respectively 4 dB stronger around 7 kHz, and around 2 dB below and above that (there are no audible peaks in these areas, they are just generally and broadly elevated to my ears); around 10 kHz and above, the R-120 are also somewhat brighter than what my ears perceive as flat when listening to sine sweeps, which leads to a somewhat metallic upper treble timbre.
Extension past 10 kHz is really good.

Listening to music, the R-120 sound generally mostly neutral and realistic to me, but also somewhat (sometimes a bit too) bright and metallic all of the time compared to what I perceive as flat when performing sine sweeps or listening to noise signals.
Often the treble timbre appears mostly realistic, but sometimes it doesn’t fully and comes across as somewhat too bright, tending towards being rather metallic and a bit screechy with high notes; anyway, it’s a treble presentation that’s definitely raw, merciless and direct, although on the edge of becoming a bit too bright and a bit too metallic due to the bass being clearly on the flat-neutral side of tuning, wherefore there is no warmth that could act as a bit of counterweight.
This, along with listening to sine sweeps that tells me the same, and demonstrates that the comparatively milder Etymotic target response (that is basically a somewhat modified diffuse-field response) sounds flatter and more correct to me in the highs with music, sine sweeps, noise signals and audio material that contains spoken words/dialogues, compared to the slightly brighter approach that Akoustyx went for – even if the difference in the upper middle and upper treble is only minimal (just few dB), the R-120 are tuned just a bit too bright in the area around 7 kHz to sound correct to me.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Generally decent to good resolution, but not among the best in this price range.
Subjectively at least one step or two below Etymotic’s comparably priced Balanced Armature and dynamic driver models from the ER2 and ER3 series when it comes to separation, cleanliness and control in busy parts of the music as well as revealing micro details.

Bass slightly on the softer side for BA drivers, which creates the perception of just a little extra body. Not slow or soft at all thanks to the flat tuning.
Good bass control; doesn’t really show any signs of strain even when fast and complex bass lines are on the music files.

Fairly good speech intelligibility.

Treble separation is mostly clean but starts to show a bit of haze and some loss of control in fast, busy and dense parts of the music.
Due to the slightly brighter tuning, the R-120 come across as more “revealing” in the highs than Etymotic’s single-BA models, but comparing them side by side shows that actual details and separation are somewhat higher on the Ety models.

Soundstage:

The soundstage presentation is somewhat wider than deep to my ears wherefore the perceived shape is a bit more oval than circular; it sounds natural, realistic and three-dimensional to me.
In terms of size, the R-120s’ stage is neither the smallest nor the largest but sounds more or less “average” in size and believable.

In terms of imaging, the R-120 do a good job and provide clean instrument separation and localisation.
Their stage remains intact and precise but cannot fully keep the same level of control when the scenario becomes fast, dense and busy.

Conclusion:

Comfortably fitting in-ears with a rarely found, largely flat- to rather bright-neutral sound signature that is mostly oriented towards the diffuse-field target, but ultimately just a bit too bright to sound fully correct. Decent technical performance but ultimately not fully Etymotic-level.
High quality cable; the only thing in terms of build quality/finish/perceived value that I would wish for are thicker-walled, more premium appearing plastic shells.

 

[CK Moustache]

Anew U1


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

The placement of the vent hole that most dynamic driver in-ears have (one counterexample are the Shure SE215 that have got closed, unvented shells) and that is used by in-ear manufacturers to control the bass levels (either the sub- or midbass, depending whether it is located if front of or behind the driver) is done very cleverly as it is not in the front but instead on the side of the shells wherefore the likelihood that the vent is covered after inserting the shells into one’s ears, which would either increase (front cavity vent) or decrease (rear cavity vent) the bass quantity, is reduced.

The ear tip selection is good, however quality control doesn’t seem to be Anew’s strongest point since some of the included tips arrived already damaged.

Quite surprising is that no storage solution is supplied – nothing at all, not even a basic pouch. This is clearly not appropriate for the price; for more than 100$ I definitely expect to find a storage case or pouch included with the in-ears.

As sort of a compensation, the cable that is included is of really high quality, doesn’t lack a chin-slider and is almost as attractive as the one used by iBasso on the IT01 (in fact the U1s’ 3.5 mm plug and y-splitter are even somewhat more attractive).

One dynamic driver per side.

Sound:

Largest included silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

W-shaped but not executed well.

The bass starts to rise around 500 Hz and reaches its climax way down in the sub-bass around 40 Hz with about 11 dB in quantity compared to an in-ear with a diffuse-field flat bass tuning (Etymotic ER-4S and ER4SR), therefore the tunings avoids any warm spillage into the midrange. Overpowering, strong upper bass punches are also avoided as a result and the lows are really rather sub-bass-centric.
When it comes to warmth, the Shure SE215m+SPE have got the most, followed by the iBasso IT01. Then come the U1 that have got the least amount of warmth

The midrange is a double-edged sword. It’s clearly emphasised, to a degree where the sound in the central frequency range is noticeably “in your face” and mid-centric. This can become exhausting after longer listening sessions, and this also leads to a quite unnatural presentation at times.
Sometimes that midrange emphasis with the present presence range works really well and highlights vocals, whereas sometimes it is totally out of place and makes voices sound nasal and way too present. Clearly this is not a natural nor universal tuning-

Unfortunately it doesn’t get all that much better above that.
While the 3 kHz dip is welcome as it makes the overly present midrange and what comes above that at least somewhat more acceptable and tolerable on tracks where the tuning doesn’t work well, the pronounced 5.3 kHz peak makes the highs sound plasticky and metallic when a note hits that frequency band, and there is another one at 10 kHz. The upper of the peaks is not as problematic though as it’s thankfully placed high enough and has a softer character to it (cymbals aren’t harsh but even tend to be on the softer side).
Super treble extension above 10 kHz is flawless.

About half of the time the tuning works and feels vibrant and lively, and highlights several aspects of a song positively. The other half of the time it is just way out of place and plasticky; anyway it’s clearly no natural or realistic tuning, and that midrange emphasis and especially 5 kHz peak are mainly responsible for that. Due to that, it is highly unlikely that the U1 will remain as someone’s everyday in-ears but rather end up as a soon forgotten flavour of the month when the initial excitement of the plasticky tuning has faded away – for in-ears with a fun-oriented but still realistic and natural enough tuning, there are just so many much better alternatives available.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Decent and capable but clearly held back by the tuning.

Fairly clean and tight bass for dynamic driver standards without any real softness or muddiness. About comparable to that of my Shure SE215m+SPE, which is a good and rare thing as they are pleasantly tight, fast and controlled for dynamic driver in-ears at this price point (the Shure have got a slight advantage when it comes to attack, but decay, speed and control are similarly good; as the Shure are tuned warmer though, the U1 don’t suffer from the SE215s’ slight masking effects wherefore the Anews’ bass and low midrange appear subjectively a smidgen more detailed).

Midrange and treble separation are where the Anew are a bit ahead of the Shure though, with slightly better separation with fast and more complex tracks. That advantage is however less than half of a class.

While the U1 are n-ears that are worth the money based on technical performance (but ultimately definitely no recommendation (at all!) due to the highly artificial tuning), they don’t fully reach the iBasso IT01s’ level of performance. Especially with more complex and faster music material, the IT01 show their superiority when it comes to tightness, separation and control. Overall I’d describe the IT01 as being one class above the Anew. The only area where both may be roughly comparable is midrange resolution.

Soundstage:

Not small, not large. Bigger than “average”. Not as wide as the Shures’. Spatial depth is present and there’s even a bit of layering. Overall still spherical.
Separation and placement are quite precise.

Conclusion:

Decent technical performance, build quality, cable and cleverly placed vents, but that’s about it – unfortunately the tuning, except for the nice bass, is so miserably artificial that it’s ultimately just “plain bad” and not “fun” at all.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

the t.bone EP-7


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

I was so curious about those in-ears distributed by Thomann under their own “the t.bone” branding that I just had to buy them. Back in the day their price was quite low for dual-BA, two-way in-ears, however nowadays there is much more competition with comparable specifications in this price range.

Seem to be the OEM version of the JTS IE-6.

Come with a really decent carrying case and three pairs of differently sized silicone ear tips.

Non-replaceable cable that seems to be highly comparable to the one my Shure SE846 have.

Decent build quality and nice, Westone-like design. Therefore excellent fit.
I like that the shells are transparent and that one can see the drivers through them. Interestingly, the internal wiring also acts as additional side indicator.

Two BA drivers per side, two acoustic ways, single-bore nozzle.

Sound:

Largest included silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Punchy, warm, somewhat bassy and dark.

The upper midbass, upper bass and lower fundamental range are elevated by around 8 dB by diffuse-field standards, with the sub-bass showing somewhat less quantity (so it’s a more Westone-like bass hump that mainly concentrates on the midbass and upper bass as well as fundamental range), so it is a rather punch-driven bass signature with some undeniable warmth as the lows extend high up into the midrange at 900 Hz.

The lower mids show a good bit of warmth that brings vocals just a little closer in the mix.
The midrange timbre is generally on the warmer side and somewhat comparable to my Westone W4R.
The area of the upper mids and presence area around 3 kHz is in the background, which definitely gives voices a darker timbre but also makes them miss clarity in this range.

The middle highs at 5 kHz are clearly recessed, something that can be also found on my W4R, Shure SE846 and especially the Audiofly AF1120. Therefore there is not that much middle treble information on the EP-7 and the sound appears somewhat veiled/muffled and with details being held back, which is especially true for brighter voices; the highs are quite dark, and voices lack overtone clarity and many instruments sound somewhat muffled due to this – ultimately, the highs are just too polite in the lower and middle treble to show enough information in the music, which is even more accentuated by the warm lower mids.
One can basically say that the area above 2 kHz and below 7 kHz is audibly in the background, and should be around 12 dB more present in the area of around 5 kHz.
The level comes back around 7 and 8 kHz but remains sill around neutral in quantity and is rather soft in character, so there is no real added clarity or sparkle or whatsoever, just a move to save the tuning by adding some necessary quantity in this area so that cymbals are audible and not too muffled and so that the whole tuning is not entirely dark (without this, the highs would have been subjectively pretty much entirely missing).

Super treble extension is rather poor; there’s not much above 10 kHz (which is still better treble extension by one kHz than my Shure SE425, though), so one should not expect any subtle high overtone sparkle or glare.

Clearly this tuning is better suited for actual stage musicians’ monitoring in-ears than for recreational music listening (unless one wants a very dark and inoffensive treble presentation in the middle highs); probably bassists and drummers would be a good target audience. Given Thomann’s and the alleged OEM company’s (JTS) roots and market orientation, this definitely makes sense.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

Except for the peak shown above 10 kHz shown on the graph that is not there to my ears when performing sine sweeps, that’s about how I perceive the EP-7 as well, although that upper treble “peak” at 8 kHz on the graph appears very soft instead of bright when listening to music.

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

The in-ears resolve generally well and just like one would expect from decent ones in the 300$ range – they are about on the same level as my Shure SE425 that I paid more money for than for my EP-7, and are actually even a bit above the Shure in terms of note separation.

Nonetheless, because of the tuning with the recessed lower and middle treble as well as woolly-warm lows, the treble and high midrange information is reproduced in a way that appears quite muffled and lacking.
Equalising the sound signature to that of my Shure in this area, the EP-7 would even be ahead of the SE425 in terms of resolution, but the raw un-equalised tuning just doesn’t allow that.

So, just as with many in-ears from earlier years that were targeted towards on-stage musicians as monitoring devices instead of for recreational musical enjoyment, the EP-7 are decent to good in terms of technical performance, but clearly held back by their target-group oriented tuning.

The lows show good control. Their character is generally somewhat on the softer and more “dynamic” side compared to the tighter, quicker SE425 lows, nonetheless the EP-7 are still fairly tight and quick, even though they soften a bit more towards the sub-bass. It’s a fairly typical response for the large BA woofer, and it’s not the slowest/softest BA implementation of it that I know of. Precise but soft and dynamic – that’s how I would describe it.

Soundstage:

Superior to that of the SE425 and larger but ultimately nothing really special (decent enough for fairly inexpensive multi-BA in-ears, but not even close to the stage of my InEar StageDiver SD-2 or Pai Audio MR3 in terms of size and openness – it’s somewhere between my Shure SE425 and Fischer Amps FA-3E in terms of dimensions).

Ultimately definitely on the smaller to average side of size. Appears rather circular, though.

The imaging (placement, separation, layering) is fairly precise, however not at the same level as that of my Fischer Amps FA-3E or Pai Audio MR3 (doesn’t necessarily have to at this price point anyway).

Conclusion:

Theoretically decent and convincing technical performance, but the tuning with the recessed middle treble and warm lower mids which results in a muffled presentation that appears as it lacked details while it actually doesn’t is ultimately definitely much better suited for actual stage musicians’ monitoring purposes than recreational music listening.

 

[CK Moustache]

Akoustyx R-210


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Nicely designed package. Good unboxing experience.
Accessories nice/adequate for the price (three pairs of differently sized single-flange silicone tips, one pair of dual-flange silicone tips, one pair of foam tips, one neoprene storage pouch case).
Also come with three pairs of differently sized silicone ear hooks (called “Surefire EarLocks”) that are supposed to hold the in-ears securely in the concha, however as the R-210 are in-ears and not earbuds, and as they already fit well and securely, I personally don’t need them and am not using them.

I really like the neoprene storage pouch case – it’s got two pockets that are closed by a zip, as well as a large Akoustyx logo on its front as well as the zips.

Nice blue colour metal shells that definitely appear to be somewhat of an homage to Etymotic’s design.
Pretty small shells.
One white Akoustyx logo on either in-ear piece as well as large, easy to read side indicators (white as well).
Angled MMCX connector housing made of smoky black plastic.
Good build quality.
Overall probably not the visually most premium appearance, but with no faults.

Comfortable, secure fit.

Detachable cable with MMCX connectors.
High quality, flexible and supple cable with twisted conductors. The visual appearance of the twisted copper conductors with clear insulation is great.
Pre-shaped (no memory wire) ear guides, therefore the more professional over-the-ear fit is definitely intended by Akoustyx.
Three-button remote control, which is really nice to have, located on the cable’s left hand side.
A chin-slider is present.

One Balanced Armature driver per side.

Sound:

Largest included single-flange silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Warm, bassy, smooth, inoffensive.

Compared to in-ears that follow a flatter, more diffuse-field-oriented approach, such as my Etymotic ER-4S and the ER4SR, the R-210 feature a bass boost of around 10 dB.
The lows’ boost starts to climb around 800 Hz and reaches its climax around 60 Hz, although the area between 90 Hz and 400 Hz is already full and elevated.
What’s very nice is that the in-ears don’t roll off towards the sub-bass and are able to keep the elevation upright down into the deep sub-bass.
As a result of the lows’ elevation, the root and lower midrange are on the warmer, fuller side. Definitely on the warm and cosy side and with some unavoidable masking effects with this very tuning, but without overshadowing the midrange yet.
The full, fairly strong elevation is also responsible for a fun, impactful bass presentation.

The central midrange at 1 kHz is neutral in quantity and sounds quite natural. Of course the lows’ elevation is responsible for a generally warm midrange tint and colouration, but voices aren’t too unnaturally coloured (warm but not unnaturally thick or masked); therefore on the warmer and thicker side of natural.
The upper mids are somewhat more on the darker side without being subdued. This definitely adds to the warm, bassy, relaxed character and fits well, even though sometimes just a little more upper midrange presence would be desirable.

Level is back around neutral again around 3 kHz just to decreases once again a bit above that without ever being perceived as dark.
Further up, the level climbs a bit between 6 kHz towards 10 kHz, and adds just a bit of slightly-more-than-neutral sparkle to the sound, however it’s really only a bit wherefore the highs are generally on the inoffensive, smooth side (there’s no bright, countervailing treble peak to compensate for the bass warmth and fullness – the treble is generally quite soft, with cymbal attacks ultimately even missing some final bite).
Super treble extension is good up to 14 kHz and rolls off quite steeply above that.

So definitely single-BA in-ears that are tuned for a bassy, warm and smooth presentation. Definitely nice sounding to me.
On a related note, the single-BA R-210 do definitely show a lot of similarities to the dual-BA EARNiNE EN210 in their tuning, with the EARNiNE being the ultimately somewhat darker sounding in-ears out of the two.
There are also some similarities to my single dynamic driver Shure SE215m+SPE, with the Shure being a bit more boosted in the bass below 100 Hz, along with some more midrange intimacy (due to a stronger presence range and upper midrange quantity compared to the Akoustyx’ more relaxed level in those areas) but an overall noticeably darker, more down-sloping treble. As a result, the R-210 are a serious single-BA alternative with a less dark upper treble tuning and (much) better cable, however with the remote control located on the (in my opinion) less convenient left hand side.
Needless to say, as I like the EN210 and my SE215m+SPE as bassy, warm and smooth and/or dark sounding in-ears, I personally also like the R-210.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

The level of resolution is generally good for single-BA in-ears in this price range and I personally see the Akoustyx even a bit above that of the Brainwavz B100 and B150, while they don’t fully reach that of the more balanced tuned FiiO FA1 or comparably tuned dual-BA EARNiNE EN210.

Perceived coherency, which is not really surprising given they are single-BA in-ears, is really good.

Speech intelligibility and midrange resolution are good, nonetheless not without the nearly unavoidable masking effects on the lower midrange caused by the root and bass elevation.

The R-210s’ bass is definitely quite a positive highlight – even though it’s a single-BA implementation with a fairly strong bass elevation, the lows are comparatively clean, tight and precise, although typically for single-BA in-ears, with a slightly longer decay compared to really good multi-BA implementations, which adds some body and just a bit of a dynamic driver-like character to them (control is better on the Akoustyx compared to most bass-boosted dynamic driver in-ears, though).
Especially nice is that the R-210 are able to keep up the bass definition, tightness and precision down into the lowest sub-bass (not a hint of softening or loss of bass definition) – very nice.

If there’s a “weak spot” in the resolution, it’s the treble whose transients and response are soft and lack some definition compared to the lows and mids. Not fully to the point of sounding smeared, but definitely not as clean as the treble separation could be. Sure, it fits to the warm and bassy tuning and smooth character, but just a bit more treble cleanness would have been better.

Soundstage:

Authentic; however generally definitely more on the oval side.
Expands a bit further than the base between my ears, so definitely not small or congested.
There is some front-projection, but it’s not as present as the in-ear’s spatial width.

Instruments are placed fairly precisely in the imaginary room.
When it comes to instrument separation/imaging precision, some smear becomes present when the track is spatially busy and/or more bass-oriented, but fortunately not to the extent of that the soundstage would collapse.
Generally pretty clean and stable as long as the bass’s masking effects don’t kick in.

Conclusion:

Good sounding single-BA in-ears with a bassy, full, warm and smooth tuning and high bass quality as well as really good cable.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

Etymotic ER4SR


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Really nice unboxing experience with many accessories such as an amply large, protective carrying case, several different ear tips, a “certificate of performance” that shows the individual in-ears’ frequency response, channel matching, serial numbers, sensitivity and measured total harmonic distortion.

“SR” stands for “Studio Reference”.

While the ER-4S’ shells were made of plastic, the ER4SRs’ are made of metal and appear visually subjectively more premium. The unique serial number is still engraved into each shell.
Build quality seems to be very good.

Instead of the 2-pin connectors similar to the ones from Sennheiser’s HD 6x0 series headphones used on the ER-4S, the ER4SRs’ cables now come with MMCX connectors that are rotation-locked wherefore they seem quite reliable and durable.
The new cable is definitely an improvement over the older one as it is more flexible and softer while it still appears sturdy. Another good thing about it is that it has now finally got an incorporated chin-slider.
Although the y-splitter doesn’t contain any resistors anymore (the crossover components are now inside of the shells instead), it has still got that cylindrical shape as an homage to the previous generation where the bulky shape was necessary to carry the resistors (and in case of the ER4B also the capacitors).
On the other hand, the side indicators are now more difficult to find as there is no red dot on the right hand side’s connector anymore.
Twisted conductors above the y-splitter.
Rather high microphonics when worn down, but that can be fixed by guiding the cable over the ears and using the chin-slider (or alternatively using the included shirt clip).

One Balanced Armature driver per side.

Sound:

Largest included triple-flange silicone tips, modified so that they create a seal in my large ear canals while still maintaining the original ear tip length (achieved by cutting off the smallest flange and putting it onto the nozzle first, followed by the remaining double-flange rest of the tip).

Tonality:

Flat studio neutral; lifeless and uncoloured.

The ER4SR, to my ears when performing sine sweeps, listening to noise signals, music and spoken word, just sound as they are advertised – studio reference neutral flat.
Just like my ER-4S, the new ER4SR just don’t have any colouration at all to my ears and come the closest to my personal perception of uncompromised neutrality, and are therefore the flattest and most lifeless, most uncoloured, most accurate and realistically tuned in-ears that I have ever heard, wherefore they, along with my ER-4S, are also by far my favourite choice for serious music listening from my CD rig; their tuning just seems to match my ears’ HRTF extremely well wherefore I choose them over my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors, the Ultimate Ears Reference Remastered to-go and my InEar ProPhile 8, three sets of in-ears that are among the most neutral on the market but in comparison still tuned more for a “natural neutral” instead of “uncompromised studio neutral” tonality, purely based on my personal tonal preferences.

Generally, there is not much that I could really think of about writing here, since the mostly audibly flat and lifeless, neutral tuning could be more or less summarised in just one sentence.

The bass is just flat without any sort of lift and extends flat down into the real sub-bass without any real roll-off. Etymotic, just as with the ER-4S. No warmth, no body, but definitely not lacking – just uncompromised flat.

The midrange is just generally flat and direct, without any of the relaxation dips in the upper mids that is found on almost any other set of in-ears, wherefore the ER4SR are quite merciless here and purely raw, without trying to create any sort of recession to create an even slightly laid-back fatigue-free long-term listening effect.
While, to my ears, the ER-4S still showcase just a little of lift in the presence range, this area has been toned down very slightly on the ER4SR wherefore they sound even a bit more accurate to my ears here.

The treble, just like on the ER-4S, is simply among the most realistic and evenly tuned regardless of price, wherefore the ER4SR manage to create an incredibly realistic, accurate response here as well.
The only area, when performing sine sweeps, that is just a little below neutral in quantity to my ears, is the one around 7 kHz, but this is nothing that’s really audible when listening to music.
Extension past 10 kHz is good and not lacking to my ears.

To summarise, the ER4SR are truly worthy successors to the ER-4S and come extremely close to my personal perception of an uncompromised, lifeless, uncoloured, flat studio neutral tuning with an excellently realistic and even tuning that is rarely achieved by other in-ears, especially in the treble. Therefore it is no surprise that I personally really love them.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

The ER4SR were measured with the non-modified triple-flange ear tips in both graphs as I did not save the other measurements and didn’t bother to re-measure them. Due to the resulting slightly different insertion depth into the coupler, the graphs shows a bit less upper treble quantity than they would actually have, as it’s really just the upper mids/presence range where the ER4SR differ slightly from my ER-4S.

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Very high. Probably the best single-BA implementation that I know of, and superior to some multi-BA models.
Typically for a single-driver design, coherency is perfect.
Even distribution of the resolution across the whole frequency range.

Nimble, fast, tight and controlled bass. High quality. Outperforms some of the other single-BA in-ears in terms of speed and tightness, although ultimately not as tight and controlled as some multi-BA implementations when pushed to the limits by the recording; comparable speed but a little softer in comparison. There are, however, some multi-BA implementations that are noticeably softer and slower – so absolutely nothing to criticise here and about the most technical single-BA implementations I know of in the lows.

Very high midrange resolution and speech intelligibility without “cheating” by presence range elevations found implemented into some w-shaped in-ears’ tuning. Very authentic.

Excellent transient response and precise note separation in the high frequencies. Highly natural as well thanks to the very even treble response.

It is generally remarkable what the ER4SR manage to put out in terms of tonal range/extension, bass quality, resolution and authenticity – just like their predecessors, they show that a well-implemented and -tuned quality single Balanced Armature driver doesn’t lack behind its similarly priced multi-driver competitors.
In some categories, there are multi-driver in-ears (such as my UERM and ProPhile 8) that can somewhat beat the Ety in terms of partial resolution or bass speed, transparency and control when the recording is extremely demanding, however there are very few in-ears at this price point that deliver such an excellent overall package where nothing lacks behind – there is really hardly any flaw in terms of resolution.

Soundstage:

Neither the largest nor the smallest. “Averagely large”, as it usually the case with a flat neutral tuning without any strategically placed elevations or recessions.

Authentic and three-dimensional with just as much depth as spatial width to my ears.

Precise imaging without any blur/fog. No bleeding of single instruments/tonal elements into each other. The ER4SR even manage to render some of the perceived “empty space” around and between them really well; to my ears even a little better than the ER-4S since the newer generation in-ears remain a bit better separated and more controlled sounding with more complex and fast recordings.

Generally convincing and realistic.

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

Comparisons:

Etymotic ER-4S:

Only very small differences when it comes to tuning: the ER4SR are slightly less forward in the presence range and will therefore appear slightly less fatiguing over time; to me they are even a little more realistically tuned here than my ER-4S. Slightly less level around 10 kHz as well.

Pretty much equal when it comes to resolution. In comparison, though, the ER4SR appear to be just a slight bit softer in the lows, but as a result also just a little more visceral.

To my ears, the ER4SRs’ soundstage appears to be just a touch wider than the ER-4S’, with a slightly cleaner imaging (instrument separation), which is mostly audible with faster and more complex recordings.

InEar ProPhile 8:

To my ears, the ER4SR represent more of a “sterile studio reference neutral” tuning whereas the ProPhile 8 fall more into the range of being “naturally neutral” tuned.

That said, the ProPhile 8 have around 3 dB more bass than the ER4SR and sound warmer in the fundamental range and lower mids, but are a bit less “warm” than the ER4XR and have also got slightly less bass.
The ER4SR are slightly more forward/intimate sounding in the mids whereas the ProPhile 8 present the middle frequencies in a comparatively more relaxed way due to the more recessed presence range, but with still accurate timbre and no audible colouration.
Both are very even, realistic and accurate in their treble reproduction, which is something not too many in-ears achieve.

In terms of resolution, precision, bass speed and tightness, the ProPhile 8 are ultimately ahead, which is the most audible during very fast and complex, dense music, but not as strikingly obvious otherwise most of the time. So to say, the ProPhile 8 don’t yet “cave in” when the ER4SR already start to do.

Regarding perceived soundstage, that of the ProPhile 8 isn’t even all that much larger to my ears but only somewhat, but as with the resolution, the In-Ear in-ears are ahead when it comes to imaging precision and remain cleaner, better separated when the track is densely arranged and/or very fast.

Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors:

In terms of flatness and accuracy, I hear the ER4SR as superior to my UERM that have about 3 dB stronger bass quantity, are more relaxed in the presence range in comparison, and brighter past 10 kHz due to the peak that they have there, and which also makes their treble response come across as ultimately less even and realistic compared to the Etymotic (and UERR to-go), although that’s criticism on a rather high level.
As a result, the ER4SR are even more critical to the recording and even less forgiving, and more sterile sounding (which is something that I consider a very positive aspect while others may not).

While I prefer the ER4SRs’ even flatter, less forgiving, more sterile tuning, when it comes to bass speed, control, micro details and note separation, I definitely perceive the UERM as audibly superior, as they have more detail headroom for the recording to pushing them to their limits.

The same as for the resolution can be said about the soundstage that appears to be a good bit larger than the ER4SRs’ and “gives in” less early in comparison when very dense and fast arrangements are played back.

Shure SE425:

The Shure are somewhat more on the mid-centric side of neutrality compared to the Etymotic.
The SE425 are comparable to the ER4SR in the bass department but have got slightly more upper bass and lower root quantity. To my ears, the Shures’ midrange is somewhat more emphasised.
The SE425 have got somewhat less level in the highs, however just slightly. They start to roll of very early, though, even below 10 kHz, whereas the ER4SR extend well above that.

The ER4SR resolve better (higher detail retrieval and transparency) and seem to have the cleaner transient response.

The Shures’ soundstage is quite small and congested in comparison to that of the ER4SR, and the Ety also feature the better instrument separation.

Etymotic ER2SE:

Highly comparable to almost similar tuning, with the ER2SE having minimally more bass quantity, minimally less presence range quantity, and slightly less level at 10 kHz. The ER2SE, unlike the ER4SR, are closer to neutral around 7 kHz, though, when performing sine sweeps.

In terms of technical perception, the dynamic driver Etys are just a smidgen behind the BA Etys to my ears when it comes to ultimate note separation, but this only shows rarely when the in-ears are stressed by very busy, dense and bast sound material. Most of the time, they are remarkably close to the point of being near-indistinguishable.
Slightly “softer” bass presentation compared to the BA Etys but on its own very tight and controlled. Attacks and impact better/easier perceived when compared to the single-BA Etys.
In direct comparison, the single-BA Etys appear to have a bit of “grain” in the midrange compared to the dynamic driver Etys that do not.

Larger perceived soundstage than the single-BA Etys and highly precise as well, but starts to become “foggy”/gives in earlier with spatially very crowded, densely arranged tracks with many tonal elements at the same time, wherefore the ER4SR are my choice with spatially more crowded, more demanding recordings/arrangements.

Etymotic ER4XR:

The XR have got ca. 3 dB more quantity around 100 Hz and ca. 4 dB more than the SR around 50 Hz, and a little less than 5 dB at 30 Hz – not much, but enough to make them sound a bit bassier and have a bit more perceived body/texture and a little more lower midrange/fundamental range warmth in comparison, albeit without affecting the midrange balance.
The XR that I have on hand are slightly more relaxed in the presence range, but have got a bit more quantity around and above 10 kHz (definitely not to degree of an emphasis, but just enough to make them have slightly more perceived subtle super treble sparkle/”air”).
Generally, the difference is definitely mainly in the lows.

Both sets of in-ears are equal to me when it comes to resolution and bass quality, with the exception that the ER4SR, when compared directly to the XR, sound ever so slightly cleaner in the lows.

Both have got an almost identical soundstage reproduction, with the ER4XRs’ being ultimately just ever so slightly less deep and minimally less precise in terms of separation in direct comparison.

Conclusion:

Highly Recommended.

Uncompromised, flat, uncoloured, lifeless “studio neutral” tuning with a flatness (especially in the treble) and realism that is only rarely achieved.
High technical performance as well (ultimately below that of my UERM and ProPhile 8, but the ER4SR, as a whole package, still outperform many other multi-driver in-ears in the 500$ range or are at least similarly precise when it comes to technicalities, and moreover have that uncompromised flat neutral tuning in addition).

As a result, together with my ER-4S, they are also my personal favourites for serious CD listening.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

Etymotic ER-4S


Source:

Personal unit.


Miscellaneous:

Excellent unboxing experience with all of the accessories nicely arranged in a large, protective plastic hard case that can be also used for storage/transport in addition to the small soft case. I really like this.

The shells are made of black plastic and have got the individual side’s serial number on them.
While the in-ears feel sturdy and durable, they could perhaps appear just a bit more premium from a consumer point of view.

Removable cable with the same connectors as the Sennheiser HD 600s’ cable.
Angled 3.5 mm connector.
Properly executed strain relief.
Twisted conductors above the cable divider.
The bulky y-splitter contains all of the electrical filter network/resistors, wherefore simply by changing the cable, one could theoretically turn the ER-4S into the ER-4P or ER-4B.
I like how it reads “ER-4S” on the y-splitter.
Unfortunately no chin-slider and therefore even higher microphonics than the ER-4S already have due to their deep insertion.
I really like the red dot that acts as side indicator on the right hand side’s connector.

One Balanced Armature driver per side.

Sound:

Largest included triple-flange silicone tips, modified so that they create a seal in my large ear canals while still maintaining the original ear tip length (achieved by cutting off the smallest flange and putting it onto the nozzle first, followed by the remaining double-flange rest of the tip).

Tonality:

Diffuse-field oriented flat, lifeless studio neutrality.

The ER-4S, to my ears when performing sine sweeps, listening to noise signals, music and spoken word, just sound as they are advertised – studio reference neutral flat and highly accurate.
They just don’t really have any colouration at all to my ears and come the closest to my personal perception of uncompromised neutrality, and are therefore (along with their successors, the ER4SR,) the flattest and most lifeless, most uncoloured, most accurate and realistically tuned in-ears that I have ever heard, wherefore they are also by far my favourite choice for serious music listening from my CD rig; their tuning just seems to match my ears’ HRTF extremely well wherefore I choose them over my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors, the Ultimate Ears Reference Remastered to-go and my InEar ProPhile 8, three sets of in-ears that are among the most neutral on the market but in comparison still tuned more for a “natural neutral” instead of “uncompromised studio neutral” tonality, purely based on my personal tonal preferences.

Generally, there is not much that I could really think of about writing here, since the mostly audibly flat and lifeless, neutral tuning could be more or less summarised in just one sentence, which is also the reason why most of this text is just a slightly modified pasted version of my ER4SR review.

The bass is just flat without any sort of lift and extends flat down into the real sub-bass without any real roll-off. No warmth, no body, but definitely not lacking – just uncompromised flat.

The midrange is just generally flat and direct, without any of the relaxation dips in the upper mids that is found on almost any other set of in-ears, wherefore the ER-4S are quite merciless here and purely raw, without trying to create any sort of recession to create an even slightly laid-back fatigue-free long-term listening effect.
If I were overly critical, I would say that to my ears, the presence range is just a wee bit too strong for absolute flatness, wherefore the ER4SR are even a tad more “correct” sounding here than my ER-4S.

The treble is simply among the most realistic and evenly tuned regardless of price, wherefore the ER-4S manage to create an incredibly realistic, accurate response here as well.
The only area, when performing sine sweeps, that is just a little below neutral in quantity to my ears, is the one around 7 kHz, but this is nothing that’s really audible when listening to music.
Extension past 10 kHz is good and not lacking to my ears.

Frequency Response:

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Very high. Probably the best single-BA implementation that I know of, and superior to some multi-BA models.
Typically for a single-driver design, coherency is perfect.
Even distribution of the resolution across the whole frequency range.

Nimble, fast, tight and controlled bass. High quality. Outperforms some of the other single-BA in-ears in terms of speed and tightness, although ultimately not as tight and controlled as some multi-BA implementations when pushed to the limits by the recording; comparable speed but a little softer in comparison. There are, however, some multi-BA implementations that are noticeably softer and slower – so absolutely nothing to criticise here and about the most technical single-BA implementations I know of in the lows.
The ER-4S sound even a little tighter in the lows to my ears than the ER4SR.

Very high midrange resolution and speech intelligibility without “cheating” by presence range elevations found implemented into some w-shaped in-ears’ tuning. Very authentic.

Excellent transient response and precise note separation in the high frequencies. Highly natural as well thanks to the very even treble response.

It is generally remarkable what the ER-4S manage to put out in terms of tonal range/extension, bass quality, resolution and authenticity – just like their predecessors, they show that a well-implemented and -tuned quality single Balanced Armature driver doesn’t lack behind its similarly priced multi-driver competitors.
In some categories, there are multi-driver in-ears (such as my UERM and ProPhile 8) that can somewhat beat the Ety in terms of partial resolution or bass speed, transparency and control when the recording is extremely demanding, however there are very few in-ears at this price point that deliver such an excellent overall package where nothing lacks behind – there is really hardly any flaw in terms of resolution.

Soundstage:

Neither the largest nor the smallest. “Averagely large”, as it usually the case with a flat neutral tuning without any strategically placed elevations or recessions.

Authentic and three-dimensional with just as much depth as spatial width to my ears.

Precise imaging without any blur/fog. No bleeding of single instruments/tonal elements into each other. The ER-4S even manage to render some of the perceived “empty space” around and between them really well.

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

Comparisons:

Etymotic ER4SR:

Only very small differences when it comes to tuning: the ER4SR are slightly less forward in the presence range and will therefore appear slightly less fatiguing over time; to me they are even a little more realistically tuned here than my ER-4S. Slightly less level around 10 kHz as well.

Pretty much equal when it comes to resolution. In comparison, though, the ER4SR appear to be just a slight bit softer in the lows, but as a result also just a little more visceral.

To my ears, the ER4SRs’ soundstage appears to be just a touch wider than the ER-4S’, with a slightly cleaner imaging (instrument separation), which is mostly audible with faster and more complex recordings.

Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors:

In terms of flatness and accuracy, I hear the ER-4S as superior to my UERM that have about 3 dB stronger bass quantity, are more relaxed in the presence range in comparison, and brighter past 10 kHz due to the peak that they have there, and which also makes their treble response come across as ultimately less even and realistic compared to the Etymotic (and UERR to-go), although that’s criticism on a rather high level.
As a result, the ER-4S are even more critical to the recording and even less forgiving, and more sterile sounding (which is something that I consider a very positive aspect while others may not).

While I prefer the ER-4S’ even flatter, less forgiving, more sterile tuning, when it comes to bass speed, control, micro details and note separation, I definitely perceive the UERM as audibly superior, as they have more detail headroom for the recording to pushing them to their limits.

The same as for the resolution can be said about the soundstage that appears to be a good bit larger than the ER-4S’ and “gives in” less early in comparison when very dense and fast arrangements are played back.

InEar ProPhile 8:

To my ears, the ER-4S represent more of a “sterile studio reference neutral” tuning whereas the ProPhile 8 fall more into the range of being “naturally neutral” tuned.

That said, the ProPhile 8 have around 3 dB more bass than the ER-4S and sound warmer in the fundamental range and lower mids, but are a slight bit less “warm” than the ER4XR and have also got slightly less bass.
The ER-4SR are slightly more forward/intimate sounding in the mids whereas the ProPhile 8 present the middle frequencies in a comparatively more relaxed way due to the more recessed presence range, but with still accurate timbre and no audible colouration.
Both are very even, realistic and accurate in their treble reproduction, which is something not too many in-ears achieve.

In terms of resolution, precision, bass speed and tightness, the ProPhile 8 are ultimately ahead, which is the most audible during very fast and complex, dense music, but not as strikingly obvious otherwise most of the time. So to say, the ProPhile 8 don’t yet “cave in” when the ER-4S already start to do.

Regarding perceived soundstage, that of the ProPhile 8 isn’t even all that much larger to my ears but only somewhat, but as with the resolution, the In-Ear in-ears are ahead when it comes to imaging precision and remain cleaner, better separated when the track is densely arranged and/or very fast.

Pai Audio MR3:

The MR3 are more v-shaped/loudness-compensated tuned in comparison, with a moderate bass lift of around 5 dB and somewhat elevated upper highs. Therefore, they are definitely more coloured than my ER-4S, but less so when compared to my Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors.
When it comes to the open ear gain compensation in the upper mids, that of the MR3 is weaker and more comparable to the UERM.
The highs are more even and smoother on the Etymotic.

When it comes to soundstage, that of the MR3 is larger.

InEar StageDiver SD-2:

They are close in terms of treble evenness and flatness in the highs but ultimately a bit darker than the ER-4S and minimally less even.
The SD-2 are warmer and thicker in the lows by around 5 dB.
In terms of midrange, that of my InEar are warmer and darker.

The SD-2s’ stage is larger than the ER-4S’ to my ears.

Phonak Audéo PFE 132:

The Phonak, while still very neutral and among the most neutral in-ears, have ultimately got a peak in the upper highs and a bit of a dip in the middle treble, as well as a bit more warmth in the lows.

Compared to the ER-4S, their bass is softer as well and they are also somewhat below the Etymotic when it comes to resolution.

To my ears, my Phonaks’ soundstage never sounded completely realistic or coherent, therefore my ER-4S sound spatially more convincing as well as more precise.

Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE900:

Their biggest weakness is definitely the midrange tuning with the moderate bass warmth “radiating” way up into the central midrange, with a sudden drop towards the upper mids/presence range, wherefore there is no real differentiation between the actual midrange and lower mids/fundamental range, which is also the reason why I find my UE900 to sound somewhat weird (i.e. plasticky) with voices and use them mostly for electronic music.
Their 5 kHz range shows a dip with a mild follow-up elevation in the upper highs.
While ultimately decently tuned except for the somewhat weird/plasticky midrange, they are clearly not as realistic or even sounding as the ER-4S.

The UEs’ soundstage is quite flat to my ears without much depth, wherefore the ER-4S sound spatially more realistic and convincing to me.

Etymotic ER2SE:

Highly comparable to almost similar tuning, with the ER2SE having minimally more bass quantity, minimally less presence range quantity, and slightly less level at 10 kHz. The ER2SE, unlike the ER-4S, are closer to neutral around 7 kHz, though, when performing sine sweeps.

In terms of technical perception, the dynamic driver Etys are just a smidgen behind the BA Etys to my ears when it comes to ultimate note separation, but this only shows rarely when the in-ears are stressed by very busy, dense and bast sound material. Most of the time, they are remarkably close to the point of being near-indistinguishable.
Slightly “softer” bass presentation compared to the BA Etys but on its own very tight and controlled. Attacks and impact better/easier perceived when compared to the single-BA Etys.
In direct comparison, the single-BA Etys appear to have a bit of “grain” in the midrange compared to the dynamic driver Etys that do not.

Larger perceived soundstage than the single-BA Etys and highly precise as well, but starts to become “foggy”/gives in earlier with spatially very crowded, densely arranged tracks with many tonal elements at the same time, wherefore the ER-4S are my choice with spatially more crowded, more demanding recordings/arrangements.

Conclusion:

Highly Recommended.

Uncompromised flat, neutral, lifeless “studio-neutral” tuning with really high technical performance especially for single-BA in-ears (ultimately below my UERMs’ and ProPhile 8s’ resolution, but the ER-4S, as a whole package, are still somewhat ahead of other good multi-BA in-ears in the 500$ range in some areas or are at least similarly precise when it comes to technicalities, and moreover have that uncompromised flat neutral tuning in addition).

As a result, together with the ER4SR, they are also my personal favourites for serious CD listening.
The lack of a chin-slider above the cable’s y-divider (that was finally added to the ER4SRs’ cable) is my only real complaint about my ER-4S.


Photos:

 

[CK Moustache]

Brainwavz M100


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Decent amount of accessories.

Shells made of metal. Build quality seems high.
I really like the design.

The cable is rather decent but not all that supple.

One dynamic driver per side.

Sound:

Included black silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Bassy, warm and especially very dark.

Downward sloping line from the lows to the highs with a difference of more than 20 dB (which is a loudness difference of no less than more than four times). Therefore everything sounds veiled and like behind a thick curtain or blanket.
Clearly, there is a distinct lack of brightness and the sound just ends up as muffled, muddy and dull.

Around 11 dB of bass boost compared to diffuse-field neutrality peaking towards the sub-bass but ultimately actually somewhat closer to 100 Hz.
Gradually loses level towards the mids (900 Hz starting point) but has got a noticeable bleed into the midrange. Already quite full between 200 and 300 Hz.
Very full fundamental range.

The mids sound very warm, thick and also dark because the level continues to decrease above 1 kHz, which results in a dull and muffled presentation.

The treble is just very dark and lacks any bit of clarity.
It re-gains a bit of presence around 5 kHz but clearly far too little and is still clearly in the background here as well, with the rest above quite missing wherefore cymbals sound much too muffled.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Nothing special and outperformed by several other similarly priced in-ears.

Soft and slow sounding on fast and busy tracks. Not overly spongy but definitely neither tight nor precise, and furthermore with some softening towards the sub-bass.

Actual midrange and treble details are not too bad but still just “average”, and clearly held back by the overly dark and muffled tuning.

Would be okay in the 30$ to 50$ range but definitely not around 100$.

Soundstage:

Neither the widest nor the narrowest. Quite average.
Almost circular.

Imaging could be more precise as there is at most only very little air/empty space around and between instruments, and the general presentation is rather foggy, especially with busier tracks.


Conclusion:

Very dark, veiled, dull, foggy, muddy, slow, soft and muffled sound.

 

[CK Moustache]

Brainwavz Hex


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Available in two different designs.

Rather sparse unboxing experience – compact cardboard packaging without many visual details, nonetheless clean.
Brainwavz’ well-known and fairly nice black and red zipped carrying case is included.
Six pairs of silicone tips in three different sizes plus some Comply Foam tips.
Cable clip and Velcro cable tie.

Very large shells.
The visual design neither attracts me nor puts me off – it’s okay. I really like the hexagonal faceplate design, though.
I like that the inner shells are solid black whereas the faceplates are translucent – however, both aren’t equally clear.
Build quality is rather decent, although subjectively not on the level of that of my Knowledge Zenith AS06 or AS10, and the shells feel sturdy.
What’s fairly unusual for multi-BA in-ears (although not exclusive to the Hex) is that there is a vent hole in each shell.

Really good fit and ergonomics.

Removable cable with MMCX connectors.
The cable consists of seemingly twisted conductors that were rubber-coated/-sleeved – therefore, it’s a fairly typical cable and also comparable to Brainwavz’ other in-ears’ cables, and while seemingly reliable and tough, unfortunately also quite springy and not really flexible.
A chin-slider is present but somewhat difficult to adjust.

Three Balanced Armature drivers per side.

Sound:

Largest included silicone ear tips.

Tonality:

Warm to dark, rather relaxed tonality.

The treble is generally and evenly on the somewhat darker side of neutral, although not muffled. The upper highs (cymbals), however, take a step into the inoffensive direction.
There is some of a broad rebound around 6 kHz, but not really above neutral. Still adds a bit of metallicness, though.
The upper treble (cymbals) is definitely on the relaxed side and reproduced inoffensively, close to the point of being a bit too muffled – more present upper highs and no 6 kHz lift would have been better.
Super treble extension past 10 kHz okay but not spectacular.
As a result, the treble timbre is ultimately not always fully natural due to the 6 kHz rebound and rather dark upper treble but definitely without any glaring flaws (doesn’t sound unnatural but lacks the “final touch” - ultimately it’s still clearly better than if the treble had any audible unevenness, were wonky or had unnaturally placed or overly strong peaks).

The lower mids are on the somewhat warmer side, but not by much.
The upper midrange is on the somewhat darker side.
The Hex have got generally inoffensive mids that show a tilt towards the darker side but are mostly correct in the lower and central midrange.

The fundamental range around 300 Hz is on the warmer side which adds a bit of pleasant warmth to the sound but can also lead to an impression of muffled lower mids. This elevation is however only around 5.5 dB compared to in-ears with a flat-neutral bass (e.g. my Etymotic ER-4S or the ER4SR), so it’s ultimately still rather close to being neutral to balanced/moderate in quantity.
The elevation’s climax is reached around 180 Hz, stays flat at that level down to around 80 Hz and rolls slightly off towards 20 Hz. The result is a warmth- and upper bass impact-driven bass instead of an “impelling” bass from the lowest registers.

Even though there are no glaring flaws in the Hex’ relaxed tuning, around the same price point and below, there are single- and multi-BA in-ears with a balanced to relaxed tuning that I would take over them, such as the Apple Dual-Driver In-Ears, Brainwavz B100, Rose Mini2, LYPERTEK BEVI 2, SoundMAGIC PL50, Sony XBA-C10 and Ultimate Ears UE600vi, or Knowledge Zenith AS06 or Pai Audio MR2 for multi-BA in-ears with a bassy, warm and v-shaped sound.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

Central midrange resolution and speech intelligibility are decent to good, but outperformed by other models in this price range.
Lower midrange details are subjectively a bit behind.
The upper midrange sounds a bit veiled.

Treble details are actually rather decent too, but the separation is on the softer side, lacking the precision of other models and competitors.

As for the bass, its definition doesn’t really impress and it is also a bit too soft for Balanced Armature standards – it’s quite “dynamic driver-like” in its body and presentation.

While they are overall still okay for multi-BA in-ears in this price range, unfortunately the general detail level and resolution is ultimately definitely a good bit away from being impressive and the Hex are outperformed by other single- and multi-driver in-ears (such as the ones mentioned earlier above) in terms of resolution – generally, one would expect better from a multi-BA implementation, even at this comparatively competitive price point.

Soundstage:

Somewhat wider than “average” (may extend just a little further than the base between my ears). With some spatial depth as well, although the soundstage is generally definitely much more wide/oval than circular.

Imaging precision is okay to decent but not pinpoint precise (one can sense a bit of “spatial smear/blur” in the “empty space” between and around instruments).

Conclusion:

Okay but nothing special. No glaring flaws but one could expect a better technical performance from multi-BA in-ears even at this price point, since the Hex are outperformed by other comparably priced single- and multi-BA in-ears.

 

[CK Moustache]

[Review removed upon request.]

 

[CK Moustache]

Etymotic ER3XR


Source:

Review sample.


Miscellaneous:

Just like on the ER2XR as well as ER4XR, “XR” stands for “Extended Response”, indicating a moderately boosted bass compared to the flatter tuned SE (respectively SR) models.

The ER3 series IEMs are basically similar to the ER4 series, but with lower impedance and higher sensitivity (hence slightly different (darker) frequency response in stock form), different/less accessories (small instead of large carrying/storage case, shorter cable), manufactured at a different facility, don’t come with the new ER4 series’ “certificate of performance”, and, in theory, have less strict quality control/driver matching compared to the ER4 series, although even Etymotic stated that most ER3 units would easily pass ER4 series standards, but unlike on the more expensive, more pro-user targeted ER4 series, they couldn’t guarantee for this (at least in case of the ER3SE and ER3XR that I have on hand, I can say that these two would definitely and flawlessly pass ER4 series quality control and driver matching standards).

Come with the same accessories as the ER3SE and ER2 series (same small pouch case as that of my ER-4S and the ER3 series, one pair of green replacement filters along with a filter removal tool made of metal, one shirt clip, one pair of cylindrical foam tips, and last but not lest two pairs of differently sized silicone tips – that’s definitely a bit disappointing compared to the new ER4 series’ ampler amount of accessories, but overall still okay).

Small shells that are made of metal and similar to those of the ER4 series, however matte/satin black instead of stainless steel blue.
Build quality seems to be very good.
It’s nice that each shell has the serial number as well as model number on it in white (the same is true for the ER2 and new ER4 series in-ears).

Removable cables with non-rotating (small notch that prevents that) MMCX connectors.
Y-splitter that’s made of metal, too.
A chin-slider is present.
Cable shorter than the one that comes with the ER4 series in-ears and with straight instead of twisted conductors above the y-splitters.
Side indicators unfortunately only small and difficult to see in dimly lit environments – coloured indicators would have been better.
Fairly supple and flexible cable.
Rather high microphonics when worn down, but that can be fixed by guiding the cable over the ears and using the chin-slider (or alternatively using the included shirt clip).

One Balanced Armature driver per side.

Sound:

Largest included triple-flange silicone tips, modified so that they create a seal in my large ear canals while still maintaining the original ear tip length (achieved by cutting off the smallest flange and putting it onto the nozzle first, followed by the remaining double-flange rest of the tip).

Tonality:

Gentle bass elevation with fairly diffuse-field-oriented (but slightly milder) midrange and treble neutrality.
Basically just like the ER4XR, albeit ultimately slightly warmer in the fundamental range and slightly darker in the treble.

Flat and neutral midrange and treble along with a bass elevation that starts in the middle root around 600 Hz and climbs gradually towards the midbass and sub-bass where the highest quantity with about 4.5 dB higher level compared to the ER4SR is reached. Therefore the lows carry a mild warmth without really adding any colouration to the midrange yet.

Performing sine sweeps and listening to music, the midrange and treble sound very flat and even to me, which is something that is rare and achieved by only very few in-ears wherefore the ER3XR, just like the ER2 and ER4 series models, also sound highly realistic. Solely the 7 kHz area features a moderate recession to my ears, but this is something that is not really audible when listening to music.
Compared to absolutely uncompromised flat neutral, the highs are generally slightly but evenly in the background by around 2.5 dB, which is why the ER3XR sound a little darker and more relaxed/less “uncompromised lifeless neutral” in the highs when compared to the ER4SR or my ER-4S.

Frequency Response:

ER-4S-Compensation

The ER3XR were measured with the non-modified triple-flange ear tips in both graphs as I did not save the other measurements and didn’t bother to re-measure them. Due to the resulting slightly different insertion depth into the coupler, the graphs shows a bit less upper treble quantity than the ER3XR would actually have.

ProPhile 8-Compensation

Resolution:

One could assume that the ER3XR are inferior to the ER4 series in-ears, while in fact they are not and actually perform equally well.

The ER3XR also offer very good speech intelligibility and are capable of rendering small details very well wherefore they sound transparent and are among the very best single-BA in-ears that I know.
Separation of single notes in the high frequency range is precise.
The bass is fast as well as tight; solely fast and complex passages lead to it becoming slightly less clean sounding while separation remains intact and while it doesn’t appear soft yet.

While the resolution, transparency and headroom of some more expensive multi-BA in-ears isn’t reached by the ER3XR, they are nonetheless among the most capable single-BA models on the market and generally don’t need to fear most good multi-BA in-ears in the 500$ range either.

Soundstage:

The ER3XRs’ soundstage is neither the smallest nor the largest, but represents average dimensions and appears a little wider than deep to my ears, yet has a good amount of spatial depth and is well-layered. This makes the imaginary soundstage appear realistic and, in particular, coherent to the listener.

The placement of instruments (imaging) is very precise and spatial smear/blur is avoided, although the ER3SE perform even a tad better in a direct comparison.

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

Comparisons:

Etymotic ER4XR:

The tonal differences between the ER3XR and ER4XR are less pronounced than between the ER3SE and ER4SR (at least when it comes to the units that I have on hand), which is why the ER3XR and ER4XR could be described as almost identical since the tonal differences between the two in-ears are about as small as the channel matching differences between in-ears of most other manufacturers are (and hereby I’m not referring to clearly mismatched models but rather in-ears that measure with a really, really tight channel matching).
That said, in the mid- and low bass, both in-ears’ tuning is the same. Only in the upper bass and fundamental range, the ER3XR have got a little more warmth and impact in comparison.
The ER3XR are only slightly less present in the presence area/upper mids than the ER4XR.
Solely around 6 and 7 kHz, there is a “more obvious” difference between the two: the ER3XR are a bit more relaxed here.
In the upper highs, the ER3XR are again a little more relaxed which can be heard in the reproduction of cymbals, although only slightly.

As a result, I consider the ER3XR the “better” alternative to the ER4XR due to their virtually similar resolution performance and only small tonal differences – solely for users who intend to use the in-ears for actual music production, the higher price for the ER4XR could still be worth it in the end because of their ultimately ever so slightly higher flatness/accuracy in the fundamental range and upper frequencies, provided that what one is looking for is a set of in-ears with a compensation for the viscerally perceived mechanical vibrations in the lows, which the XR models somewhat compensate for with their mild bass elevation compared to the SR/S/SE models that are tuned for an uncompromised flat neutral bass output without any tuning compensation for the lack of perceived mechanical vibrations that are absent on headphones and in-ears when compared to speakers in a room, but in the end that’s definitely a matter of personal perception/preference and how easily one’s brain can adapt to that “lack” when using headphones/in-ears (mine does easily).
So, to summarise, the ER3XR, compared to the ER4XR, are slightly warmer in the fundamental range, and slightly darker in the treble, but otherwise similarly tuned.
When it comes to details and resolution, both in-ears perform on an equal level – the absolutely only difference in a direct comparison is that the ER3XR appear minimally softer in bass, but this impression disappears when one lowers their lower fundamental range and upper bass slightly, which brings them exactly to ER4XR levels in this area.

Both in-ears’ imaging is equally precise and realistic, with equally good layering and separation of the imaginary events.
The ER4XR seem to have slightly more perceived spatial width, but this impression comes only from their slightly louder upper treble compared to the ER3XR.

Conclusion:

Highly Recommended.

Generally great sounding and superbly tuned (smooth neutral, even and very realistic with mild bass elevation) single-BA in-ears with high technical capabilities.
I even consider the ER3XR the better/more reasonable alternative to the ER4XR as long as one doesn’t need the slightly higher midrange and treble accuracy (in stock form), more/better accessories and cable, and individually hand-matched drivers that are accompanied by a channel matching/performance certificate.


Photos: