I've spent the past couple days comparing Custom Art's mystery prototype against their most recent releases (bar the FIBAE ME and FIBAE 1, which I'm sure my fellow colleagues will cover) and these are the impressions that have come up from it. Enjoy!
vs. Custom Art FIBAE 2
The FIBAE 2 and the prototype are probably the furthest apart in technical performance. The clearest discrepancy between the two is in midrange resolution and background blackness.The FIBAE 2 is rather diffuse-sounding because of an evident 3-4kHz dip, so the majority of vocal energy lies in the chesty 2kHz range. The prototype has the opposite problem, where a peak at 3kHz leaves it sounding rather saturated. Ideally, I’d love the prototype's 3kHz peak attenuated, but not to the extent of the FIBAE 2. As we’ll explore soon with the FIBAE 3 and the Harmony 8.2, the common distinction that the prototype has over its siblings is its black background and stage organisation. Of the four, the prototype has the cleanest, most stable stage despite its relatively laid-back treble. Clearly, this is because of treble extension. Unfortunately, the FIBAE 2 - like the Harmony 8.2 - rolls off around 10kHz, so its ambience is warm and euphonic, which limits its resolution, transparency and dynamic range relative to the prototype. Additionally, its mid-bass comes across less controlled as well. The FIBAE 2’s low-end has always been known for its fun-factor and warmth, but the prototype certainly takes the cake in clarity, layering and tone. Despite my love for the FIBAE 2 as a value proposition, the prototype simply outclasses it for me in technical performance and tonal balance. The latter’s vocal presence, clarity, spatial properties and bass quality simply make it a better IEM by a significant margin. I believe our time is better spent discussing the next couple comparisons in further detail.
vs. Custom Art FIBAE 3
The largest discrepancy between the two in-ears is timbre. Besides being a tad brighter in tone, the FIBAE 3 has crisper transients and thinner notes. This is because of its upper-treble lift and its subdued mid-bass. The prototype has a much fuller, richer low-end, which gives its instruments a thicker, bolder profile. However, the prototype actually has more solid articulation, because of the FIBAE 3’s noticeable 5kHz dip. So, open hi-hats for example sound like a proper
tshhh tshhh on the prototype, while they sound like a diffuse
ffff ffff on the FIBAE 3. Down low, the prototype’s bass slams harder and decays a touch more too, while its melodic-ness gives bass instruments more character and three-dimensionality in tone as well. Again, the FIBAE 3’s peaks and dips - along the lower-treble especially - are much more pronounced than the prototype’s; the former having an obvious 5kHz dip and an 8kHz peak. As a result, the FIBAE 3 comes across less coherent, while the prototype is more linear and uniform in hue. The FIBAE 3’s 10-12ish kHz peak also gives it a more apparent sense of immediate clarity, while the prototype chooses to be smoother and more refined. Obviously, this also means the prototype has a more natural tone; a touch warmer than neutral. But, it also clearly wins out in resolution and transparency. Notes decay quicker along a blacker background, so you can detect more micro-detail and nuance. Additionally, although stage size is similar, the prototype resolves further depth-wise. So, you can almost visualise the soundscape around and behind the note, which makes instruments sound more three-dimensional and holographic. You can only do the former with the FIBAE 3 before you hit the noise floor.
vs. Custom Art Harmony 8.2
The Harmony 8.2 is a closer match versus the prototype, because of similarities in bass tone, midrange structure and vocal positioning. But, there are several key differences between them as well, beginning with the stage. The Harmony 8.2’s greatest weakness has always been background blackness and instrument organisation. Because it begins to roll off around 10kHz, warm air constantly infests its stage, hurting its resolution as well as its dynamic range. The stage it presents is also wide but flat - choosing to separate along the x-axis - which, to me, is slightly unrealistic. The prototype, by comparison, has a much blacker background and a more stable stage. The air surrounding each note is much cleaner, so it comes across more transparent, dynamic and resolving. It also fans its instruments out more evenly along the spherical perimeter to create a more realistic, holographic and engaging soundscape. Though, to the Harmony 8.2’s credit, its warm air creates a more pleasing, euphonic response, while - as I mentioned in my first impressions - the prototype’s stage (while vast) can feel a bit empty because of its lack of bass extension. Speaking of the bass, the two share a similar tone down low. But, the prototype has more apparent resolution, texture and clarity, while the Harmony 8.2’s sounds bloomy-er and wetter by comparison. Additionally, the prototype’s bass is more sensitive to the track/mix in tone. Midrange structure is similar between the two as well, but the prototype - once again - has greater transparency because of a blacker background and superior depth-wise resolution. Also, it has more energy around 5-6kHz than the Harmony 8.2 for a brighter, more vibrant upper-midrange. Finally, the Harmony 8.2 has a more articulate and present 8kHz peak, so its transients are grainy-er and have more bite. The prototype is comparatively smoother here, but it’s also more refined, and clarity is compensated for by it black background. They’re similarly linear along the upper-treble, but the prototype extends where the Harmony 8.2 rolls off.