Red vs. Blue: Scarlet and the Maestros (part 2)
Mini vs. Tribrids
Happy Friday FATfreq Fam! It’s time for part 2 of my comparison gamut between the new Scarlet Mini and the Maestro series. For part 1, where I compared Scarlet Mini directly to Maestro Mini, please see the previous post at
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/fat...ad-bass-cannons-and-more.964743/post-17790469 - this time around we’ll be comparing the Scarlet Mini to the two top end Tribrid IEMs: the Maestro SE (MSE) and Grand Maestro (GM).
(left to right: FATfreq Maestro Mini, Scarlet Mini, Maestro SE, Grand Maestro CIEM)
Unfair? Absolutely, but everybody loves a good story of David vs. Goliath, and more importantly it's good to understand how the addition of Scarlet affects the value prospect of the higher end models from FATfreq. Furthermore, the Scarlet features a new “Hypertweeter” balanced armature driver that is pegged to compete with electret (EST) drivers in the high frequencies which is interesting to qualify through listening.
Technical
My GM and MSE are pushing a year old now at the time of this post. My GM in particular is something of a prototype, they had not yet finalized the standard artwork for instance (so rather than FATfreq on the R piece, it should have the 16th note Semiquaver). In any case, newer MSEs and GMs have similar recessed 2 pin port to the Scarlet as was discussed previously. Instead, we’ll focus on the substantial fit differences and how this affects the product strategy.
And the “mini” name starts to make more sense…
The MSE and GM are both 12 driver Tribrids, featuring configurations of 1 Dynamic Driver for bass, 7 Balanced Armature for mids and 4 Electret EST drivers for highs. As you can see, compared to the 3 driver hybrid configuration in the pair of Minis, this takes a TON of space to fit. The body size on the MSE and GM are substantially larger, and I have found the Uni MSE to be a relatively hard IEM to fit.
MSE (left) and Scarlet (right)
This is a nice illustration of the fundamental trade off at play in driver configuration. A smaller footprint allows for housing that is compact enough to get the drivers themselves deeply inserted into the ear, whereas the Tribrids need an acoustic feed (tubes etc) to route the sound into your canal. The “bang for your buck” per driver is dominated by proximity to the ear drum, so the Mini’s 3 drivers hit far harder than the corresponding trio would back in the larger housing. We’ll talk more about the sonic implications in the Sound Off up next.
Of course, a time tested strategy for dealing with larger driver configurations and the ensuing volume is to opt for a Custom IEM (CIEM) shell. FATfreq began as a custom shop, and retain a strong tradition of CIEM design and manufacturing.
Scarlet Mini (left) and Grand Maestro CIEM (right)
This removes the fit variable, and makes for the ideal comparison vs. the deeply inserted drivers of the mini.
Sensitivity wise, both Tribrids require SUBSTANTIALLY more power than the Minis (like 10+ dB, basically a higher gain mode). I quite like hard to drive IEMs as it gives lots of flexibility for amplification. Fortunately the Minis are not exceptionally sensitive and are not prone to over saturation (background hissing) on any of my amps or DAP.
Sound Off
The MSE exemplifies the Maestro ultra tucked sub bass shelf plus reference tuning, that FATfreq have become famous for. In its upper mids and lower treble, it features a relatively textbook diffused field tuning, sounding a bit boring and reference like - until there’s content sub 150 Hz. Unlike the Maestro Mini, there’s no niggling minor timbral offset and it produces a clean, even slightly lean overall profile.
This starkly contrasts the mids/lower treble on the Scarlet that as previously mentioned are subdued to minimize the tuning impact and maximize apparent bass.
In combination with the much higher upper bass of the Scarlet, this means that the MSE sounds very cool and lean in comparison. Folks that found MSE slightly boring would do well to give the brand another chance with Scarlet.
Sub bass can get tricky to qualify at these high amplitude levels. But the Scarlet has notably more sub impact and presence than the MSE, which used to be my sub bass high water mark. It’s not something that requires focus or extensive comparison to qualify like the GM vs. MSE either… it’s quite immediately evident that Scarlet is the new Bass king.
Up high, true to their marketing FATfreq’s new Hypertweeter is definitely passing on detail and air comparably to the EST’s in the MSE. Unfortunately, because of the noted subdued mids, the extra treble energy seems a bit off for me on the Scarlet… with the ear gain profile of the MSE it makes sense and is part of a pleasant complete spectrum, but with Scarlet it kind of pops out of nowhere.
I can appreciate the challenge FATfreq faced here, bringing out details like this while sharing the stage with elephantine levels of bass is no easy task I’d imagine. Still, there’s no denying that the MSE’s EST drivers sound natural and impressive whereas the Hypertweeter although capable feels a bit gimmicky in the context of the Scarlet’s tuning.
The GM takes the tribrid configuration present in the MSE and adds a pressure equalization and tuning module that FATfreq call NOAH, as well as a tuning switch that allows you to deactivate the bass shelf in what they call "vocal boost" mode. To simplify comparison, I will be referencing the GM’s black, non vocal mode, which is the most similar to the MSE and Scarlet. The flexibility with the Blue (and tbd) NOAH modules and switch is a huge value prospect for the GM, but is outside the scope of this discussion.
Here, however, is where things got truly unfair… the equalized pressure is absolutely transformative in the quality of bass produced. I’ll just directly quote my notes here: “Unfair. Bass is less voluminous but eminently more textured. With equalized pressure, a transient process is revealed. Detail has delineation and edginess without sharpness.”
After A/B between GM and Scarlet, I absentmindedly kept the GM in ear afterwards and just kept listening for the entire album. Such a wonderful IEM.
Particularly with the SPL produced for the level of Subbass present in MSE and even more so Scarlet, having pressure equalization like on the GM with Black filter removes fatigue and allows our ears to extract more detail than I thought was possible at <50 Hz.
WIth the semi open cleanliness generally, the ESTs in the GM also particularly shine. They are more emphasized than on the MSE but with the open clarity I generally don’t find it objectionable. It lets them get away pushing a lot more detail than I would generally like in traditional unvented designs.
End of Line?
It’s truly impressive what the team at FATfreq have pulled off with Scarlet. It has a focus of purpose that allows it to achieve new heights in bass, not just for IEMs but for home audio period. This directivity comes at the cost of flexibility… certainly more so than their existing Maestro peers.
Compared to FATfreq’s existing TOTL models, the Scarlet doesn’t disrupt things too much, rather provides a welcome capable specialist to the selection. While the absolute sub bass king title of the MSE is now Red’s to own, the MSE’s textbook overall execution is still outstanding and well worth the cost of entry (both dollar and fit)! The GM’s equalized pressure venting is surprisingly effective for bass oriented tunings. The extra comfort and detail it brings make the concession to the bass level on the Scarlet remain palatable.
The right driver in the wrong place…
The entire experience has left me dreaming of a vented “Scarlet turbo”, that combines the proximal driver benefits of the mini with the incredible textural delivery of the GM's venting. The open clarity might also shed a more flattering light on the hyper tweeter too in the process. Even as one reaches new summits of experience in this hobby, it is a good thing to keep dreaming
Bonus Round: Bass for the Ages
Does the Scarlet bass transcend topology?
In my spare time, when not greedily stuffing my ears with as many IEMs as possible, I maintain a collection of Fostex Biodyna TOTL headphones (TH900m2 Red, TH900m2 Pearl White, TH909, TrX Ebony). These models are Fostex’ own premium take on the evergreen Biodyna OEM models (EMu, Denon D2000/5000/7000 etc). In addition to the biocellulose driver’s exceptional low distortion (same tech that was in the legendary Sony MDR-R10), they are also notorious for their strong bass performance. The TH900 Red in particular remains a Bass head’s staple for over ear.
I was curious how the Reds would compare head to head, for Science
To cut to the chase,
yes the Scarlet has more bass than the TH900. It’s not close. But it’s also not as far off as one would think looking at the frequency responses. But if you convinced a “normie” in your life to try both, they wouldn’t hesitate to tell you the Scarlet has more bass, even if they struggled to tell you exactly why.
The sensation of bass with IEMs is fundamentally different to on-ear. The haptics of over ear produces a lot of intrinsic bone conduction. This occurrs from the headphone’s mechanical surface touching your skin (pads and clamp), while also being coupled to the driver. You can think of this as a huge version of FIR’s Kinetic Bass, that envelopes your whole ear. The concept of “slam” makes more sense in this context. The driver and haptic response are literally barraging the side of your head with Bass energy.
For IEMs, like Scarlet, the internal nature of the source is very evident. It feels like there is a sub-woofer in my ear canal and the bass energy is trying to explode outward. There’s much less area for natural BCD around the canal. Factor in the higher acoustic impedance IEMs face in low frequencies, and a picture where you need to add 5-10 dB of bass boost to an IEM for the same
apparent bass level starts to make sense.
So no, I’m not listing my Fostex in the classifieds any time soon, but YES the Scarlet Mini produces bass at a much higher level - even notable beyond the dramatic perceptual differences discussed.
