Introducing the FATfreq x Effect Audio: Quantum

[Random Lunatic]

I never tried the Timeless 2, I tried the Timeless 1 and honestly these are way better. There is not even comparison…

Yeah, without the EA cable they would go down quite a lot and into “reasonable” territory for a lot of people who obviously don’t want to splurge that amount of money on an IEM.

Well, that's good - Do you have the timeless 1 on hand, or heard it in the past, out of curiosity?

 

[Or1onSLi]

Well, that's good - Do you have the timeless 1 on hand, or heard it in the past, out of curiosity?

I have the Timeless 1 in my collection as a reference for planars, but I barely use it. I might now put it back in the box for good.

The fact is that so far Planars have always been similar for what matters and under a certain budget. So I agree with your concerns. It might be the hype of the new buy, but I feel that the Quantum is different enough (especially in the bass and mids) to be considered a significant improvement without spending A64 or Campfire kind of money.

I will give myself time to either confirm or correct my opinion but so far I would say: if you can, give it a chance. This IEM shines with a decent amount of power, so throw at it the best amp you have.

 

[Random Lunatic]

I have the Timeless 1 in my collection as a reference for planars, but I barely use it. I might now put it back in the box for good.

The fact is that so far Planars have always been similar for what matters and under a certain budget. So I agree with your concerns. It might be the hype of the new buy, but I feel that the Quantum is different enough (especially in the bass and mids) to be considered a significant improvement without spending A64 or Campfire kind of money.

I will give myself time to either confirm or correct my opinion but so far I would say: if you can, give it a chance. This IEM shines with a decent amount of power, so throw at it the best amp you have.

Well, let's see - both the other fatfreq IEMs I've tried were good (Scarlet and Deuce), so they seem to know what they're doing, ignoring price. And whilst they're more similar than not (based on the one graph of them out there at the moment), I'd give you, the differences are big enough, and unique enough, that I can definitely understand having preference for one over the other.
I'm definitely considering getting them - I think the reson I'm quite critical of them is exactly because there is a lot I like about them, just some minor things I'd like to change if I could (some if it relating to the aesthetics/looks, as I'm an industrial designer, so I'm always extra picky with that).

 

[d m41n man]

Just got mine. It does sound a tad wider and faster on the Eros S II. Overall, I am loving this along with the ET142 in the planar IEM space. Effortless and engaging in busy tracks. With Ares S II, there's a bit more thickness and note weight but A-B, sounded faster and more detailed with Eros.

 

[audioaura]

Well, let's see - both the other fatfreq IEMs I've tried were good (Scarlet and Deuce), so they seem to know what they're doing, ignoring price. And whilst they're more similar than not (based on the one graph of them out there at the moment), I'd give you, the differences are big enough, and unique enough, that I can definitely understand having preference for one over the other.
I'm definitely considering getting them - I think the reson I'm quite critical of them is exactly because there is a lot I like about them, just some minor things I'd like to change if I could (some if it relating to the aesthetics/looks, as I'm an industrial designer, so I'm always extra picky with that).

Totally fair—being critical usually means you’re almost sold! And yeah, FatFreq clearly knows their stuff (Scarlet and Deuce were solid). Curious though—what would you tweak in the aesthetics? I kind of like their bold, sci-fi vibe, but I get that as a designer you might see things differently. Sound-wise, are your gripes more personal taste or things you'd change for anyone?

 

[Random Lunatic]

Totally fair—being critical usually means you’re almost sold! And yeah, FatFreq clearly knows their stuff (Scarlet and Deuce were solid). Curious though—what would you tweak in the aesthetics? I kind of like their bold, sci-fi vibe, but I get that as a designer you might see things differently. Sound-wise, are your gripes more personal taste or things you'd change for anyone?

As far as sound, its of course hard/near impossible to say without having actually heard them - main areas of concern/curiosity would be:
- Treble peaks, common to planars, and these appear to be no different - but hopefully they've managed to integrate it better.
- The ear gain seems to rise quite early (1khz-2khz) which might just make them sound more intense, but could be an issue for some, making them sound unnatural.
- Bass tuning does not stand out as much from other IEMs (case in point with the Timeless) as I've compe to expect from FatFreq.

All these might be non-issues in practice. Just my thoughts about it. The deviations are very much small enough to potentially just be personal taste. I would just expect it to be a bit more uniquely FatFreq for that price - it mostly appears to just be standard fare for the 200$ planar IEM market

As far as design, it would take some actual design process to really get into it, but some immedeately clear things:
- Collaborating with a cable manufacturer, I would expect the cable to match the IEM, meaning same surface finish/colour/material on fittings, meaning either use brushed metal or rough black finish from the IEM on the cable's fittings, or use the cables metal finish on the IEM, to get consistency, so they look like they belong together, rather than just a random aftermarket cable.
- In the same sense pick a wire type/finish that matches the IEM, fx. black, silver or the like.
- Ensure the cable connection actually fits/integrates with the housing, since they knew exactly which connector/cable, I'd expect the cable to fit well, not leacing a big gap.
- The IEM itself could do with some better integration/assembly lines between the brushed metal, the black and the grille on there. Currently the brushed metal part looks a bit like a stamped metal shell that is somewhat haphazardly integrated, making it look cheaper than it is. Same with the mesh in the center being a completely different finish, possibly an off-the-shelf part, making it draw unfavorable attention to itself.
I'd also question the beats by dre reminiscent shape in general...

These are just some off the top of my head notes, but as mentioned before, it would take some actual design work to really figure out whats wrong and how to improve that.
I agree with you though; I like the overall rough/industrial look of it, I just think it could be refined and executed a bit better, wouldn't want to lose the general energy of the design.
I think their limited Grand Maestro with a similar style is better executed - but different.

 

[Or1onSLi]

As far as sound, its of course hard/near impossible to say without having actually heard them - main areas of concern/curiosity would be:
- Treble peaks, common to planars, and these appear to be no different - but hopefully they've managed to integrate it better.
- The ear gain seems to rise quite early (1khz-2khz) which might just make them sound more intense, but could be an issue for some, making them sound unnatural.
- Bass tuning does not stand out as much from other IEMs (case in point with the Timeless) as I've compe to expect from FatFreq.

All these might be non-issues in practice. Just my thoughts about it. The deviations are very much small enough to potentially just be personal taste. I would just expect it to be a bit more uniquely FatFreq for that price - it mostly appears to just be standard fare for the 200$ planar IEM market

As far as design, it would take some actual design process to really get into it, but some immedeately clear things:
- Collaborating with a cable manufacturer, I would expect the cable to match the IEM, meaning same surface finish/colour/material on fittings, meaning either use brushed metal or rough black finish from the IEM on the cable's fittings, or use the cables metal finish on the IEM, to get consistency, so they look like they belong together, rather than just a random aftermarket cable.
- In the same sense pick a wire type/finish that matches the IEM, fx. black, silver or the like.
- Ensure the cable connection actually fits/integrates with the housing, since they knew exactly which connector/cable, I'd expect the cable to fit well, not leacing a big gap.
- The IEM itself could do with some better integration/assembly lines between the brushed metal, the black and the grille on there. Currently the brushed metal part looks a bit like a stamped metal shell that is somewhat haphazardly integrated, making it look cheaper than it is. Same with the mesh in the center being a completely different finish, possibly an off-the-shelf part, making it draw unfavorable attention to itself.
I'd also question the beats by dre reminiscent shape in general...

These are just some off the top of my head notes, but as mentioned before, it would take some actual design work to really figure out whats wrong and how to improve that.
I agree with you though; I like the overall rough/industrial look of it, I just think it could be refined and executed a bit better, wouldn't want to lose the general energy of the design.
I think their limited Grand Maestro with a similar style is better executed - but different.

- The GMA it’s also 5 times more expensive. It is something to consider. I can say that I am 35yo so that treble peak over 15KHz is something I can’t phisically hear anymore…and everything before that sounds smoother than expected by looking at the graph. It has to be considered that physics cannot be defeated, so ineherent properties of the type of driver will always be there, no matter what. They spoke about implementing an Helmholtz resonating chamber in the IEM, if I got that info correct, that might be what helps taming peaks before 15KHz but from there on is not doing anything, looking at the graph.

- The cable connection fits perfectly, accommodating the huge connector of the EA cable means pretty much killing compatibility with other cables…so I would probably think two times about what I would wish for in this case

- the design is really weird and divisive…so I really get your criticism of some parts of it…but it is a lot better in hands…and comfortable for my ears so I was lucky with it!

BTW I think that every smooth q looks like a b turned upside-down…it doesn’t remind me of Beats really, Beats has a specific font weight and colour (red) in its logo that makes that different enough IMO.

 

[Random Lunatic]

The GMA it’s also 5 times more expensive. It is something to consider. I can say that I am 35yo so that treble peak over 15KHz is something I can’t phisically hear anymore…and everything before that sounds smoother than expected by looking at the graph. It has to be considered that physics cannot be defeated, so ineherent properties of the type of driver will always be there, no matter what. They spoke about implementing an Helmholtz resonating chamber in the IEM, if I got that info correct, that might be what helps taming peaks before 15KHz but from there on is not doing anything, looking at the graph.

- The cable connection fits perfectly, accommodating the huge connector of the EA cable means pretty much killing compatibility with other cables…so I would probably think two times about what I would wish for in this case

- the design is really weird and divisive…so I really get your criticism of some parts of it…but it is a lot better in hands…and comfortable for my ears so I was lucky with it!

BTW I think that every smooth q looks like a b turned upside-down…it doesn’t remind me of Beats really, Beats has a specific font weight and colour (red) in its logo that makes that different enough IMO.

That’s fair, though I don’t think relying on hearing damage in tuning is a good idea I’m near the same, and would like to keep my hearing well above that. Jokes aside, of course good to hear that the sound is good - and this is just one measurement ofc, so who Knows how correct it is - will need to see more out there.

And I agree it’s a problem on the part of effect audio, not FatFreq with regards to the connection. I’ve written to effect audio about it before - their long bulky connections tend to ruin the fit/ergonomics of anything I’ve tried them on.

I know what you mean with regards to the letter q itself. I’m somewhat torn in it myself.

 

[Or1onSLi]

That’s fair, though I don’t think relying on hearing damage in tuning is a good idea I’m near the same, and would like to keep my hearing well above that. Jokes aside, of course good to hear that the sound is good - and this is just one measurement ofc, so who Knows how correct it is - will need to see more out there.

And I agree it’s a problem on the part of effect audio, not FatFreq with regards to the connection. I’ve written to effect audio about it before - their long bulky connections tend to ruin the fit/ergonomics of anything I’ve tried them on.

I know what you mean with regards to the letter q itself. I’m somewhat torn in it myself.

Not hearing over 15KHz after 35 years of age is called normal aging…is not hearing damage. I can assure you I am very healthy in that department

I think that the main issue with weird designs is that in this hobby, unless being able to attend CanJam or being lucky enough to live near a boutique retailer that has all the models we are forced to take a leap of faith and hope for the best, or that the item will retain enough value to be a good resell.

Especially when buying directly from China/Singapore where the 14days return policy doesn’t exist.

 

[Golyatx]

I heard them today. The 8khz peak is real, but I am very sensitive in this area, so probably wont bother too much for others. Other than that, I was very surprised by its sound. They sound really great. Best bass I have ever heard, best quality/quantity, REALLY well done. Mids and vocals are damn clean, wow. Just the little 8khz peak, but I am really sensitive to it and maybe it could be fixed with tips as those are somewhat tip dependant because of its fit. It might be on my wishlist now.

 

[MakeItWain]

Hi all, here to share my review of the FatFreq x Effect Audio Quantum.

It does live up to the hype of what I originally really enjoyed.

Pros: Details galore, top to bottom
Gentle U/balanced sound signature
Bass is deep, punchy, natural sounding - timbre of the bass sounds as close to a DD but with the planar detail, attack, speed (with more natural decay)
Mids are clear, clean - vocals excel and instruments are absolutely detailed.
Treble is energetic, lively but very controlled despite how it graphs. Not harsh at all
Technical performance is excellent, detail and resolution is well done
Modules have a varying impact on tuning to allow for listeners to customize their listening experience
Effect Audio cable is excellent, Ares S II works well with Quantum
Super responsive to sources and cables (Tubes + Quantum = Amazing), cable rolling was noticeable.

Cons: Harder to drive, really likes power
Neutralheads may not like the extra bass emphasis
Looks - some people don't like the 'Beats' logo look or the brushed silver. I don't mind it but seems to be a like it or hate it situation
Fit - shape is slightly irregular, longer stem ear tips work best for me

Overall: 5/5. This is so guuuuud.

 

[xrhk]

Anyone tried pairing Quantum with Effect's new cable -- AxC?
Wonder if they works well together, or Eros S II remains its place.

 

[EnigmaFotos]

Hi all, here to share my review of the FatFreq x Effect Audio Quantum.

It does live up to the hype of what I originally really enjoyed.

Pros: Details galore, top to bottom
Gentle U/balanced sound signature
Bass is deep, punchy, natural sounding - timbre of the bass sounds as close to a DD but with the planar detail, attack, speed (with more natural decay)
Mids are clear, clean - vocals excel and instruments are absolutely detailed.
Treble is energetic, lively but very controlled despite how it graphs. Not harsh at all
Technical performance is excellent, detail and resolution is well done
Modules have a varying impact on tuning to allow for listeners to customize their listening experience
Effect Audio cable is excellent, Ares S II works well with Quantum
Super responsive to sources and cables (Tubes + Quantum = Amazing), cable rolling was noticeable.

Cons: Harder to drive, really likes power
Neutralheads may not like the extra bass emphasis
Looks - some people don't like the 'Beats' logo look or the brushed silver. I don't mind it but seems to be a like it or hate it situation
Fit - shape is slightly irregular, longer stem ear tips work best for me

Overall: 5/5. This is so guuuuud.

A man is in love. Legion and Quantum hit 5’s

Great time to be alive

 

[MakeItWain]

A man is in love. Legion and Quantum hit 5’s

Great time to be alive

Living in a great time that's just absolutely filled with amazing sets.

 

[Idahodoc]

As far as sound, its of course hard/near impossible to say without having actually heard them - main areas of concern/curiosity would be:
- Treble peaks, common to planars, and these appear to be no different - but hopefully they've managed to integrate it better.
- The ear gain seems to rise quite early (1khz-2khz) which might just make them sound more intense, but could be an issue for some, making them sound unnatural.
- Bass tuning does not stand out as much from other IEMs (case in point with the Timeless) as I've compe to expect from FatFreq.

All these might be non-issues in practice. Just my thoughts about it. The deviations are very much small enough to potentially just be personal taste. I would just expect it to be a bit more uniquely FatFreq for that price - it mostly appears to just be standard fare for the 200$ planar IEM market

As far as design, it would take some actual design process to really get into it, but some immedeately clear things:
- Collaborating with a cable manufacturer, I would expect the cable to match the IEM, meaning same surface finish/colour/material on fittings, meaning either use brushed metal or rough black finish from the IEM on the cable's fittings, or use the cables metal finish on the IEM, to get consistency, so they look like they belong together, rather than just a random aftermarket cable.
- In the same sense pick a wire type/finish that matches the IEM, fx. black, silver or the like.
- Ensure the cable connection actually fits/integrates with the housing, since they knew exactly which connector/cable, I'd expect the cable to fit well, not leacing a big gap.
- The IEM itself could do with some better integration/assembly lines between the brushed metal, the black and the grille on there. Currently the brushed metal part looks a bit like a stamped metal shell that is somewhat haphazardly integrated, making it look cheaper than it is. Same with the mesh in the center being a completely different finish, possibly an off-the-shelf part, making it draw unfavorable attention to itself.
I'd also question the beats by dre reminiscent shape in general...

These are just some off the top of my head notes, but as mentioned before, it would take some actual design work to really figure out whats wrong and how to improve that.
I agree with you though; I like the overall rough/industrial look of it, I just think it could be refined and executed a bit better, wouldn't want to lose the general energy of the design.
I think their limited Grand Maestro with a similar style is better executed - but different.

I have the Timeless 1, and it is also interesting, but I find it less resolving and thinner, with poorer bass, poorer treble, and not as good mids. Some might come from what we see in these graphs, but much of the difference likely lies in other elements of their execution, including possibly a different driver or the same driver with tweaks. They certainly have some secret sauce that makes their IEMs very effective.

I had given up listening to the Timeless 1 because my other units were better balanced, tonally, and timbrally. But the Quantum beats all those units!

Weirdly, the Quantum is making me look again at the Grand Maestro. However, I do not see this one leaving my rotation.

However, be aware of recency biases, which are psychoacoustic. So if I grab my Monarch mkIII alone, it sounds slightly treble biased with good mids and decent bass. When I listen to it after the Quantum, it sounds shrill, with bad bass and exaggerated mids. The Quantum is, to me, the more realistic device. The MkIII is not bad, but it is different. Everything seems different!