Tier 1C ($250-400)
(1C1) Audio-Technica ATH-CK10
Reviewed Jan 2010
Details: Audio-Technica’s diminutive Dual-armature earphone may not be its flagship, but it sure competes well with those of other manufacturers
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $399.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dual BA | Imp:
55 Ω | Sens:
107 dB | Freq:
20-15k Hz | Cable:
4' I-plug
Nozzle Size:
4mm | Preferred tips:
Sony Hybrids, De-cored Olives
Wear Style: Over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes), cleaning cloth, and oval clamshell hard case
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – Ever since I first laid my hands on the CK10 I have used it as my build quality benchmark for IEMs. The build is outstanding – rubber-covered metal housings with titanium faceplates look and feel indestructible. The cabling is soft and thick, terminated with a beefy 3.5mm I-plug. They’re not perfect (I prefer an L-plug and the strain reliefs could be better), but in most ways the build of the CK10 is what every other earphone needs to stack up to
Isolation
(4/5) – With the proper tips the tiny CK10 can be inserted very deeply, providing impressive levels of isolation
Microphonics
(5/5) – Microphonics are nonexistent in the cabling when worn cord-up and unnoticeable when worn cord-down
Comfort
(5/5) – The tiny round housings rest inside the ear when the CK10s are worn cord-up, but contrary to the way they were designed the CK10 can be worn cord-down as well. Either way they are impossible comfortable and simply disappear when donned, but wearing them cord-up allows for deeper insertion
Sound
(9.2/10) – I’ve always done my reviews on a comparative scale, with the perfect score in each category going to the best performer I’d encountered to date. The CK10 has been and still is my SQ benchmark for IEM reviews. The CK10 is as close to a perfectly balanced earphone as I have heard. The low end is smooth, tight, and extended. It is detailed and well-textured, conveying plenty of information. Impact-wise the bass is medium-low on the grand scale, not much greater in quantity than an amped Ety ER4S, but more full-bodied. It is also impossibly quick - I sometimes get the feeling that the armatures on the CK10s could reproduce several different songs simultaneously and never miss a beat. Midrange detail and clarity are close to the ER4S but vocals have better air and a dimensional quality to them that the Etys lack. The treble is best described as being “sweet”, but not excessively so. The CK10s definitely sparkle at the high end and roll off very little - Audio-Technica was quite conservative with the specs on the CK10s, which is a welcome change from the optimistic “8-25k Hz” specifications I’ve been seeing get slapped on $20 earphones. Treble smoothness is top notch – harshness and sibilance are nearly imperceptible even on flawed recordings. Resolution and imaging are both excellent. Soundstaging is above average - though they don’t quite have the lateral width of the RE252, they have the RE0 and Phonaks beat in both depth and width. Transparency is also impressive - the CK10s are my earphones of choice for testing amps and sources. They add no color to the sound, allowing the properties of the source to shine through. That said, I find them more forgiving of poor quality source material than most other high-end IEMs.
Now for the qualifiers: the CK10s score very highly
with me at the moment of this writing. There are still many high-end IEMs I have not heard and the CK10 is definitely not for everyone – it does not have a thick, creamy midrange so the Shure faithful may be underwhelmed. The quantity of the bass will not satisfy a basshead’s uncouth craving – the TF10 is better suited there. They may also not be engaging enough for those who tend to get bored with balanced, neutral sound – like the RE0 but to a lesser degree they can be described as sounding ‘thin’ and lacking in body, though I find them to be quite energetic. Lastly, the treble sparkle can quite easily cross the line separating it from brightness for some people. A poor fit can exacerbate the problem.
Amping: Although the CK10s aren’t particularly efficient and do a good job of cutting down on hiss from sources such as the Amp3, they are not difficult too drive. There are small increases in speed, resolution, and bass slam when they are amped, but I often eschew an amp for the sake of portability when using the CK10s – they sound great straight from a portable player and take up no room at all being the one IEM I have no qualms about carrying around without a case.
Value
(8/10) – Upon release, the CK10 was Audio-Technica’s flagship and retailed at or near the $399 MSRP, but sold closer to $200 for most of its lifespan. With my personal affinity for its sound I’m tempted to say that it is still some of the best money one could spend. However, with budget and mid-range earphones constantly improving, it is becoming more and more difficult to make such statements. The RE0 still costs about 1/4 as much as the CK10. Is the RE0 1/4 of the earphone? Not to me. That said and this being head-fi, diminishing returns are an expectation. With that in mind, plus the fact that the CK10 is one of the most user-friendly IEMs around, I find the asking price quite justified.
Pros: Well-built, extremely comfortable, no microphonics, great clarity, detail, and imagine
Cons: Stock tips are underwhelming, flat bass won't please everyone
For a more in-depth review and comparisons to the Monster Turbine Pro Gold and Panasonic HJE900 see
here
(1C2) Ortofon e-Q7
Reviewed Apr 2010
Details: First IEM from Ortofon utilizing a new type of transducer
Current Price:
$320 from ebay.com (MSRP: ~$320)
Specs: Driver:
Moving Armature | Imp:
31 Ω | Sens:
117 dB | Freq:
10-20k Hz | Cable:
3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Sennheiser dual-flange
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(4.5/5) – Silicone single-flange (3 sizes) and Comply T400 tips, felt-lined storage case, leather carrying case, filter changing kit with two pairs of spare filters, and filter cleaning tool
Build Quality
(4/5) – Weighty aluminum shells with rubber strain reliefs feel rather solid. Cabling is in two parts (very similar to the original Lenntek Sonix), with a plastic sheath above the y-split and woven nylon below. Unfortunately, the large plastic strain relief on the 3.5mm plug is quite hard and unlikely to protect the cord. Also, there is no cord cinch and a small bump on the left-side strain relief takes the place of L/R markings
Isolation
(3.5/5) – The extremely short nozzle limits the insertion depth of the Ortofons by design. The IEMs are fully sealed, however, and isolation is still good
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Though minimal in the nylon-sheathed part of the cable, microphonics are present and bothersome in the plastic part above the y-split, where it counts. Wearing them over-the-ear solves the problem but isn’t as easy as with other IEMs due to the long housings
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The short nozzle of the Ortofons means that the housings are nearly flush with the ear canal when wearing all but the longest tips. For those with smaller ears this may be uncomfortable. In addition, the length and weight tend to torque the housings when wearing them cord-down and moving about. A set of cable guides would’ve been nice to make the Ortofons more over-the-ear-friendly
Sound
(9.1/10) – The sound signature of the e-Q7 takes on a peculiar mix of traits commonly ascribed to balanced armature and dynamic driver earphones. If blindfolded and given the e-Q7 for the first time, I would have attributed the sound to a dynamic driver, albeit a very clean and precise one. The overall tone of the IEM is just a tad on the warm side. Bass extension is impressive - not quite as deep as the dynamic-driver MTPG and Atrio M8s, but better than any armature-based earphone I’ve heard. Texturing across the range, but especially at the low end, is excellent, right up there with the best of the best. The bass is punchier than it is powerful but still boasts plenty of impact and great speed. The midrange is rich and full and acts as a unifying element, making the entire signature extremely coherent and musical. Similar to the Soundmagic PL50, the midrange seems to be the focus of the presentation with the e-Q7 despite not having any particular emphasis. The mids can sound a bit dry, almost grainy at times, and there is a tiny spike towards the upper midrange that can accentuate harshness already present in certain recordings, but I’ve really only noticed it a few times in the hundreds of tracks I’ve listened to using the e-Q7.
The treble, on the other hand, is very smooth and inoffensive. It is devoid of sibilance and harshness but also doesn’t feel as endless and effortless as, for example, the ATH-CK10 or RE0. Despite this, I wouldn’t call the e-Q7 laid-back or relaxed-sounding. They are highly resolving and detailed, resulting in an involving, attention-grabbing sound. Overall balance is excellent, with all signs pointing to the midrange but yet no lack of emphasis in the bass and treble. Soundstage width is impressive, falling right behind the RE252 in expansiveness. Depth is decent, but not class-leading. Instrumental separation, positioning, and imaging, however, are all excellent. I’ve also said before that being enjoyable at low volumes is one of the hallmarks of a great earphone for me and the e-Q7 handles the lowest listening volumes quite well. A note on amping – if planning to pair them with an amp (not a necessity in my view), make sure that your amp is at least neutral. The e-Q7 does not play well with warm amps such as my iBasso T4; it actually pairs better with my new Rocoon RC-1, which is rather neutral, and the mini3, but neither is a significant enough improvement to warrant using.
Value
(8/10) – As one the most expensive earphones reviewed in this thread to date, it is very difficult to put a value on the e-Q7. As a total package, it does not feel like a $320 product to me. The cable is almost identical to the one found on the $40 Lenntek Sonix 3, several throw-ins are missing from the accessory pack, and the microphonics leave much to be desired. The short nozzle and sizeable housings may also cause fit issues for those with small ear canals. But all of these usability issues can be remedied or mitigated by throwing a few more bucks at the earphones for a set of Phonak cable guides, nicer tips, and a shirt clip. It is much harder to remedy shoddy sound quality but, luckily, that is not an affliction the e-Q7 suffers from. With tight bass, full mids, and smooth (albeit slightly rolled-off) treble the e-Q7 possesses one of the most coherent sound signatures in the land of portable audio. As with all high-end IEMs these are bound to have both strong fans and convinced critics in due time. Though the signature of the e-Q7 is far from the analytical and neutral type of sound I prefer, I easily subscribe to the former category.
Pros: Beautiful design and packaging, very rich, detailed, and balanced sound
Cons: No true L/R markings, no cord cinch, fit issues likely for those with small ears
Special thanks to
rawrster for generously offering to lend me the e-Q7 and allowing me to put it through the full testing regimen.
(1C3) Klipsch Custom 3
Reviewed May 2010
Details: Dual-armature flagship of Klipsch’s Custom line, recently discontinued and plummeting rapidly in street price
Current Price: N/A (discontinued; price as tested
$265) (MSRP: $399.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dual BA | Imp:
32 Ω | Sens:
115 dB | Freq:
8-19k Hz | Cable:
.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
3.5mm | Preferred tips:
Shure Olives
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4.5/5) – Silicone single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) tips, cleaning tool, airplane adapter, 6.3mm adapter, and oversize hard carrying case
Build Quality
(2.5/5) – The housings are rubber-covered plastic and quite well-made. The memory wire acts as a strain relief and the y-split and L-plug are both very impressive. The nylon cabling, however, is atrocious. It kinks and tangles endlessly, ruining an otherwise very competent build
Isolation
(3.5/5) – The long, steeply angled nozzles allow for deep insertion, resulting in impressive isolation
Microphonics
(2.5/5) – Unpleasant despite these being worn over-the-ear and having a ‘memory wire’ configuration
Comfort
(4/5) – Can’t fault the Customs here – they fit in the ear rather snugly and unobtrusively, not unlike the JVC AirCushions. Persons with smaller ears may find them harder to wear
Sound
(8.7/10) – Unlike the Custom 2, which uses two identical armatures with no crossover, the Custom 3 has a separate woofer and tweeter with a crossover around 1500Hz. The extended frequency response shows, with the Custom 3 having very reasonable reach both down low and up high. Though they don’t have the bottom-end extension of the MTPG or even the e-Q7, the Customs can easily match IEMs like the RE0 and Ety ER4. Bass is impactful and articulate, with impressive texturing for a BA-based earphone and moderate decay times. The Custom 3s are far from bass-heavy but they have a more immediate punch than the CK10/ER4/RE252 crowd. Aside from dropping off steeply past 35Hz or so, the bass is fairly linear and transitions smoothly to the midrange. While slightly warm, the Custom 3s aren’t quite as toasty as the Custom 2s but not as cool as the Custom 1s, either. The happy medium in tonality works with the thick-sounding midrange to create an accurate and balanced sound. Compared to more analytical IEMs, however, the Customs sacrifice some detail in the midrange and treble for fullness. There is a bit of weight placed on the lower mids but overall the midrange is fairly flat all the way up. The treble is clean and smooth, slightly laid back compared to the bass and mids but far from recessed. It doesn’t sparkle and isn’t quite as crisp as that of the high-end Audio-Technicas or as extended as that of the RE0. More than anything, it reminds me of the Ortofon e-Q7 - neither bright nor harsh nor fatiguing – just perfectly complimentary to the thick and lush midrange.
The presentation of the Custom 3 seems well-suited for their balanced nature. Soundstage width and depth are both above average, resulting in a rather spacious sound. Instrumental separation is hindered slightly by the somewhat thick sound, making it more difficult to pick out and place individual instruments but the sense of space is unhindered. Overall the Custom 3 boasts a very balanced and rather accurate overall sound, though they are a bit heavier-sounding than I would consider natural. Still, the signature is very versatile and makes the Custom 3 a great all-rounder and unlikely to disappoint either the casual listener or the seasoned audiophile.
Value
(7/10) – The Custom 3 is a very capable earphone with one colossal caveat – the cabling. Personally, I could not live with these cables if the Custom 3 was my primary IEM. It’s possible that I’ve simply been so spoiled by the Audio-Technica earphones when it comes to cabling but my gut says otherwise. In fact, my gut gives me murderous urges when I think of the engineer who designed the cords used across Klipsch’s custom line. Is the sound worthy of homicide? At the $300 MSRP, not exactly. At the significantly lower street price, I would say yes. The C3s are punchy and thick but still very balanced and energetic. Best of all, the sound of the Custom 3 is much less of an acquired taste than either of the two lower end Klipsch Custom models. If Klipsch were to bring the C3 back with a different cord and a lower MSRP, they would become a head-fi mainstay. As it stands, they’re a great-sounding set with a skeleton in the closet.
Pros: Comfortable, well-isolating, wonderfully balanced and very enjoyable sound
Cons: Downright awful cabling, excessive microphonics
(1C4) Sennheiser IE8
Reviewed Jul 2010
Details: The earphone that established the ability of dynamic-driver IEMs to go toe-to-toe with multi-armature setups
Current Price:
$400 from amazon.com (MSRP: $449.95), $450 for IE8i with mic
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16 Ω | Sens:
125 dB | Freq:
10-20k Hz | Cable: 4
’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
UE Single flange, stock short bi-flange
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down (with cable flip)
Accessories
(5/5) – Single flange (3 sizes), bi-flange (3 sizes), and mushroom (2 sizes) silicone tips, foamhybrid (2 sizes) tips, cleaning tool, bass adjustment screwdriver, over-the-ear cable guides, shirt clip, and storage case with integrated cable winder
Build Quality
(5/5) – The oddly-shaped housings are made of sturdy plastic and surprisingly ergonomic. The cord is light, strong, flexible, and, best of all, detachable – one of the best cables I’ve seen on an IEM. For some reason the L-plug is not gold plated and rotating it can cause a tiny bit of static
Isolation
(2.5/5) – Not a strong suit of the IE8, which are rather shallow-fitting earphones, but quite passable for everyday use, especially with dual-flange tips
Microphonics
(5/5) – Nearly imperceptible when worn cord-down (with the cables flipped); completely unnoticeable when worn in the proper (cord-up) orientation
Comfort
(4/5) – The housings are light but rather large; those with smaller ears will have to settle for very shallow insertion but, like many dynamic-driver in-ears, the IE8s are not overly sensitive to insertion depth. With average-sized ears the IE8s are nearly flush and can be slept in quite easily
Sound
(8.9/10) – As usual, the first step to my listening involves spending time with the tuning system. In the case of the IE8, tuning is done by turning a bass adjustment screw on the front fascia of the earphones with a small screwdriver. Personally, I don’t much care for the tuning feature. In the minimum-bass configuration, the IE8s are plentifully impactful – similar in bass quantity to my Monster Turbine Pro Golds but a bit more forward and aggressive with the way low notes are presented. Turning up the bass seems to extend the mid-bass hump of the IE8 lower down and darkens the tone of the earphones but does surprisingly little for low-end extension. A single notch of bass increase puts the overall bass quantity of the IE8 on level with the Fischer Audio Eternas (rev.1), two notches get it closer to the Future Sonics Atrio M8, and the maximum setting matches the monstrous bass bloat of the TDK EB900. The bass itself is fairly forward, at least in comparison to the rather relaxed midrange and treble of the earphone. Bass depth, power, and texture are all among the best I’ve heard out of in-ears, beating out the MTPG in technical prowess by a hair. The bass of the IE8 is also characterized by its versatility – the IE8 can be quite quick on fast trance and house tracks but also manages wonderfully realistic attack and decay when necessary. On bass-heavy tracks, the low end of the IE8 can be slightly overwhelming for my tastes but for the most part it works quite well with the unique presentation and overall balance of the Sennheisers.
The heavy-handed low end makes the midrange of the IE8 seem slightly veiled and recessed, but this is as much an artifact of the ridiculously spacious presentation as it is of the balance. Taken out of context, the midrange and treble of the IE8 are both excellent in their own right. The mids are smooth slightly thick, warmed up by the mid-bass heft and quite full-bodied. Clarity is excellent but the midrange isn’t as crisp as, for example, that of the Phiaton PS200 or even the Radius DDM, and the detail is not presented as aggressively. Transparency lags quite a ways behind earphones such as the DDM and Yuin OK1 as well, hindered by the thickness and slight coloration of the IE8s.
The treble transition is seamlessly smooth, yielding a clear high end with no harshness or sibilance. The treble is well-extended and seems a bit edgier and more present in the sound of the IE8 than the similarly-bassy MTPG and Future Sonics Atrios, but not quite as edgy as that of the Hippo VB. The top end does lack the effortlessness of the CK10/RE252 and the sparkle of the OK1/TF10. Expectedly, it is not as crisp and resolving as with many of the BA-based IEMs, resulting in less aggressive detailing but also a generally pleasant an non-fatiguing sound. Again, the treble of the IE8 is more impressive when taken out of context and not juxtaposed to the bass and midrange, which do tend to crowd it out somewhat.
Lastly, the presentation of the IE8 is more than noteworthy in itself. The gargantuan soundstage is one of the most apparent and striking aspects of the sound. Headstage width is similarly tremendous, giving the IE8 and out-of-the-head feel on par with many proper headphones. Soundstage depth is above average as well and the IE8 can convey distances adroitly. However, the soundstage is limited in extent – whereas IEMs like the Yuin OK1 can convey what seems like a near-infinite distances, the soundstage of the IE8 has an outer limit when it comes to positioning. It has an inner limit, as well – the IE8s do not portray extreme intimacy very well; instead, the soundstage extends to within what seems like a few feet from the listener. Nitpicking aside, the presentation of the IE8 has a distanced and yet spacious feel that Sennheiser faithful may find familiar – the earphones infallibly put the listener in a third row seat. With that in mind, the presentation is quite realistic – a bit thick but nevertheless relaxed and boasting decent air. In the land of IEMs, high-end or not, the Sennheiser IE8 stands out in that respect.
Value
(7.5/10) – Launched at a time when “high end IEM” was synonymous with “balanced armature”, the Sennheiser IE8 re-introduced dynamic drivers into the world of ultraportable hi-fi and firmly established Sennheiser, a late entrant in the IEM game, in the realm of top-tier earphones. Though past its popularity peak, the IE8 still competes with the best of the best two years later. The uniquely rich and full sound, from the heavy bass to the warmed-up midrange and smooth but extended treble, works wonderfully with the relaxed and spacious presentation. Aside from the isolation, which isn’t actually as bad as some say, the biggest issue with the IE8 is its price - at $400 retail, it’s a fair stretch pricier than many of the newer high end earphones. As with all other top tiers, the IE8 brings its own unique strengths and weaknesses to the table. And, again as with all other top tiers, the decision as to whether or not it is worth the asking price rests with the individual listener.
Pros: Detachable and all-around excellent cabling, no microphonics, light and comfortable, excellent bass depth and texture, monstrous soundstage
Cons: Mediocre isolation, not the best at conveying intimacy
Special thanks to
Poetik for letting me borrow the IE8s for a (very) extended audition
(1C5) Westone UM3X
Reviewed Aug 2010
Details: Westone’s three-way triple driver flagship designed for professional use
Current Price:
$325 from ebay.com (MSRP: $549.00)
Specs: Driver:
Triple Armature | Imp:
56 Ω | Sens:
124 dB | Freq:
20-18k Hz | Cable:
4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
2.5mm | Preferred tips:
Shure single-flange, Shure Olive
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Comply foam tips (4 sets in 2 sizes) and hard clamshell carrying case.
Edit 4/28/11: Newer versions may also come with Single-flange conical (3 sizes) and rounded (3 sizes) silicone tips, triple-flange silicone tips, ¼” adapter, in-line volume control, filter and tip cleaning tool, and hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – The housings are a two-piece design and made out of a hard, durable plastic. They are quite large but rather good-looking. The multi-strand twisted cable is impossibly lightweight and tends to tangle but feels very sturdy. The split, housing entry, and heavy-duty 3.5mm L-plug are all very well-relieved
Isolation
(4/5) – Isolation is extremely high as the shells fill my ears nicely and the angled-nozzle design coaxes the maximum possible attenuation from the stock Comply foamies or Shure Olives
Microphonics
(5/5) – The UM3X can only be worn over-the-ear and microphonics are nonexistent
Comfort
(4.5/5) – The shells of the UM3X are quite ergonomic and fill out the wearer’s ear nicely – the smaller Westone 1 actually fits me less securely. Cabling is very light and flexible which helps with the over-the-ear fit
Sound
(9.1/10) –
The UM3X was released just a few months after Westone’s own W3, the very first three-way triple-driver universal IEM. Aimed squarely at the pro audio market, the UM3X might just be the smoothest BA-based earphone I’ve heard to date. The bass is impactful and well-extended, keeping up with other bass-heavy BA-based earphones. Body, attack, and decay are all quite natural but the bass isn’t as quick and tight as that of the high end Audio-Technica earphones or the DBA-02; next to the decay-shy CK10, the UM3X sounds thick and a tiny bit bloated but in general its low end is quite pleasant.
The midrange is forward and quite warm but also very smooth, clear, and detailed. The mids of the UM3X are quite possibly even more forward than those of the ATH-CK100 but seem relatively less emphasized due to the more confined overall presentation. The forward nature of the midrange, combined with the warmth and thickness, makes the UM3X sound fairly close and intimate at all times and sacrifices transparency slightly.
Unlike the straightforward midrange, the treble of the Westones perplexes me. On the one hand it is astonishingly detailed and extremely forgiving. Harshness and sibilance are absent completely and the resulting sound is not fatiguing in the least. On the other hand the treble lacks the crispness and sparkle that I like so much in many of my other BA-based earphones. From a technical standpoint, the non-fatiguing nature of the UM3X’s treble is second only to the ATH-CK100. However, I always feel like I have to put in extra work to focus on the details. Naturally, personal preferences play a huge part in this and the UM3X is without a doubt a very capable stage monitor, especially when vocals are of the utmost importance, but cymbals just don’t sound realistic to me without a touch more energy than the UM3X tends to provide. For jazz and vocal performances the polite nature of the UM3X may work well but for rock, metal, and even electronica I found myself yearning for slightly more bite – the UM3X can simply sound bland at times.
When it comes to presentation, the UM3X steps even further away from realism and clearly caters to the professional crowd. Overall, the earphones feel quite intimate, especially when it comes to the forward midrange. For the most part everything is placed quite close to the listener. On the upside, the UM3X has astonishingly good instrumental separation. Lastly, it is worth noting that despite the high impedance, the UM3X is a relatively sensitive earphone and will hiss with full-size amps and other mismatched sources.
Value
(8.5/10) – Though extremely competent from a technical standpoint, the Westone UM3X has a peculiar way of presenting sound that won’t appeal to everyone. The sound signature combines strong bass, a warm and forward midrange, and extremely smooth and relaxed treble. Comfort, fit, isolation, and build quality are all expectedly superb making the UM3X an excellent top-tier earphone that’s more than certain to find and maintain a loyal fan base.
Pros: Great fit, isolation, and build quality, high technical proficiency
Cons: Only Comply foam tips included, sound signature & presentation will not appeal to everyone
(1C6) Monster Turbine Pro Copper
Reviewed Aug 2010
Details: The flagship of Monster’s Turbine line, claimed to be designed for audiophiles and music professionals
Current Price:
$279 from amazon.com (MSRP: $399.95)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable:
4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Sennheiser biflanges, Monster Supertips
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(5/5) – Silicone single-flange (3 sizes), tri-flange (2 sizes), and Comply foam tips, gel-filled (6 sizes) and foam (5 sizes) Monster supertips, buttoned carrying case, soft carrying pouch, over-the-ear cable guides, 1/4” adapter, and shirt clip
Build Quality
(4/5) – Almost identical to the Turbine Pro Gold – sturdy metal shells, proper strain reliefs all around, and a thick but flexible cable. One odd observation of mine is that the Turbine Pro Coppers are more susceptible to driver flex than the cheaper Golds are
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Very good for a dynamic-driver IEM and compounded by the excellent tip selection
Microphonics
(4/5) – Low when worn over-the-ear; slightly bothersome otherwise
Comfort
(4/5) – Despite the weighty housings they stay in extremely well both cord-up and cord-down. The variety of included tips makes it easy to find a good seal right out of the box
Sound
(8.8/10) –
When I first learned that I’d be getting a go at the Monster Turbine Pro Coppers, I did some reading and figured that they would be a more appealing lighter on the bass – heavier on the treble version of my own Turbine Pro Golds. But, as is usually the case with top-tier IEMs, the truth is more complex than that. The Coppers do indeed have a smaller bass hump than the Golds, resulting in a lesser overall quantity of bass compared to the MTPG and similarly-bassy Sennheiser IE8. Die-hard bassheads may want to pick up one of the others instead but for the rest of us the bass power and impact of the MTPC should be plentiful. As with the MTPG, the bass is not aggressive but rather controlled and non-intrusive. It carries good depth and body with natural-sounding attack and decay. Resolution is impressive as well, with individual notes distinguishable all the way down.
The midrange follows the typical Monster Turbine formula – smooth, full-bodied, and neither forward nor recessed. The reduced bass intensity of the Coppers results in a slightly thinner sound compared to the Golds, which in turn leads to slight gains in clarity and transparency. The Coppers are also not quite as warm as the Golds are, though I still wouldn’t call them neutral. On the whole, the midrange is lush and musical. Vocals come across strong and vocal timbre is quite natural. Sibilance is kept to a minimum, though admittedly the more laid-back Golds do a better job of clamping down on sibilance-prone tracks. The treble is reasonably strong and carries some sparkle without becoming overly edgy or fatiguing. It still doesn’t sound as crisp as the treble of certain BA-based earphones or the more analytical dynamics (RE0, RE252) but performs better than the MTPG without adding much potential for listening fatigue.
The presentation of the Coppers is not the largest among all IEMs but it is quite adequate in both depth and width. The imaging and positioning do not possess the pinpoint accuracy certain other earphones are capable of providing but, like that of the MTPG, the sound of the MTPC is extremely blended, which may actually seem more natural to some compared to the Sennheiser IE8 with its football-field-sized soundstage or the Westone UM3X with its holographic separation. The same goes for individual notes, which sound slightly ‘rounded’ with the Monster Turbine earphones, as opposed to the crips and highly-defined notes produced by some of the BA-based in-ears.
Finally, a few usability notes – as with the MTPG, the Coppers like a relatively shallow seal. Trying to achieve ear-penetrating insertion with them has a tendency to collapse the soundstage. Also shared with the Golds is the hunger for additional power. For the most part, the MTPC does play fine straight out of portable players but it scales with added power. The MTPC is also less engaging at lower volumes than analytical earphones tend to be. On the upside, the Coppers won’t quite crucify lower-bitrate files the way the UM3X or Ety ER4 will – as with the other Turbine earphones, the natural smoothness tends to gloss over some of the finer imperfections of the recordings, which in itself may be a strong selling point for some.
Value
(8/10) –
As with most $200+ earphones, the value of the MTPC is only as high as its alignment with the listener’s preferences. Though far less polarizing than the Audio-Technica IEMs or Westone UM3X, the MTPC will still appeal more to some listeners than others – namely those who find the bassy and highly blended sound of the Coppers to sound natural, or at least refreshing. Personally, though I do feel that the MTPC is a step in the right direction from my own MTPG, I really don’t feel that it’s a significant improvement. It also somehow sounds less special – the MTPG may not be as accurate but it is thick, smooth, and fun. Don’t get me wrong – the Coppers are excellent earphones – clear and refined, with plenty of bass for most listeners and treble quantity to match. With street prices hovering just above those of the MTPG and Monster’s excellent warranty acting as a value-adding proposition, the Coppers are not difficult to recommend, especially for those who aren’t sure that they will enjoy a truly analytical sound and yet don’t want the more mainstream sound provided by the warm and bassy Golds. But I won’t call them the best thing since sliced bread, either.
Pros: Excellent build quality, comfortable, massive fit kit, not as vulgar to behold as MTPG, smooth, balanced, and dynamic sound
Cons: Some microphonics can be coerced from the cable
Special thanks to
rawrster once again for generously lending me the MTPC for the full duration of my review regimen
(1C7) Monster Miles Davis Tribute
Reviewed Oct 2010
Details: Ostentatious jazz-focused earphones from Monster Cable (note: the Miles Davis tributes are not part of Monster’s artist series)
Current Price:
$299 from amazon.com (MSRP: $499.95)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable:
4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
Sennheiser biflanges, Generic wide-bore single-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and tri-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips, Foam tips, Monster supertips (2 sizes), hard velvet-lined storage case, buttoned carrying case, soft carrying pouch, eartip carousel, and shirt clip
Build Quality
(4/5) – While the attention to detail is sublime, the build is poorer than that of the MTPG/MTPC due to the slightly thinner and less flexible cable. The rest is similar – sturdy metal shells and proper strain reliefs all around. Driver flex is among the lowest among all dynamic IEMs (in contrast to the MTPC)
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Quite good for a dynamic-driver IEM and compounded by the excellent tip selection
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – A bit more bothersome than with the MTPG/MTPC when worn cable-down; nonexistent when worn over-the-ear
Comfort
(4/5) – The housings are slimmer than those of the Turbine earphones but equally weighty. The fit is similarly secure both when worn cord-up and cord-down. The variety of included tips makes it easy to find a good seal right out of the box and, like the Turbine earphones, the MDs are very forgiving of a shallow seal
Sound
(8.9/10) –
Despite being at the top of the Monster line-up in suggested retail price, the Miles Davis Tribute is not billed as an upgrade to the two Turbine Pro earphones but rather a specialized ‘sidegrade’ for Jazz lovers. The overall sound of the MD does seem related to both of the Turbine Pro earphones in core characteristics such as dynamic range and speed. In terms of signature the MD are a bit closer to the Golds.
The Miles Davis Tribute is a bass-heavy earphone. Like the Turbine Pro Gold, the MD boasts great bass depth and hits very hard. The sub-bass trumps all but the FutureSonics Atrio and possibly even an IE8 with maxed-out bass. The resulting sound is very full and usually quite pleasant. However, the bass of the MD is more prone to sounding ‘excessive’ than that of the Coppers or Golds, which is not to say that it is lacking control, but rather a reflection of the relative weight of the bass. For an in-ear earphone, the drivers of the MD can really move a whole lot of air – if there’s any earphone that Monster can justifiably dub an ‘in-ear speaker’, the MD Tribute is it. Like the Golds and Coppers, the MDs offer up natural-sounding attack and decay and impressive resolution and texturing but give up the speed and tightness of many similarly-priced BA-based earphones. Interestingly, the reverberant, well-textured, and highly impactful bass of the MDs gives their sound an edge in immersion over much of the competition, even in the BA realm. Compared to the venerable Earsonics SM3, for example, the MDs clearly aren’t nearly as wide or spacious but yet still sound ‘bigger’ on the whole.
The midrange of the MD is warm, smooth, and slightly forward in nature. It is more textured than that of the Golds and more present than that of the Coppers, treading gently between smoothness and clarity. There is no better word to describe the midrange of the MDs than ‘lush’. Those who value clarity above all will want to stick to armature-based in-ears but for a noticeably thicker note and more ‘musical’ sound, the Miles Davis Tributes are hard to beat. Interestingly, the smooth and liquid MD Tributes don’t drop any detail in comparison to the thinner-sounding Turbine Pro Coppers. They also maintain the natural timbre of the Coppers while doing almost as good a job as the Golds of clamping down on sibilance – a fine combination of sonic properties.
The treble, too, falls close to the two Turbine Pro models in emphasis. As with the Coppers, it is not lacking in extension or detail except when compared to the truly limitless BA-based earphones out there. Unlike the MTPC, however, the Miles Davis Tributes never make me feel as though the top end has been ‘tweaked’ for greater sparkle and detail – they never sound overly prominent the way the Coppers can. Instead, the treble is very natural – soft but very well-defined – and listening fatigue is nil.
The presentation of the MDs is also nothing I haven’t heard before. Soundstage size is close to that of the Golds – not the largest but quite spacious. The warm and mid-forward MDs do tend slightly towards intimacy but still sound spacious next to the Westone UM3X and Earsonics SM3. Separation is quite good and individual instruments are easy to pick out. Like the two Turbine Pro earphones, the MDs don’t provide pinpoint accuracy but do handle large compositions well. They also have a pretty impressive dynamic range and handle subtlety surprisingly well for a warm-and-bassy earphone. They sound a bit better at lower volumes than the Coppers and Golds do and are also some of most forgiving high-end earphones when it comes to poor mastering or low-quality rips, though of course much potential is wasted when using them with 128 kbps mp3s.
Value
(8/10) –
The Monster Miles Davis Tribute is devastatingly expensive but what you get is a beautifully packaged and unique-looking earphone that lags just behind the two cheaper Turbine Pro earphones in overall usability. Though the MD is slimmer and can be a bit more comfortable, isolation is slightly lower than that of the Turbine earphones and microphonics in the skinnier cable are worse. The sound of the Miles Davis, on the other hand, leaves little to be desired. Treading a fine line between the signatures of the Turbine Pro models, the Miles Davis sounds like a culmination of the Monster sound – a more refined Turbine. No matter the track or genre, the Miles Davis sounds special. Whether that makes it worth the price is up to the individual listener.
Pros: Beautiful packaging & presentation; solid build quality & comfort; massive fit kit; smooth, powerful, and dynamic sound
Cons: Very flashy design, can be microphonic
Special thanks to
Inks for generously lending me the Monster MD for the full duration of my review regimen
(1C8) Westone 3
Reviewed Nov 2010
Details: Flagship earphone from Westone’s consumer series
Current Price:
$350 from amazon.com (MSRP: $569.00)
Specs: Driver:
Triple BA | Imp:
30Ω | Sens: 107 dB | Freq:
20-18k Hz | Cable:
4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
2.5mm | Preferred tips:
Comply P-series, Large Ety tri-flange
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(5/5) – Single-flange conical (3 sizes) and rounded (3 sizes) silicone tips, triple-flange silicone tips, Comply foam tips (3 sizes), ¼” adapter, in-line volume control, filter and tip cleaning tool, and hard clamshell carrying case with carabiner
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – As with the Westone 1 and UM3X, the housings of the Westone 3 are made of plastic and the multi-strand cables are twisted for extra strength. The y-split, housing entry, and 3.5mm L-plug are all very well-relieved though the consumer-oriented nature of the W3 shows next to the UM3X monitors
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Quite good when longer tips are used
Microphonics
(5/5) – The W3 can only be worn over-the-ear and microphonics are nonexistent
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The shells are quite ‘fat’ in comparison to the Westone 1 and quite a bit heavier. The nozzle is also a bit short for my liking - the UM3X actually fits me better than the W3 does - and longer tips are required for me to maintain a seal. Combine that with the fact that the W3 is very sensitive to seal quality and overall comfort suffers somewhat as a result
Sound
(9.1/10) – What first made me interested in the Westone 3 was just how polarizing the effects of its sound were on people. Few things are more exciting than getting to the bottom of just why a certain sound signature is controversial. Much like my beloved Audio-Technica CK10 and CK100, the Westone 3 had to be worth trying. In my time at head-fi I’ve heard the W3 described in every way imaginable – v-shaped and balanced, bassy and rolled-off, warm and neutral, accurate and muddy – the list goes on. Truth is, the W3 is all of those things - and none of them. Part of the problem is the housing design – the ‘tubby’ W3s really need a deep seal to sound their best but can put up one hell of a fight even with the included P-series Complys. Long tips are a must since the nozzle is short and improperly-angled. I ended up using large Ety trips off of my HF3, which made the W3 less comfortable but more consistent in sealing with my ear.
With the earphones properly sealed, the sound signature becomes fairly consistent. The bass has lots of weight – the W3 is easily the most bass-heavy armature-based earphone I’ve heard. Impact is on-par with the ATH-CK90Pro but the bass of the Westone 3 is more tactile and full-bodied. The UE TF10, another impactful triple-armature, sounds a bit more ‘punchy’ and has better depth than the W3 but lacks the sheer bass slam and volume of the Westones – the W3 is definitely ‘bassier’ in the conventional sense. It can be a little excessive, depending on track and personal preferences. There is a hint of mid/upper-bass bloat, making the W3 sound just a touch muddy compared to tight-and-fast dual armature models (CK10, DBA-02, q-JAYS, etc). Even Westone’s own W2 sounds cleaner in the lows, though it lacks the impact and body of the flagship. Worth noting is that a few decibels of equalization in the 100-150Hz range can really help level the W3 out while preserving the excellent depth and texture of the low end.
The midrange of the Westone 3 is very impressive when taken on its own merit but can often be overshadowed by the huge bass weight and treble energy of the earphones and the slight recession towards the upper mids does little to help matters. On the whole the midrange is not as thick and creamy as the mids of the UM3X and Earsonics SM3, focusing instead on detail and transparency. It can be just a touch warm on certain tracks but for the most part remains unaffected by the bass. It is also a bit dry but can get much closer to the ATH-CK10 in clarity than the UM3X, SM3, or even TF10. Like all of my Westones the W3 is also magical with female vocals – I don’t know what it is about Westone earphones but the W1, W2, and W3 all make the few vocal albums I have sound sublime. The W3 is quite a bit crisper than the W1 and W2, however, and gives guitars a bit more edge and bite than the lower-end models do.
The treble of the W3 often falls under harsh critique but I’m convinced that the difficulty of achieving the ideal seal with the earphones is undoubtedly a large part of the problem. With a mediocre seal the W3 can be painfully sibilant; with a good seal – mildly so. Only when I was able to get a proper, deep seal did the sibilance retreat far enough to become nearly unnoticeable. Even so, the W3 will accentuate whatever sibilance is present on the recording, not unlike the CK10 or even the higher-end Etys. It should be noted that Comply tips do their usual trick of muffling the treble slightly, which may actually be desirable with the W3 (in stark contrast to the UM3X or SM3). Smoothness aside, the high end of the earphones is crisp, detailed, and sparkly. The notes produced by the W3 can be a bit hard-edged, particularly next to a softer and gentler earphone such as the W2 or even UE TF10, but not over-defined to the point of sounding unnatural. Extension is merely good - despite the 3-way crossover design, the W3 doesn’t sound quite as limitless at the top as the CK10/CK100 or even RE0.
The difference in emphasis between bass, midrange, and treble in the Westone 3 really makes me think that the output of the three armatures was purposely mismatched for a bass- and treble-heavy sound – not necessarily a bad thing but it does make the W3 sound slightly less ‘blended’ than, say, the UM3X or CK100. Tonally, however, the W3 is pretty colorless – closer to what I would call ‘neutral’ than the UM3X or SM3, especially in the midrange. The presentation of the earphones is impressive as well. The soundstage is big – wider and deeper than that of the UM3X – and imaging is excellent. Separation is not quite up there with the UM3X or SM3 but the Westone 3 never sounds run-together in any way. Headstage, which is rarely talked about with IEMs, is impressive as well – just a touch poorer than with the CK10 but much less confined than with most in-ears. Interestingly, though the Westone 2 can portray distance better than the W3 can, the flagship still sounds bigger and more 3-dimensional. The same is true of the Earsonics SM3 but in reverse – the SM3 sounds more spacious and its soundstage is both taller and wider than that of the W3 despite the W3 being less intimate in presentation.
Finally, a word on usability: the Westone 3 is an extremely efficient earphone despite the mildly deceiving specifications. The UE TF10, which on paper is more sensitive, actually requires a good 15-20% more volume for me. As a result, there is a bit of hiss present when using the W3 with many portable players, especially the more powerful ‘audiophile’ ones such as the S:Flo2 and Cube C30. On the upside, there’s nearly no chance that the output of the W3 will be too low with any source.
Value
(7.5/10) – As is often the case with high-end in-ears, the Westone 3 is tailored to a specific listening preference with its powerful bass, clear and dry midrange, and shimmery treble. There is much to like and (potentially) much to despise about it – those looking for the ‘safe’ choice would probably be better off with the TF10 or e-Q7. The W3 is not the nearly-flawless package that is the SM3 or the completely non-fatiguing UM3X but it is far more exciting and lively. Similarly to the TF10, it is the ‘wow’ factor that makes the Westone 3 special – listening to it is an intense, explosive experience. It is also a unique product in combining the sparkle, crispness, and clarity of more analytical earphones with body, note thickness, and weight. Naturally, getting the best out of the earphone requires a very good seal and can take some experimenting but fit & comfort aside the W3 is as good an all-rounder as any other earphone in its price bracket – just one with a very peculiar flavor.
Pros: Impressive isolation, build quality, and accessory pack; good bass & soundstaging
Cons: Highly fit-dependent, not as balanced as many other multi-armature setups
Big thanks to
HeadphoneAddict for an extended loan of the Westone 3 that coincided perfectly with my brief stint owning the both the Westone 1 and 2
(1C9) EarSonics SM3 (v1)
Reviewed Dec 2010
Details: 3-way universal flagship from French audio firm Earsonics
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP $399)
Specs: Driver:
Triple BA | Imp:
34Ω | Sens:
122 dB | Freq:
20-18k Hz | Cable:
4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
2.5mm | Preferred tips:
Sensorcom bi-flanges, stock bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) – Bi-flange silicone tips, Comply foam tips (2 sizes), filter and tip cleaning tool, and hard zippered carrying case
Build Quality
(4/5) – The lightweight shells are made of two plastic halves (one black, one clear) but don’t feel quite as sturdy as those of the Westone UM3X. The light multi-strand cables are twisted for extra strength and properly relieved both on housing entry and at the Y-split. A meaty 3.5mm L-plug completes the picture
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Quite good when longer tips are used
Microphonics
(5/5) – Can only be worn over-the-ear so microphonics are nonexistent
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The housings of the SM3 are about the same size as those of the UM3X but rear corners of the squared-off shells – a stark contrast to the smooth lines of the UM3X - can cause long-term discomfort for those with smaller ears. I ended up using longer tips and leaving the shells outside of my ears in order to wear the earphones for more than an hour at a time
Sound
(9.2/10) – The Earsonics SM3 is a high-end three-way triple-driver stage monitor designed to compete directly with the Westone UM3X, an earphone that, while technically proficient, never really appealed to me on a personal level with its intimate presentation and viscous sound. Expectedly, the general signature of the SM3 is not too far off from the UM3X but it is the differences that make it a better consumer-class earphone in my view.
The bass of the SM3 isn’t all that different from that of the UM3X. It is generally deep and well-controlled – not as tight as with some of the leaner, more analytical earphones (e.g. CK10 & DBA-2) but definitely not loose. It is quick and well-weighted but always remains a bit soft in character. Across the range, but especially at the low end, the SM3 retains a roundness of note that reminds me of some of the higher-end dynamic-driver earphones I’ve heard as opposed to bass-happy armatures like the W3 and TF10, which generally have more immediate bass impact. The bass of the SM3 is not ruler-flat, rolling off slightly at the lowest of lows, and won’t satisfy a true basshead, but for me it is plentiful in quantity. Compared, for example, to the Westone 2, the low end of the SM3 manages to be crisper and more impactful at the same time – an impressive feat that shows off the optimization of the bass driver.
The midrange is most definitely the meat of the SM3’s sound signature. The earphones are slightly mid-forward but, unlike the UM3X, the SM3 doesn’t really ‘push’ its midrange on the listener. It has an uncanny ability to ‘center’ the vocalist in its headstage, seemingly escaping stereo separation almost completely, but at the same time avoids the somewhat excessive intimacy of the UM3X. The SM3 is generally only slightly warm in tone but can lean towards greater warmth, depending on source and track. The mids are smooth, sweet, lush, and full, with the same roundness of note as the low end. Transparency is good but not the best I’ve heard, and the same goes for the clarity – the SM3 simply isn’t lean enough to compete with the CK10 or DBA-02 on that front. Even the UE TF10 has slightly better clarity in the midrange than the SM3, though it sounds somewhat hollow and nasal next to the full and forward SM3. Detail retrieval is great but the microdetailing is again not as good as with the CK10 or DBA-02 because the SM3 just isn’t aggressive enough with presenting detail, occasionally requiring conscious effort to hear the minute details. Vocal timbre is excellent, however, even next to the Westone 2, which has some of the better vocal representation among the IEMs I own, with both earphones making the ATH-CK10 sound slightly metallic in comparison.
At the high end the SM3 is laid back and very smooth, again not unlike the UM3X. I do hear a bit more extension out of the SM3 but the difference isn’t great. The treble is neither particularly prominent nor notably deficient - there really is no frequency range in which the SM3 lacks presence - but could definitely use a bit more emphasis for my tastes. Don’t get me wrong - the treble of the SM3 is neither rolled off nor recessed – just not particularly aggressive. With a slightly different overall sound signature the treble would be perfectly adequate - there is even some sparkle to be had - but it’s quite easy to lose next to the buttery mids and healthy low end of the Earsonics. It should be noted that the detail of the SM3 is made all the more impressive by the lack of aggression in presenting it but critical listening with the SM3 will require some effort on the part of the listener, at least initially. As an aside, using Comply tips with the SM3 is not recommended as the tips seem to soak up what little sparkle and energy there is. Other than that there was little need to bother with tips, at least for me – the SM3 is not nearly as sensitive to tip selection as, say, the Westone 3 or UE TF10, which may be one of the reasons for the Earsonics being generally well-received.
Aside from a sound signature without any definite flaws, the biggest strength of the SM3 is undoubtedly its presentation. It is a fairly wide-sounding earphone – not the largest I’ve heard but clearly above average. I think that for a BA setup the soundstage of the SM3 is very close to being the perfect size, though it has taken me a while to figure out why. A massive stage works (more or less) for something like the Sennheiser IE8, with its huge bass and immense dynamic presence, but an armature-based earphone would sound thinner trying to fill all of that space. In addition, the soundstage of the IE8 has an ‘inner limit’, meaning that it seems to start some distance away from the listener, while the ability to accurately portray intimacy is one of the necessary hallmarks of good stage monitors like the SM3 and UM3X. The ‘front-and-center’ vocal presentation that the SM3 does so well simply wouldn’t work with a soundstage like that of the Sennheisers. The stage of the SM3 also has good depth and, surprisingly, decent height, though it is conceivable that the SM3 will sound too 3-dimensional to some. Indeed, the SM3 is almost artificially enveloping for an IEM and as a result acclimating to it can take longer than with most IEMs (the same is true for the Radius DDM, though for slightly different reasons). Personally, I feel that the soundstage of the SM3 would be easier to get accustomed to for those with minimal experience with higher-end earphones and more perplexing for those used to the presentation of other high-end IEMs.
Moving on, there are definitely earphones with more air than the SM3 but usually as a result of brighter and/or thinner sound. Separation is very good without seeming exaggerated as it can be with the Westone UM3X. Layering and imaging are both quite good – instruments take on the proper distance and direction cues and there is ample air around each. Within the confines of the SM3’s overly-enveloping soundstage the imaging is quite realistic. The dynamics are good as well – a necessity for proper presentation – but not the best I’ve heard. Compared head-to-head with the Monster MD, for example, the SM3 struggles to sound as soft or as powerful at the limits but comes respectably close.
The smooth and thick presentation, complete with slightly ‘rounded’ notes compared to many other BA-based earphones, is effortless, polished, and refined. The SM3 is non-fatiguing but accurate. It sounds less like a musician’s tool (a-la UM3X) and more like a consumer listening device that nevertheless remains true to source. I can’t call the SM3 exciting but at the same time it’s not an analytical earphone. I don’t consider the UM3X analytical, either, but its ‘dissection kit’ presentation can be too boring for much of my music. The SM3 takes the comfortable middle ground between the UM3X and uncompromisingly ‘fun’ earphones such as the TF10 and Westone 3. Like all of the other top-tier IEMs, the SM3 is still far from being all things to all people. However, it is much more difficult to hate than it is to like, helped in part by its consistency with different tips and sources. Overall, the SM3 is an extremely efficient earphone with just enough sensitivity headroom to avoid hissing like a snake with a poorly matched source. In my experience, experimenting with tips and amps brings about improvements that are marginal at best.
Value
(8/10) – As an earphone that doesn't do a whole lot wrong, the SM3 is not unique, but it also seduces with its enveloping soundstage and thick, creamy midrange. Even those who do not value the flavour of the SM3 will find it (at worst) to be a decent top-tier universal while those who do like the signature will be in sonic paradise. On a personal note, while I belong to the former category, I have to say this in closing: there are songs in my music collection that I always skip – songs kept mostly for sentimental or nostalgic value – but with the SM3 I was forced to listen to them all the way through. This earphone is not the end of the road for me, but it may just be for many others.
Pros: No microphonics; Smooth, liquid, and detailed sound; no real signature flaws; enveloping presentation
Cons: Angled housings lead to potential comfort issues
Special thanks to
violinvirtuoso for generously offering to lend me the SM3 and allowing me to put it through the full testing regimen.
(1C10) JVC HA-FX700
Reviewed Feb 2011
Details: JVC’s wooden in-ear flagship
Current Price:
$340 from seyo-shop.com (MSRP: $360)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
104 dB | Freq:
6-26k Hz | Cable:
2.6’ I-plug + 2.3’ L-plug extension
Nozzle Size:
4.5mm | Preferred tips:
UE Single flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), foam tips (2 sizes), 2.3’ (0.7m) extension cable, and protective magnetic-clasp carrying case
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – The build of the FX700 is a fusion of beautifully-machined wood and various metal alloys. The earphones look and feel like a flagship product – I imagine the air of quality and sophistication surrounding the HA-FX700 is similar to JVC’s HA-DX1000 headphone. They are big, heavy, and flawless in craftsmanship. The rear port and nozzle are both protected by metal meshes and the cable entry point features a ¾”-long strain relief in addition to metal reinforcement. The cable itself is similar to the cords found on JVC’s lower-end products – soft, reasonably thick, and quite flexible. The 2.6’+2.3’ cable configuration is very annoying, however, as the cord is too short to be used without the extension and way too long with the extension added on
Isolation
(2/5) – The FX700 is an open-back IEM and isolates slightly less than Sennheiser’s IE8 or Phiaton’s half in-ear designs
Microphonics
(5/5) – Cable noise is extremely low when the FX700 is worn cord-down and nonexistent with over-the-ear fitment
Comfort
(4/5) – The HA-FX700 boasts a familiar angled-nozzle design with a large driver hump near the front of the housing. Size-wise the JVCs are quite large – noticeably larger than Denon’s AH-C710s, which have a similar form factor. Still, the driver bulge provides a secure fit and the earphones are quite comfortable in the long run despite the heft
Sound
(9.1/10) –
Despite the misleading ‘HA-FX1000’ moniker given to the Japanese version of JVC’s previous wooden in-ear, the (newer) HA-FX700 is the definitely the company’s flagship earphone. The open-back design of the earphone pretty much guarantees poor isolation and since isolation translates almost directly to sound quality out in the real world, the FX700 only shows its true capabilities in quiet environments. Its lively and aggressive sound signature is not one commonly found among top-tier dynamic-driver IEMs but after an initial adjustment period, the FX700 leaves no doubt as to its standing among the best dynamics. As a general rule I am not a fan of the ‘ton of bass + ton of treble' approach to audio, which partially explains why I like the Monster Golds and Miles Davis Tributes better than the Coppers, but these JVCs sound incredibly natural and effortless. That said, I still think that the FX700 sounds best at low volumes since the bass and treble both tend to become more dominant as the volume is increased.
The bass of the HA-FX700 has what is quite possibly the best balance of quantity and control in the IEM realm. Though it is clearly not as tight and quick as the bass on most of my BA-based earphones, it does sound quicker than that of the Monster MD or Sennheiser IE8. The response of the FX700 is also a bit more linear than that of the MD, though both have great depth and extension. The MD has slightly more rumble and bass power on the whole but the FX700 really doesn’t lack either. Due to the combination of speed and high impact, the bass of the FX700 is a little ‘aggressive’. As a result, it can be excessive for my liking – the FX700 could do with a more subbass-biased balance (a-la Hippo VB), which would make the lower midrange a little more neutral, but then it would be a different earphone.
Despite the aggressive bass, the midrange of the FX700 is cleaner and clearer than those of the Monster MD or Sennheiser IE8. It attempts to strike a balance between clear-and-detailed (a-la RE252) and the smoother, thicker sound of most high-end dynamics. The FX700 is still not a neutral earphone and there is definitely some warmth to the midrange, but it is more on-level with the Ortofon e-Q7 than the IE8/MD. Yes, most of the thinner-sounding high-end armatures still have the upper hand when it comes to clarity and microdetail, but it is amazing how close the (comparatively) gigantic dynamic drivers of the FX700 come to those levels of performance. In terms of balance, the midrange is not as aggressive as the bass or treble and has a tendency to become slightly subdued at higher volumes, which certainly preserves the spirit of the fun, ‘v-shaped’ earphone. However, on several occasions I ended up catching myself thinking that the pushy nature of the bass can be detrimental to the overall musical experience afforded by the JVCs.
The timbre of the earphones is worthy of particular mention – I can’t make any claims as to whether the materials used in the construction of the housings have any effect on how they sound but the timbre of the FX700 is outstanding. As a result, the JVCs have some of the most realistic reproduction of stringed instruments I’ve heard out of an in-ear, adding to their excellent timbre the right amount of crispness, detail, and texture for the most minute nuances of string motion to be distinguished. Being an armature type of person, the only other higher-end dynamic I have on hand at the moment is the Sennheiser IE7, and next to the FX700 it is especially apparent how plasticky the IE7 actually sounds.
As hinted above, the treble of the FX700 is nearly as prominent as the bass. Though it is not harsh or sibilant except when necessary to remain faithful to the original recording, it is abundant in quantity and boasts plentiful sparkle and good clarity. Top-end extension is excellent and overall the treble reminds me more of the detailed and extended top end of the IE8 than the softer-sounding Monster MD or HiFiMan RE262. The sparkle of the FX700 makes it quite edgy for a dynamic-driver earphone, but given the choice between the overly-exciting top end of the FX700 and the slightly boring treble of the RE262, I see myself going for the JVCs every time.
Similarly interesting is the presentation of the FX700 – though the JVCs don’t have the out-of-the-head feel of the IE8, soundstaging doesn’t leave a whole lot to be desired. Soundstage width is good but the depth and layering are superb, resulting in accurate portrayal of both distance and intimacy. The impressive imaging gives the earphones an immersive overall feel, though I still feel that, as with most IEMs, the soundstage of the FX700 is slightly elliptical in nature, i.e. lacking just a bit of front-to-rear and top-to-bottom positioning.
Value
(8/10) –
Like the earphone’s aesthetics and construction quality, the sound of the JVC HA-FX700s is unique and substantial. The JVCs easily run side by side with the other top-tier dynamics in technical proficiency and, on several counts, come out ahead of the field. The drivers JVC used in the FX700 are extremely impressive and manage to shrug off tracks of any complexity, never sounding strained or overwhelmed. The HA-FX700 is, at long last, a high-end dynamic-driver earphone for those who prefer lively and aggressive ‘v-shaped’ sound to the softer, warmer signatures of the IE8/Monster MD/RE262/MTPG. When it comes to practicality, the value of the FX700 is more questionable – for an IEM the FX700 isolates very little and can become fatiguing if the volume is raised significantly to compensate. If ever there was a top-tier earphone for home use, this is it, but out in the real world the FX700’s competitors may win the fight without throwing a punch.
Pros: Impossibly dynamic and articulate sound; natural and involving presentation; great build quality; nearly no microphonics
Cons: Sub-par isolation; odd cable length; can be slightly fatiguing at higher volumes
Once again huge thanks to
Inks for loaning me his FX700 for review
(1C11) Radius HP-TWF21
Reviewed Mar 2011
Details: Radius’s follow-up to the world’s first dual-dynamic driver earphone
Current Price: N/A (discontinued; price as tested
$250) (MSRP: $298)
Specs: Driver:
Dual Dynamic | Imp:
24 Ω | Sens:
107 dB | Freq:
10-20k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (6 pairs), cleaning cloth, L-plug adapter, and hard clamshell carrying case with removable cord winder
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – Overall build quality is very similar to the old DDM – the housings are completely plastic and the cord is nylon-sheathed for durability. The thin-stem design of the TWF21 does mean that the earphones probably won’t survive being stepped on the way higher-end Audio-Technica or Ortofon models might but for general use they should last if treated well. The nylon-sheathed cable is flexible and tangle-resistant and features a sliding rubber cinch. The metal-jacketed 3.5mm I-plug has a short rubber strain relief, same as the original DDM
Isolation
(2/5) – Being a half-in-ear design with a rear vent, the TWF21 really doesn’t isolate much more than the original DDM did
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Less bothersome than with the original DDM but exacerbated by the fact that the TWF21 is very difficult to wear cord-up
Comfort
(4/5) – With my average-sized ears, the fit of the new Radius is much more pleasant than that of the old earphone. The earbud-like design is reminiscent of the mid-range Phiaton models and Audio-Technica’s CKS series and fits perfectly into my outer ear. I especially like the way the cable exit point is positioned away from the antitragus – makes the earphones very comfortable for prolonged listening sessions. However, as is usually the case with earbud-style IEMs, over-the-ear wear without swapping channels is nearly impossible. I do also wish a larger selection of tips was included but other than that I have absolutely no problems with the fit
Sound
(8.8/10) – The promotional materials for the new Radius claim that the earphone has been “carefully tuned” to provide more modest lows and clearer highs compared to the TWF11. Both of these claims are true to a degree but there is no mistaking the TWF21 for an analytical earphone. The bass, for one, is still quite heavy-handed. Low end extension is very good, competing with the likes of the Monster Turbine Pro Gold and Future Sonics Atrio. Sub-bass rumble is likewise plentiful and there should be enough impact for all but the most unreasonable bass lovers. It is only the lack of a pronounced mid-bass hump that keeps the TWF21 from become a total bass monster. The reasonably level bass prevents the low end from becoming dominant over the rest of the signature unless called on by the recording. For an earphone with such impressive bass presence, the TWF21 is surprisingly soft-footed and polite with most of my test tracks – a far cry from the aggressive, hard-hitting bass of earphones like the Fischer Audio Eterna. It is not the sprightliest of earphones but it performed better than I expected with the Exaile album I’ve been listening to lately. At the same time, the attack and decay times are natural enough for realistic portrayal of the instruments in my classical and jazz recordings.
Because the bass of the TWF21 is so linear, midrange bleed is fairly low even next to the other top-tier bass-heavy dynamics. The midrange is warm, smooth, and slightly thick. To my ears it is neither forward nor recessed but otherwise reminds me of the HiFiMan RE262. Not a bad job by Radius as the 262 is one of the most technically capable dynamic-driver earphones I’ve ever heard. Detail and clarity are likewise very close to those of the best dynamics. Like that of the original DDM, the midrange of the TWF21 is fluid and oddly delicate. It is not as transparent as that of the Yuin OK1 or certain BA-based earphones but doesn’t lag too far behind, either. The treble, similarly, is smooth and polite. Like the original DDM, the TWF21 is quite laid-back at the top and leans towards the darker side of things when it comes to tone. Comparatively speaking, I feel that the TWF21 has just a bit more treble presence than the TWF11 but still lacks the effortlessness and extension of the Sennheiser IE8 or RE262. Similarly, the treble crispness and energy characteristic of many armature-based earphones is nowhere to be found. The detail, for the most part, is still there but it is presented softly and unassumingly. As a result, I’ve found myself turning the volume up a little higher than usual on a number of occasions.
The presentation of the TWF21 is spacious and engrossing. Personally, I think presentation is where the new and old Radius models most differ. Since I switch earphones very often, I never quite managed to get used to the way the original DDM presented music – the oddly intimate feel despite the out-of-the-head soundstage, combined with the thickness and sweetness of the earphones, never really worked right away when switching to the DDM from any other earphone. No such problems with the TWF21 – the soundstage is still just as wide and deep as that of the old earphone but is no harder to get used to than that of my Sennheiser IE7 or Xears TD-III. Actually, the presentations of the TWF21 and TD-III share several characteristics aside from large size – both earphones are a bit happier presenting intimacy than distance and neither has the pinpoint-accurate positioning of a high-end BA-based earphone such as the ATH-CK10 or Westone 4. Similarly, both earphones fare better than average when it comes to dynamics and accurate portrayal of timbre; in the case of the TWF21 – significantly better than average. Lastly, the TWF21 does like being given a bit of extra juice. Depending on the source and/or amp used, giving the DDM some leeway in available power can make it sound more dynamic, more fluid, and even more detailed. Not a night-and-day difference, but it is noticeable.
Value
(6.5/10) – Considering the overwhelmingly positive reception of the sound of the original DDM, it is no surprise that the signature of the new Radius HP-TWF21 strays little from that of its predecessor. There are minor tweaks to the bass and treble but the biggest difference for me is in the presentation – the original DDM really took a bit of getting used to but the new one consistently puts a smile on my face within the first few minutes of listening. Similarly, while the day-to-day usability of the original Radius DDM was at best a mixed bag, the new earphone is easier to live with. The isolation and build quality have not undergone significant improvement but the new earbud-style housings fit me much better and the cable noise is less noticeable. Whether the improvements are worth the extra ~$120 over the TWF11 is a personal choice but for those who, like me, were never quite happy with the fit of the original, the revision brings about a welcome leveling of sound quality and functionality - not a bad deal at all considering how well the W-series earphones perform to start with.
Pros: Oh-so-beautiful sound, very nice carrying case, comfortable half-in-ear form factor
Cons: Mediocre isolation, significantly pricier than TWF11 PRO model
For a full review of the TWF21 with better photos see
here
(1C12) Ortofon e-Q5
Reviewed Apr 2011
Details: Second in-ear earphone from well-known cartridge maker Ortofon
Current Price:
$288 from musicaacoustics.com (MSRP: ~$290)
Specs: Driver:
Moving Armature | Imp:
40Ω | Sens:
117 dB | Freq:
10-20k Hz | Cable:
4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size:
4.5mm | Preferred tips:
Sony Hybrid
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes), Comply foam tips, filter changing kit with two pairs of spare filters, filter cleaning tool, and ‘tin can’ storage case
Build Quality
(4/5) – Weighty aluminum shells with rubber strain reliefs feel rather solid. The cabling has been improved over the e-Q7, with the nylon sheath below the y-split replaced by thick and flexible plastic cabling reminiscent of the stellar CK10 cord and a new, flexible strain relief on the 3.5mm plug. There is still no cable cinch and no external strain relief on the shells but as a total package the build of the e-Q5 easily keeps up with that of its predecessor
Isolation
(3.5/5) – The nozzle is still short and deep insertion is only possible with longer tips but isolation is nevertheless impressive
Microphonics
(4/5) – The flexible cable of the e-Q5 makes them a bit easier to wear over-the-ear (compared to the e-Q7) despite the odd design but microphonics are still quite good even with cable-down fitment
Comfort
(4/5) – For those with smaller ears the short nozzles and wide housings of the e-Q5 may be uncomfortable but I found them surprisingly inoffensive even over longer listening sessions. I’d still like a set of cable guides or at least a cable cinch to be included but for everyday use they are quite convenient
Sound
(9.1/10) – Ortofon’s first attempt at implementing a moving armature transducer – the e-Q7 – laid down the foundation for the other MA earphones released thus far. However, while it is an excellent performer overall, the e-Q7 never really appealed to me personally with its slightly mid-centric sound and laid-back treble presentation. Enter the e-Q5, Ortofon’s second in-ear and the least expensive moving armature earphone on the market. Despite its many sonic resemblances to the e-Q7, the e-Q5 provides a more neutral and balanced sound, acting to bridge the gap between the e-Q7 and earphones such as the brighter, more fluid-sounding dual-BA ATH-CK10.
Cliché as it sounds, one thing can be said with certainty about the bass of the e-Q5 – the apple has not fallen far from the tree. The low end presentation of the e-Q5, like that of its predecessor, is very well-rounded. Like the e-Q7, the e-Q5 can be mistaken for a very clean-sounding dynamic-driver earphone when it comes to bass performance. Unlike the e-Q7, the e-Q5 does not emphasize the lower half of its frequency spectrum more than the upper half, which gives the bass a slightly less prominent role in the overall sound. Still, the low end boasts impressive extension and can hardly be said to lack body. Texture and detail levels are very high and the bass is punchy enough to compete with almost all BAs and many of the more analytical-sounding dynamics in impact. On the whole, the low end of the e-Q5 is quick and resolving, yet natural, again striking a good balance between stereotypical armature and dynamic-driver bass.
The mids of the e-Q5 take a more noticeable detour from those of the e-Q7 than does the low end, trading some of the midrange focus of the older model for slightly better balance and a more neutral overall tone. The characteristic thickness of the e-Q7 drops off a bit as well, though the mids of the e-Q5 are still a touch more weighty than those of the ATH-CK10 or UE700 and retain most of the e-Q7’s organic richness. A slight predisposition towards warmth is also still present with the e-Q5 but on the whole the midrange is smooth, refined, and transparent. The note presentation of the e-Q5 is slightly on the soft and gentle side, which results in less aggressive detailing compared to something like the ATH-CK10. In fact, I think the e-Q5 is a bit too smooth on the microscopic level in the midrange and treble, which is why it yields even to the dynamic-driver GR07 ever so slightly when it comes to texture and microdetail.
Compared to that of the e-Q7, the treble of the e-Q5 is more extended and more energetic, making the whole signature lightweight and airy. It is more forward than with the e-Q7 but still retains the softness and refinement of the midrange. Minimal sibilance is noticeable with a handful of tracks but for the most part it is free of any grain or harshness. Detail and clarity are very impressive and there is a fair amount of sparkle to be found. The presentation is altogether not too different from that of the e-Q7 - the air added by the treble definitely plays a role but even with a more e-Q7-like balance, the excellent separation of the earphones would have been noteworthy. The soundstage is spacious and well-rounded. Positioning is fairly precise and the overall presentation is quite convincing – easily on-par with most similarly-priced BA-based and dynamic sets.
Value
(8.5/10) – With the e-Q5 the folks at Ortofon have taken a stab at refining an already-competent performer in accordance with customer complaints - out with the fancy packaging and noisy cable of the e-Q7; in with a lower price tag and more balanced sound signature. However, to say that it is an improvement in sound quality over the e-Q7 would be a mistake - for a warmer, more mid-centric sound with excellent texture, the e-Q7 is still the earphone to beat. For me, however, the e-Q5 has both superior practicality and the more appealing sound signature of the two.
Pros: Very refined, detailed, and balanced sound; better cable than pricier e-Q7 model
Cons: No cord cinch, no carrying case, fit issues possible for those with small ears
(1C13) j-phonic K2 SP
Reviewed Nov 2011
Details: customizable universal in-ear from a branch of customs manufacturer Sensaphonics
Current Price:
$399 from j-phonic.com (MSRP: $399)
Specs: Driver:
Dual BA | Imp:
27Ω | Sens:
109 dB | Freq:
20-16k Hz | Cable:
varies
Nozzle Size:
2.5mm | Preferred tips:
Comply foams (stock), Shure Olives
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4.5/5) – Comply T100 foam tips (6 sets in 3 sizes), shirt clip, cleaning tool, and Pelican 1010 water resistant carrying case with carabiner
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – The housings are made out of plastic but seem to have been built for strength and lightness above all else. Nozzles and cable entry points are reinforced and the cable is smooth and strong, twisted below the beefy y-split and terminated in one of three lengths with either an I-plug or an L-plug. The lightweight ‘memory wire’ section doesn’t have much memory but also doesn’t get in the way
Isolation
(4/5) – Very high due to the fully-sealed, ergonomic shells and foam tips
Microphonics
(5/5) – Nonexistent
Comfort
(4.5/5) – The ergonomic shells are slim and very lightweight, reminding me of the lower-end Westone earphones except that the notched nozzle places the eartips further inside the ear canal. The shell may be a little too long for smaller ears but with proper insertion depth it should fit most very comfortably. The soft memory wire works well, unlike what Sony’s EX-series monitors use
Sound
(9.2/10) – Billed as a custom monitor in a universal shell, the j-phonic K2 SP is tuned to deliver reference-level sound quality at a more reasonable price and in a more versatile form factor. Its sound differs from conventional stage monitors offered by Westone and Earsonics and slightly less so from flat-response reference sets such as the Etymotic ER4S. The K2 SP is borderline analytical in signature and presentation, and yet its bass offers up power and depth more akin to the dynamic-driver VSonic GR07. The low end effortlessly combines the cleanliness of a TWFK-based earphone with the power of a beefy dedicated bass driver. It is not quite as bassy as the Earsonics SM3 and Westone UM3X, but the low end performs brilliantly overall.
On a technical level there is not much to fault with the lows of the K2 SP – mild sub-bass roll-off aside, it’s got fantastic resolution and articulation, surprisingly realistic note weight, and very good speed. Not only is the low end extremely detailed as a result, it makes some dynamic-driver sets sound underpowered. The bass of the HiFiMan RE272, for example, despite being quick and detailed, simply sounds weak, veiled, and lacking in rumble next to the K2 SP. Compared to the Etymotic ER4S, too, the low end of the K2 SP is significantly deeper, fuller, and more prominent. Of all my current monitors, the dynamic-driver VSonic GR07 is closest to the K2 SP in punch and bass balance, though the softer note presentation makes the GR07 sound a touch fuller, and bassier on some tracks as a result. The K2 is disadvantaged only by the inability to move a whole lot of air – for example it will never sound as fleshed-out and dynamic as the consumer-oriented Sony EX1000 with its 16mm dynamic driver.
The midrange of the K2 SP offers up top-notch clarity and detail, coming across resolving and controlled but at the same time very crisp and edgy. The notes are not smoothed out in the least, causing the j-phonics to sound a bit raw and dry next to the HiFiMan RE272 and ATH-CK10. The clarity keeps up with the ATH-CK10 and ER4S but the note weight of the K2 makes the other analytical earphones sound lean, and yet there is still enough crispness to make sets like the ACS T15 and VSonic GR07 sound slightly fuzzy in comparison. Balance-wise, the midrange of the K2 SP is a touch forward – more present than that of the CK10, for example – and picks up a little towards the top, in contrast to the CK10’s flatter mids. As a result, the K2 sounds a touch brighter up until the treble peakiness of the CK10 comes into play.
The treble of the j-phonics is sparkly and extended, not lacking in emphasis by any means but flatter than that of the CK10. It is clean and clear, never getting smeared, but also integrates into the soundscape better than the slightly splashy, hot highs of the CK10. The K2 is not a forgiving earphone, however, and will point out any flaws in the equipment chain or original recording. Its aggressive nature also will not stop it sounding too clinical for some listeners, and it’s worth noting that it only performs at its best with foam tips, such as the included Complys.
The presentation is perhaps the most underwhelming part of the K2’s sound. The soundstage is very slightly above average in size – hardly congested, but far from spacious. It is well-rounded and engaging but simply doesn’t sound as open and airy as the Sony EX1000, HiFiMan RE272, or even VSonic GR07. Instrument separation, however, is easily on the studio monitor level and the K2 can almost match the imaging of the CK10. It sounds more layered than the Ety ER4S but just isn’t for those expecting an IE8 or EX1000-like headstage. Then again, I don’t see why reference earphones should be expected to have the presentation of a consumer-class earphone. Another reason why the K2 SP isn’t a great pick-up-and-go consumer earphone – it’s got a tendency to pick up hiss and electronic noise so don’t expect it to mesh well with the average smartphone or laptop. A solid audio chain or at the very least a decent dedicated audio player or external DAC will make the j-phonics shine.
Value
(8/10) – The K2 SP is a purpose-built reference monitor and works wonderfully in that respect. It is solidly constructed, ergonomic, and very user-friendly – exactly what an audio professional would want from a universal in-ear monitor. The sound it produces is clear, detailed, and well-separated, with excellent presence across the spectrum. It is very well-rounded technically but the signature will be far from ideal for many listeners. Those looking for warm and organic, or airy and open can pretty much forget about the K2. It sounds a bit cold and bright compared to stage monitors from Westone and Earsonics, as well as ‘concentrated’ – though not congested – due to a slightly aggressive presentation and average headstage size. Non-analytical listeners might find it a bit lifeless for music, which presumably is what the alternative MX tuning was designed to cover. The K2’s requiring a clean audio source also bears repeating in this age of staticky smartphones and noisy computer audio. That said, those who have their audio chain figured out and are after a reference earphone will be hard pressed to do better than the K2 in any respect.
Pros: Comfortable, well-built, highly isolating; easily one of the best reference earphones on the market; several customization options
Cons: Not well-suited for casual listeners
(1C14) Clear Tune Monitors CTM-200
Reviewed Dec 2011
Details: Dual-driver custom from Florida-based Clear Tune Monitors
Current Price: est.
$350 from cleartunemonitors.com (MSRP: est. $350)
Specs: Driver:
Dual BA | Imp:
17.5Ω | Sens:
110 dB | Freq:
20-15.5k Hz | Cable:
4.6’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: N/A | Preferred tips: N/A
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Velvet storage/carrying case and cleaning tool
Build Quality
(5/5) – The CTM-200 utilizes a two-way, dual-bore setup with a Knowles CI-22955 and ED-23619 in each earpiece. The build is good – the exterior of the acrylic shells is clean and free of scratches, with a bit of bubbling on the inside but fantastically clear faceplates. The earphones set themselves apart from the similarly-priced 1964EARS 1964-T by the careful finish of the bores and cable sockets and look more polished than the cheaper Kozee X1 as well. Eighteen color options are available; custom artwork and two-tone schemes for the shells and faceplates each command very a reasonable $25 premium. The cable uses a Westone-size socket and a slightly raised connector
Isolation
(4/5) – The isolation provided by the fitted acrylic shells is excellent -slightly below what the higher-end Etymotic Research earphones are capable of with foam or tri-flange tips but higher than that of the ergonomic monitors from Westone and EarSonics
Microphonics
(5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent, as is the case with all of the custom monitors I’ve come across
Comfort
(5/5) – Putting the customs in requires a bit of getting used to but the twisting motion eventually becomes second nature. The acrylic shells are hard but not in the least uncomfortable when fitted correctly. The fit of the CTM-200 depends on the quality of the initial impressions and skill of the person making the monitors. If the earphones remain even a tiny bit uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a re-fit is probably a good idea. CTM allows refits for an extremely generous 120 days. There is added cost with shipping the monitors back and, if necessary, getting new impressions but on the whole a perfect fit is well worth the trouble
Sound
(9.3/10) – The CTM-200 is billed as a low-cost option for professional musicians and discerning listeners alike. I have no issues with that claim - the sound signature is even enough for it to be used as a reference monitor but at the same time the presentation is fluid and natural, lacking the analytical edge and excessive separation that can interfere with musicality. The bass is only mildly rolled off at the very bottom, otherwise coming across controlled and level. Overall bass quantity is medium, very close to what I would consider ‘neutral’. The mid-bass boost of the similarly-priced 1964EARS 1964-T is nowhere to be found, with the bass of the CTM-200 coming out a touch cleaner and better-defined as a result. The CTM is a little less dynamic and not quite as capable as the 1964-T of belting out the low notes but the gain in resolution will be worth it for many listeners. Compared to the j-phonic K2 SP, the bass of the CTM-200 is similar in quantity but with a greater sensation of impact, likely due to the larger contact area of the custom shell, while the speed and depth are a touch lower. The dynamic-driver VSonic GR07 is also around the same level in terms of bass quantity but has a bit more body and thickness at the expense of detail and resolution.
The midrange transition is smooth and seamless, with zero bleed. Most obvious is just how good the crossover is – the CTM-200 causes the 1964-T to sound concentrated and slightly congested in the midrange, as if there are too many drivers doing the same job. Neither sounds disjointed but the CTM is simply more smooth and relaxed. The mids are less forward than those of the 1964-T but they are by no means recessed. Between the other reasonably well-balanced in-ears, the Audio-Technica CK10 has slightly less midrange presence and the j-phonic K2 SP has slightly more, largely due to its aggressive presentation. Good balance aside, the CTM-200 is also liquid and transparent, not at all dry as the 1964-T tends to be but also slightly less textured and not as aggressively-detailed. The clarity is excellent, note thickness is good, and the tone is very neutral – the K2 SP might sound a touch crisper but it is brighter and thinner-sounding. As a result, the j-phonics come across edgier and more analytical while the CTM-200 is smoother and more organic.
Similarly to the midrange, the treble of the CTM-200 is smooth and non-fatiguing, as it should be with a good monitor. It is clean and clear but those looking for an analytical edge will be disappointed. There is a touch more sparkle compared to the 1964-T but the tuning leans on the safe side on the whole – the VSonic GR07, for example, is noticeably less smooth and tends to accentuate sibilance far more than the CTM-200 does. The ATH-CK10, too, sounds hotter with its treble peak and even the 1964-T is not quite as soft and easy-going despite having slightly more laid-back treble on the whole. Top-end extension is about on-par with the CK10 – some earphones do better but many armature-based sets do worse.
The soundstage of the CTM-200 is rather spacious and the overall sound is big and airy. Whereas the 1964-T is intimate in presentation and has good centering ability, the CTM-200 is well-separated and more diffuse. At times it makes the 1964-T sound downright congested. More interestingly, the headstage is wider than just about anything in my collection. The GR07, RE272 and CK10, while well-rounded in terms of sonic space, fall short of the width of the CTM-200 and the decidedly less spacious K2 SP and 1964-T don’t stand a chance. Those looking for a more 3-dimensional space a-la Earsonics SM3 may be disappointing and the imaging would probably be a little less vague if the headstage wasn’t so big and the dynamics were better but the CTM-200 still performs admirably on all counts.
Lastly, since someone is certainly going to ask, I thought I would compare the CTM-200 to the Unique Melody Miracle. The 3-way, 6-driver, $929 flagship from China-based Unique Melody is not tuned as a reference monitor but it is still my sole benchmark for what a top-tier custom is capable of on a technical level. Keep in mind that the fairness of a comparison between two IEMs so different in purpose and price is dubious at best.
The sound signature of the Miracle is very slightly v-shaped, which means that the midrange of the CTM-200 is more prominent in comparison and the bass and treble are more relaxed. The lows of the Miracle are much more powerful – deeper, thicker, weightier. Impact is more tactile and the bass has rumble to go with its punch. In the midrange the Miracle is again thicker, smoother, and more fluid. Clarity levels are similar but the Miracle is still the more resolving and refined earphone. It is also more dynamic, which has an effect not only on fidelity but also on imaging and positioning. The sonic space of the Miracle is easily more well-rounded and more 3-dimensional while the CTM-200 has a slight upper hand in soundstage width and stereo separation.
Value
(9/10) – The dual-BA setup used by the CTM-200 is hardly revolutionary but the sound produced by the entry-level custom is excellent. At $350 excluding shipping, impressions, and extras, the CTM-200 is no pricier than many high-end universals but offers the isolation, fit, and customization options of a full-shell custom monitor. The finish is very good compared to the other entry-level customs in my possession and the sound is balanced and spacious. It is not for fans of the dry, overly crisp note presentation of analytical earphones, nor does it have the excessive lushness of certain stage monitors. Instead, the CTM-200 sounds soft and natural, with clarity and detail expected of a BA-based earphone in its price range and a presentation to match. I have been quite impressed with it, and anyone else looking for a balanced monitor in the price range should be as well.
Pros: Very balanced, neutral, and spacious sound; good build quality; excellent long-term comfort
Cons: Correct insertion takes some getting used to; less isolating than silicone-shelled customs
For my full review of the CTM-200 please see
here
(1C15) Sony XBA-4SL / XBA-4ip
Reviewed Mar 2012
Details: Quad-driver flagship of Sony’s BA line
Current Price:
$350 from amazon.com (MSRP: $349.99); $370 for XBA-4iP with microphone
Specs: Driver:
Quad BA | Imp:
8Ω | Sens: 108 dB | Freq:
3-28k Hz | Cable:
2' I-plug j-cord + 3’ L-plug extension
Nozzle Size:
4mm | Preferred tips:
Sony Hybrid (stock), Monster Supertips
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) – Sony Hybrid silicone tips (4 sizes), Hybrid silicone+foam tips (3 sizes), 3’ extension cable, cable winder, and magnetic clasp carrying case
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – The housings are made out of plastic but feel well put-together. The cables are slightly flattened in cross section and have very flexible strain reliefs all around.
Isolation
(3/5) – Quite decent with the ergonomic but shallow-fitting shells Microphonics (4.5/5) - Very low when worn cable-down; nonexistent with over-the-ear wear
Comfort
(4/5) – The housings are rather large but nicely designed for a vertical fit a-la JVC FXT90 or Fischer Audio Tandem. The ergonomic nozzle angle helps, as do the smooth surface and rounded edges of the housings. Over-the-ear wear is possible but may require longer eartips than those provided
Sound
(8.9/10) – While Sony’s EX-series dynamic earphones are marketed partly for professional use, the armature sets are clearly oriented towards consumers. This shows through not only in the simplicity of the design – no detachable cables or over-the-ear fitment with any of the XBA models – but also the colored sound of the quad-driver flagship. It is an unlikely role reversal, made all the more interesting by the design of the XBA-4. With an 8-ohm impedance, it is a picky earphone when it comes to source matching – more so even than the 8-ohm Clarity One from Puresound - and sounds downright poor with some audio players, such as an iPod Touch 4G. It sounds much better from a source with low output impedance – such as a Sansa Clip – and better yet from a dedicated source such as my iBasso D10. Surprisingly, despite the relatively high rated sensitivity, the XBA-4 isn’t overly revealing of hiss and other background noises.
When finally matched to a proper source, the bass of the XBA-4 is powerful and full-bodied – far ahead of most armature-based sets in quantity. It is extended and effortless, with no major mid-bass lift and a note presentation leaning towards ‘soft’, rather than ‘crisp’. The bass doesn’t sound as precise as a TWFK-based earphone, and personally I really would prefer cleaner bass from an armature-based earphone, but again I don’t think Sony had accuracy in mind when tuning these. Even next to the dynamic-driver VSonic GR07, the XBA-4 sounds a little warmer and bassier. The armature-based j-Phonic K2 SP, on the other hand, is quicker, tighter, cleaner, and more detailed, with slightly less mid-bass emphasis and fullness but similar depth and punch.
The midrange of the XBA-4 is slightly recessed compared to the bass but there is no bleed and it doesn’t sound overly distant next to other earphones with laid-back presentations, such as the GR07. Despite the lack of bass bleed, the mids of the XBA-4 sound just a touch dark and appear muffled – even veiled- next to clarity-focused earphones such as the K2 SP, the similarly-priced custom ClearTune CTM-200, and – to a more limited extent - the GR07. Even vocals noticeably lack intelligibility next to the K2 SP, CTM-200, and all TWFK-based earphones. Detail and texture levels are quite good, however - on-par with the GR07 but more impressive coupled with the smoother sound of the Sonys.
At the top end the XBA-4 has some of that characteristic Sony unevenness, exaggerating the lower treble slightly as the EX-series monitors tend to do. The XBA-4 does not sound nearly as bright, however, and avoids the mild tendency to exaggerate sibilance that can be present in both the EX600 and the GR07. Unfortunately the top end of the XBA-4 does have a metallic tinge to it that is not present in the dynamic monitors. It wasn’t too noticeable in general listening but those hoping for EX1000-like timbre will be disappointed. Treble extension is moderate and the XBA-4 doesn’t have great air despite a sizeable soundstage.
The presentation of the XBA-4 is wide and spacious without losing versatility of positioning. Width is similar to the VSonic GR07 but the XBA-4 has better layering for a more 3-D feel. It is adept at conveying both distance and intimacy and ranks above average in headstage size among armature-based IEMs. It’s still not nearly as spacious as the CTM-200 or a Sennheiser IE8 but matches the ATH-CK10 and j-Phonic K2 SP, which is more than I can say for high-end sets from Shure or Westone. It has good separation, too, but there are issues with how it is achieved. With many tracks the XBA-4 very obviously lacks coherence, especially at higher volumes, and sounds downright disjointed compared to single-driver sets such as the GR07. Many are of the opinion that all multi-BA setups sound incoherent but compared to the XBA-4 all of my TWFK-based sets as well as the K2 SP and CTM-200 sound extremely well-integrated. The individualized outputs of the four drivers do enhance the sense of separation, but I can’t help but feel that the single-driver XBA-1 may sound more natural than the quad.
Value
(6.5/10) – Sony’s entire new series of BA-based monitors is interesting for several reasons, including the in-house development of the drivers and the consumer-oriented tuning of the earphones. The flagship XBA-4 uses a quad-driver setup with dual dedicated woofers and impresses with its spacious presentation as well as the depth and effortlessness of its low end. Unfortunately, Sony seems to have used extra drivers more as an equalizer than a way of creating a true multi-way system. The differences in voicing between the drivers color the sound and seem to decrease the overall coherence. Still, even if the performance does not stand up to close scrutiny as well as that of the dynamic-driver EX1000, the smooth and powerful sound of the XBA-4 will find fans among those who frown on the more analytical tendencies of so many other BAs.
Pros: User-friendly BA-based set with good bass
Cons: Not a great performer compared to Sony’s dynamic monitors
Big thanks to
mascareiro for the XBA-4 loan
(1C16) Monster Miles Davis Trumpet
Reviewed June 2012
Details: Trumpet-shaped follow-up to the original Miles Davis Tribute
Current Price:
$270 from amazon.com (MSRP: $349.95)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable:
3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
6mm | Preferred tips:
Stock single-flanges, Yamaha EPH-100 tips
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(4.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Foam tips (5 sizes), Monster supertips (4 sizes), buttoned carrying case, soft carrying pouch, and shirt clip
Build Quality
(4/5) – Styled to look like miniature trumpets, the unique housings are much sturdier than they look. The attention to detail is superb – the 3-button Apple remote modeled after a trumpet’s valves alone is a work of art. The only worry is the lack of flexible strain relief on the soft, tangle-resistant flat cable. Driver flex is nonexistent – a huge improvement over Monster’s other in-ears. Additionally, Monster’s lifetime warranty is still in effect for the Trumpets, although the one-time no-questions-asked replacement provision seems to have disappeared
Isolation
(3.5/5) - Good with the right eartips
Microphonics
(3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cord-down; low otherwise
Comfort
(4.5/5) – Since the dynamic micro-driver is mounted inside the nozzle, those with narrow ear canals may want to give these a pass but for everyone else the tiny, lightweight shells should be ergonomic and unobtrusive. My own ear canals are deep enough for these to be slept in comfortably and the Miles Davis plaques on the cords don’t cause any issues with over-the-ear wear
Sound
(8.9/10) – The Trumpet is Monster’s follow-up to the Miles Davis Tribute (review 1C7) and the company’s first earphone utilizing a dynamic microdriver. Previously seen only in mid-level products, microdrivers have recently made their way into the very impressive Yamaha EPH-100 and JVC FXT90, and the Trumpet follows suit with sound that easily vaults it to the top of Monster’s lineup.
Considering that the Trumpet is a Monster product, it comes as no surprise that its bass is enhanced – both depth and impact outpace the Yamaha EPH-100 slightly and the VSonic GR07 and Sony MDR-EX600 significantly. There is good sub-bass extension but also moderate mid-bass lift, which causes the low end to sound much fuller and slightly more bloated than that of the GR07 or the bassy but BA-based Klipsch Image X10. Admittedly, the Trumpet is not as bassy as the older MD Tribute, with a low end that is less intrusive and more capable of scaling down when necessary, greatly reducing boominess and midrange bleed. The Sennheiser IE7, which has similar bass quantity, also falls short of the Trumpets in control, detail, and texture.
The midrange of the Trumpet boasts good clarity and detail but lacks the emphasis of the low end. The Yamaha EPH-100, while similar in technical performance, offers more forward mids, resulting in better bass-midrange balance, and is slightly clearer of bass bleed as a result. The GR07, too, is flatter, cooler in tone, and more accurate than the Trumpet. That said, the Trumpet is arguably the most nuanced and refined earphone in Monster’s entire lineup and again not nearly as thick and lush-sounding as the older MD Tribute.
The emphasized treble of the Trumpet completes the mildly v-shaped sound signature, causing them to sound brighter than the MD Tribute and Monster’s Turbine models. The emphasis is sufficient to make the Trumpets more tiring in the long run compared to a Turbine Pro but not heavy enough to introduce harshness or sibilance. In fact, the Trumpets tend to be less ‘hot’ on touchy recordings than the GR07 while remaining extremely crisp and clean, with no excessive note sustainment and good extension.
The presentation is wide, providing a large sonic space and good separation. Soundstage depth is good, as are the dynamics, and the Trumpet tends to sound less intimate than the older Tributes. The GR07, admittedly, has a wider, more out-of-the-head presentation with a bit more air. The Sennheiser IE7 also has a larger presentation as well as a better center image but doesn’t have the detail or dynamics of the Trumpet, resulting in a less nuanced and layered sound. On the whole the Trumpet avoids extremes with both its sound signature and presentation, and only sounds better for it.
Value
(8/10) – Monster’s Miles Davis Trumpet is a beautifully packaged and unique-looking earphone with a small, lightweight form factor and good noise isolation. Its design may be even louder than that of the old Tribute but the sound makes the Trumpet Monster’s most audiophile-friendly in-ear yet - the signature is more balanced and refined than that of the outgoing model and combines enhanced bass with a spacious soundstage and good resolution. Microphonics in the flat cable can be bothersome and there are sets that offer similar sound quality for less but as an overall package – complete with Monster’s lifetime warranty – the Trumpet is still a solid set of earphones.
Pros: Beautiful packaging & presentation; small & comfortable; lively yet detailed sound
Cons: Very flashy design; can be microphonic
Big thanks to
Selenium for loaning me the Trumpet for review!
(1C17) Final Audio Design FI-BA-SB “Heaven S”
Added June 2012
Details: Distinctive brass-shelled monitor from Final Audio’s BA line
Current Price:
$379 from musicaacoustics.com
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4.6' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: MEElec M6 bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or
over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and oversize zippered carrying case
Build Quality
(4/5) – The FI-BA-SB is solidly constructed, with long, rounded metal shells and a flat cable with matching – albeit minimal - strain reliefs. The flat cable is thicker than those found on the other FI-BA earphones but lacks a cinch
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Good with the stock single-flanges and even better with aftermarket tips
Microphonics
(4/5) – Noise in the flat cable is a little higher than with the thinner cords of the BA-SS and BA-SA but still low even with cable-down wear
Comfort
(4/5) – The housings of the BA-SB are on the heavy side but the flat cables don’t hinder over-the-ear wear and the fit is easy-going on the whole
Sound
(9/10) – The team at Final Audio Design has never been known to follow convention, and the sound of the FI-BA-SB is highly atypical of an armature-based earphone. Bass is plentiful - for a BA, the BA-SB is punchy and aggressive. It’s not subbass-heavy but has good extension with minimal bloat. Compared to most earphones with similar bass quantity, the BA-SB sounds very quick and clean, though some of the better dynamics, such as the VSonic GR07 and Sony MDR-7550, offer a more natural note presentation and more realistic bass. Compared to the typical TWFK-based earphone – the VSonic GR01, for example - the BA-SB has greater bass quantity at the expense of some of the delicacy, control, and fine detailing that TWFK-based sets are known for. The same goes for comparing it to the Etymotic ER4S or HiFiMan RE272.
The midrange of the FI-BA-SB is smooth and a touch warm compared to flatter sets such as the ER4S and GR01. Like the bass, the mids are forward and aggressive. Overall, the BA-SB sounds colored and boasts a very vivid, lively sound. It makes the Monster MD Trumpet, a respectable performer in every way, sound veiled with its more laid-back mids and softer, slower note presentation. The FI-BA-SB, on the other hand, while neither neutral in tone nor particularly refined, is very resolving, raw, and ‘honest’ in its sound.
The treble of the BA-SB is laid-back compared to the midrange. It remains clear and resolving and the drop in emphasis compared to the mids reminds me of the Fischer Audio SBA-03. It is not as bright or airy as the pricier BA-SS model or dual-driver sets such as the VSonic GR01 and Audio-Technica CK10. At the same time, despite the lower overall treble energy, the BA-SB is not as smooth as the GR01 or HiFiMan RE272, even appearing a touch grainy at times.
The soundstage of the FI-BA-SB is below average in width – narrower than those of the GR01, CK10, and RE272. The general forwardness causes the earphones to lean towards intimacy but the presentation has decent depth to it. Dynamics are impressive for a BA-based earphone and imaging is good enough, providing a well-rounded sonic presentation. Sets that sound more airy and spacious – the VSonic GR01 and GR07, for example – won’t appeal nearly as well those who prefer aggressive, forward sound. Conversely, those who prefer an out-of-the-head presentation may find the sound of the FADs overly small and congested.
It is also worth noting that the BA-SB is an incredibly sensitive earphone, achieving louder volumes than almost anything else out there and hissing noticeably with many amps and sources.
Value
(8/10) – In typical FAD fashion, the striking brass shells of the FI-BA-SB house a conventional single BA setup that sounds anything but. It is punchy, aggressive, and dynamic, delivering a vivid sonic image in place of the neutral tone and flat response often expected of armature-based monitors. The design of the earphones is decidedly hit or miss, however, with good isolation and a very solid feel to the housings counterbalancing the lack of proper strain relief, above-average weight, and sparse fit kit. One thing is certain – in terms of bang/buck, the BA-SB makes mincemeat of the higher-end SS model.
Pros: Uniquely colored, lively sound from a single BA
Cons: Minimal strain relief, weighty housings
Huge thanks to
james444 for loaning me the Final Audio Heaven A, C, and S
(1C18) Final Audio Design FI-BA-SA “Heaven C”
Added Aug 2012
Details: Latest addition to FAD’s BA line; replaces the outgoing BA-A1
Current Price:
$299 from musicaacoustics.com
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4.6' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: MEElec M6 bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or
over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and oversize zippered carrying case
Build Quality
(4/5) – The Final Audio FI-BA-SA is very similar in construction to the BA-SB model with more lightweight chromed shells and thinner cabling more akin to that of the $1100 FI-BA-SS. The cable is very soft and smooth but thinner than average and more tangle-prone compared to the flat cable of the BA-SB. Strain relief is still minimal but a cable cinch is present
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Good with the stock single-flanges and even better with aftermarket tips
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – Though thin, the cable is nearly silent even in the cord-down configuration
Comfort
(4.5/5) – The housings of the BA-SA are much lighter than those of the BA-SB. The cabling is more flexible and comes complete with a cinch to make over-the-ear wear easier. On the whole, their featherlike weight pushes these FADs into don-and-forget territory
Sound
(9/10) – The sound of FI-BA-SA is quite similar to that of its brass sibling and virtually identical to the now-defunct FI-BA-A1. Overall, its signature is a touch less colored than that of the BA-SB but mostly falls in the same vein. Compared to the SB model, the BA-SA has slightly more linear bass – there is still more mid-bass than a VSonic GR01 or Ety ER4 might have but the difference is just great enough to give the SA a slight advantage in definition over the SB. The SA also remains flatter through the lower mids for a slightly more neutral tone and less fullness, though it retains the forward presentation and overall clarity of the BA-SB.
The top end of the SA is again not overly prominent, taking a small step back compared to the bass and midrange. It is clear and resolving but gives up a touch of the brightness and energy of the SB model. The result is a marginally smoother and more restrained sound that loses some the crispness and excitement of the SB. It does, however, make gains in smoothness, keeping up with the VSonic GR01 even on poorly mastered recordings.
The soundstage of the BA-SA remains unchanged – it is below average in width and tends towards forwardness and intimacy. Depth is decent enough and dynamics are good but the SA will still sound congested compared to a HiFiMan RE272 or Sony MDR-7550. The SA also retains extremely high sensitivity – clearly there is no question that these were designed to be used with portable players.
Value
(8/10) – The FI-BA-SA is a slightly more conservative version of the FI-BA-SB, both in sound and appearance. Physical differences include lighter housings and thinner cables, giving the SA a slightly less solid feel but better long-term comfort and lower microphonics. The sound, too, is potentially less polarizing than that of the SB model, but also less lively and interesting. Technically, the SA may be the more accurate earphone but simply I couldn’t help reaching for the warmer, punchier, and more exotic FI-BA-SB most of the time.
Pros: Extremely lightweight construction, low microphonics, competent sound
Cons: Minimal strain relief, stringy cables, weighty housings
Huge thanks to
james444 for loaning me the Final Audio Heaven A, C, and S
(1C19) Ultimate Ears UE 900
Added Oct 2012
Details: UE’s long-awaited follow-up to the renowned Triple.Fi 10
Current Price:
$399.99 from logitech.com (MSRP: $399.99)
Specs: Driver:
Quad BA | Imp:
30Ω | Sens:
105 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
4' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
4.5mm | Preferred tips:
stock single-flanges; MEElec M6 bi-flanges; T-series Complys
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (5 sizes), Comply foam tips (3 sizes), replacement cable with inline mic/remote, ¼” adapter, airline attenuator, soft carrying pouch, and plastic carrying case
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – The UE900 retains the blue-and-black plastic aesthetic and replaceable cables of UE’s previous flagship, the Triple.Fi 10, but compacts everything into a smaller, more ergonomic package. The two-pin cable sockets are gone in favor of rotating coaxial connectors akin to those used by Shure’s current offerings and both a headset and a plain stereo cable are included. The cables are braided, with an unusual quad-braid configuration below the y-split, and provide a massive ergonomic improvement over the latest TF10 cables
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Very good with the right fit. The tapered housings allow for a relatively deep seal and a variety of tips is included for optimal isolation
Microphonics
(5/5) – Nonexistent in the braided cord
Comfort
(4/5) – Ergonomically, the UE900 is a huge improvement on the old TF10, with housings that sit more flush in the ear and can stay in place without additional support, though the rotating cable connectors can make it more difficult to use the memory wire. The earphone seems to favor a deep seal and the housings still contain four armatures per side, so those with small ears should, if possible, try before buying
Sound
(9.2/10) – The UE900 is the first Ultimate Ears flagship created under Logitech management. Replacing the Triple.Fi 10, a model that has been a staple of portable audiophiledom for the better part of a decade, the UE900 boasts a 3-way quad-BA configuration akin to that of the Westone 4. Despite UE’s new management, the 900 doesn’t stray too far away from the TF10 sound, opting to simply provide a more balanced and refined take on the signature.
The Triple.Fi 10 has always been known for delivering ample bass courtesy of its 2-way, triple-BA driver configuration, and the new UE900 is certainly no slouch in this regard—its bass is deep, punchy, and articulate. The curve is flatter compared to the TF10, with more linear subbass extension and less mid-bass boost. The resulting sound is less warm compared to the TF10, though still warmer than sets such as the HiFiMan RE272 and VSonic GR07. The bass of the UE900 sounds tighter and more natural than that of its predecessor and the sound is not as colored. The only potential downside is that the UE900 is a touch less “bassy” in the conventional sense than fans of the TF10 may be used to.
The UE900 is tonally on the warm side and the midrange has a mild downward slope. Lower mids are more prominent compared to the TF10, resulting in a sound signature with a much less obvious v-shape. Vocals are less recessed and the midrange sounds fuller and richer, making the mids of the TF10 seem thin in comparison. Upper mids are de-emphasized, however, resulting in slight veiling. Female vocals especially seem veiled and less intelligible compared to sets such as the HiFiMan RE272 and Sony MDR-7550.
Treble response, on the other hand, is quite inoffensive. The UE900 doesn’t lack treble emphasis on the grand scale, providing a brighter sound with more treble presence than some popular triple-driver sets, such as the Shure SE530 and Earsonics SM3. That said, the top end is smoother compared to the TF10 and boasts less sparkle, continuing the UE900’s move away from the more v-shaped, more colored sound of its predecessor. The greater treble emphasis does make the TF10 sound a bit more energetic and can give it the illusion of greater clarity on some tracks but the smoother treble of the UE900 does a better job of avoiding harshness and sibilance. The UE900 also sounds more natural, avoiding the slight metallic tinge displayed by certain other BA-based sets.
The presentation of the UE900 retains the best aspect of the TF10 – the width – but the more forward mids give its sound a less distant, more three-dimensional feel. Soundstage depth is good, easily beating out the popular VSonic GR07 and competing with the pricier Phonak PFE232. Instrument separation and imaging are good as well, providing an immersive listening experience. It’s worth noting also that the sensitivity of the UE900 is rather high compared to the PFE232 and similar sets—seemingly a common trait of all balanced armature in-ears from UE.
In addition to the Triple.Fi 10 comparisons above, I took the chance to test the UE900 head-to-head against a few other high-end universal-fit earphones. What follows are brief notes based on lengthy comparative listening.
Rock-It Sounds R-50 ($120)
The R-50 is a high bang-per-buck dual-armature universal based on the Knowles TWFK driver, a setup similar to UE’s lower-end 700 model. Compared to the UE900, the R-50 boasts a brighter tone with less bass emphasis and more treble energy. It has a thinner note presentation but provides better midrange clarity and more intelligible vocals. Unfortunately, the treble is also splashier and more prone to exaggerating sibilance. The UE900, on the other hand, is smoother and carries more lower midrange emphasis for fuller, throatier vocals. Its bass is deeper and significantly more powerful, though also a touch boomy in comparison. Both earphones have similarly spacious soundstages with good depth and width.
VSonic GR07 ($180)
The GR07 is an audiophile heavy-hitter, providing benchmark performance from a single bio-cellulose dynamic driver. Compared to the UE900, the GR07 provides better clarity and a brighter sound with tonality closer to what I would consider “neutral”. The UE900 is warmer and provides more mid-bass impact with similar sub-bass depth. Its sound is more dynamic, however, and it avoids the sibilance-prone treble peaks of the GR07 in favor of a smoother, less fatiguing presentation. The UE900 also pulls away in soundstaging, with better depth and layering that make the GR07’s presentation appear flat and overly distant.
HiFiMan RE272 ($250)
The RE272 is another audiophile favorite and the latest in a series of increasingly accurate in-ears from HiFiMan. Compared to the somewhat bass-light RE272, the UE900 is warmer and punchier, with an overall presentation centered more on the bass and lower midrange, and a slightly “boomier” bottom end. The RE272 is more transparent and boasts better vocal clarity and treble sparkle, as well as better instrument separation. Its soundstage lacks a bit of depth in comparison, however, giving the UE900 an edge in layering and imaging.
Phonak PFE232 ($600)
Phonak’s flagship uses a dual armature setup but still manages to deliver sound that puts it near the top of the universal earphone game. The sound signature of the PFE232 is noticeably v-shaped, with more recessed mids and added treble energy compared to the UE900. The top end of the PFE232 is more crisp, sparkly, and extended. The low end of the Phonaks also presents less mid-bass emphasis for a slightly cleaner sound. The UE900, on the other hand, still manages good bass, both in depth and impact, but also provides more prominent and less grainy mids compared to the 232. Its presentation also has slightly better depth in addition to great width.
AKG K3003i ($1300)
The priciest universal-fit headset on the planet, the K3003i is AKG’s sole entry into the high-end in-ear market. Compared to the UE900, the dynamic bass driver of the K3003i provides more mid-bass impact and slower bass decay while the balanced armatures attain better top-end extension and crisper, more detailed sound. Its presentation is also more airy and layered better than that of the UE900, though the latter is definitely no slouch. The midrange of the K3003i is more recessed, however, with the UE900 providing better balance between the bass and mids. The UE900 also wins the smoothness battle as the AKGs are more prone to exposing harshness and sibilance.
FitEar ToGo 334 ($1350)
The TG334 is a flagship custom-come-universal from Japan-based FitEar. The UE900 puts up a good fight in this unfair comparison but the TG334 earns its otherworldly price tag with a noticeable jump in clarity and transparency over the UE900. The veil of the UE900 was most noticeable next to the FitEar—the more forward midrange of the TG334, despite the powerful bass, carries no veil whatsoever. Microdetail is brought forward and made more discernible compared to the UE900 and instrument separation is improved as well. Finally, the bass of the TG334 is also more dynamic and capable of delivering greater impact when called for.
Value
(85/10) – With such a widely revered predecessor and an even more easy-going sound signature, the new Ultimate Ears UE 900 is a high-end earphone for the masses. The outgoing Triple.Fi 10 is still an audiophile icon but after more than half a decade it is undoubtedly a bit long in the tooth. The UE 900, despite the steep price tag, is a well thought-out replacement, both sonically and as an overall package. It provides better ergonomics, optional headset functionality, and an improved cable, as well as punchy, smooth, non-fatiguing sound that doesn’t butcher low-bitrate tracks. It’s not perfect, but with the UE 900 as its replacement the TF10 certainly won’t be missed by many.
Pros: Comfortable fit; spare cable included; nearly no cable noise; punchy bass; more balanced sound than Triple.Fi 10
Cons: Upper midrange can appear a bit veiled
(1C20) Sennheiser IE7
Added Mar 2013
Details: Previously popular model from Sennheiser’s original IE series
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $299.95)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
120 dB | Freq:
10-19k Hz | Cable:
4' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock short bi-flanges; MEElec balanced bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(5/5) - Single flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (3 sizes) silicone tips, foamhybrid tips (2 sizes), cleaning tool, over-the-ear cable guides, shirt clip, and storage case with integrated cable winder
Build Quality
(4.5/5) - The housings are made of sturdy plastic and the kevlar-reinforced cable is light, smooth, and strong. It is not detachable like that of the pricier IE8 and the L-plug is not gold plated, so rotating it can cause a bit of static
Isolation
(2.5/5) – As with the IE8, the IE7 is a shallow-fitting earphone with below-average isolation
Microphonics
(5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent
Comfort
(4/5) - The housings are large but lightweight and surprisingly ergonomic. They sit flush in the ear and are not overly sensitive to insertion depth, so the IE7 should be comfortable for all but those with small outer ears
Sound
(8.2/10) – Part of Sennheiser’s original IE-series lineup, the IE7 provides a somewhat different sound signature than the more bass-heavy IE6 and IE8. The sound of the IE7 is more mid-focused, though bass is still plentiful. The low end is both impactful and full-bodied, and bass power should be ample for all but die-hard bass fans. Control is a bit disappointing, however – the IE7 suffers from a mid-bass lift and its low end is neither as tight not as quick as those of more modern dynamic-driver designs. The Monster Miles Davis Trumpet, for example, makes the IE7 sound boomy and bloated in comparison and offers up better detail and texturing throughout. The Atrio MG7, too, easily beats the IE7 not only in bass depth but also control, and the JVC HA-FX500 has a flatter, more realistic low end that causes it to sound more even-handed and natural compared to the IE7.
The midrange of the IE7 is warm, yet forward - those who find the IE8 veiled and recessed in the midrange would probably enjoy the IE7 more. The earphone sounds lush and smooth but lacks the detail of most BA-based and many dynamic-driver sets in its price range - the mids simply don’t have the best definition, especially down where the bass bleeds over. The JVC HA-FXT90 and Yamaha EPH-100 are two lower-priced dynamic driver earphones that have cleaner-sounding mids compared to the IE7.
The treble of the IE7 has good presence but isn’t very refined, lacking the delicacy, effortlessness, and detail of sets such as the HiFiMan RE-ZERO and Sony EX600. It can be a little edgy but doesn’t have a whole lot of sparkle and liveliness. The presentation, too, impresses with its spaciousness but boasts only average separation. The IE7 maintains the excellent soundstage and headstage size of the higher-end IE8 model. It sounds more expansive than competing sets such as the Monster Miles Davis Trumpets and even the open-backed JVC HA-FX500, but doesn’t have the imaging to compete with even the cheaper Yamaha EPH-100. The Sony EX600, which has a similarly large presentation, sounds cleaner and less congested, with more convincing layering and a coherent, versatile presentation.
Value
(6.5/10) – Sennheiser’s now-defunct IE7 is a unique earphone – with a mid-forward signature, large headstage, and powerful bass, it would have a place on the market today were it not for the somewhat disappointing clarity and resulting lack of refinement. Like the higher-end IE8, the IE7 does not offer much isolation but boasts good ergonomics and an excellent cable, making it an easy earphone to use out and about. Its sound, too, works well on the go – it just isn’t as “Hi-Fi” as one might expect from an upper-tier Sennheiser product.
Pros: Excellent cabling, no microphonics, lightweight and comfortable, large soundstage
Cons: Mediocre isolation, lacks transparency and refinement
(1C21) EarSonics SM64 (v2)
Added Jul 2013
Details: EarSonics 3-way, triple-armature follow-up to the SM3
Current Price:
$399 from amazon.com (MSRP: $399)
Specs: Driver:
3-BA / 3-way crossover Imp:
98Ω | Sens:
122 dB | Freq:
10-20k Hz | Cable:
4.2' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
2.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock bi-flanges; Westone STAR tips
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) – Double-flange silicone tips (2 pairs), foam tips (2 sizes), cleaning tool, and clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – Like the first-gen EarSonics models I’ve reviewed, the SM64 uses plastic shells reminiscent of the Westone stage monitors. The cords are now detachable, however, utilizing a common 2-pin socket, and have a memory wire section for a more secure fit. The twisted cables are similar to those used by Westone universals and most custom-fit earphones
Isolation
(4/5) – Quite good with both the included silicone and foam tips
Microphonics
(5/5) – Basically nonexistent, as with all similar designs
Comfort
(4.5/5) – The new smooth, rounded housings are a major improvement over the angular design of the old SM2/SM3, fitting securely without applying pressure to parts of the outer ear like the SM3 shells did
Sound
(9.3/10) – The sound of the SM64 bears a resemblance to its predecessor, the SM3, but at the same time offers a more conventional balance and presentation. First the sound signature – the SM64 is a warmish earphone with impressive bass quality and clear, yet forgiving sound. The low end of the earphones is outstanding – the bass has very good depth and control. It is boosted, yet maintains a good balance of mid- and subbass. The result is a low end that’s extended and powerful, yet very clean and controlled. It makes the bottom end of the VSonic GR07 sound a touch loose and intrusive and competes in quality with the decidedly less bassy Ultimate Ears 900.
The midrange of the SM64 maintains good presence but is not overly forward. Tonally, the EarSonics are slightly warm – warmer, for example, than Philips’ flagship Fidelio S2 model and the Ultimate Ears 900. Note thickness is impressive as well, and while the SM64 doesn’t have the emphasized upper midrange and treble that typically accentuate clarity, it is still about as clear as the flatter and more accurate-sounding VSonic VC1000 and Philips Fidelio S2, among others.
On the point of accuracy – the SM64 has an upper midrange dip, not unlike its predecessor, the SM3. However, the dip of the SM3 seems to be broader and has a greater effect on the sound, resulting in greater veiling and a darker overall tone compared to the SM64. The SM64 still cannot be called neutral, however, and lacks some of upper midrange presence and accuracy compared to earphones such as the Fidelio S2, UE 900, and VC1000, just to name a few.
The treble of the new EarSonics has pretty good presence, appearing more energetic than, for example, the EarSonics SM3, Westone UM3X, and Sony MDR-7550, but not harsh or sibilant. It seems to be a case of taking the middle ground- a little smoothed-over compared to accuracy-oriented in-ears such as the VSonic VC1000 and Philips Fidelio S2 but at the same time is not as smooth as the Sony MDR-7550. Still, while not perfect, it’s an improvement on the old SM3 and a fair compromise between risking harshness and losing crispness. The VSonic GR07, for example, is quite sibilance-prone compared to the EarSonics.
The presentation of the SM64 has good depth and width, and appears to be tuned for more universal appeal than the uniquely enveloping sound of the older SM3. Good bass control and a lack of midrange recession help the SM64’s separation and imaging. The VSonic GR07, for example, sounds a bit congested and lacking in soundstage depth in comparison and even the UE900, while spacious overall and more impressive in this regard than the GR07, still doesn’t quite have the depth of the SM64.
One last thing worth noting is that the SM64 is not very sensitive and was less efficient than all of the earphones I compared it against, especially the SM3.
Select Comparisons
EarSonics SM3 (discontinued)
Pitting the SM64 against its predecessor is telling of the direction EarSonics has taken with the tuning of the new model. While the SM3 remains a very unique earphone with its thick, lush mids and enveloping presentation, the SM64 boasts a more conventional – but at the same time more capable – sound. The low end of the SM64, for instance, is more focused on subbass and less on mid-bass, resulting in sound that is tighter and cleaner overall. The mids of the SM64 are not as forward as those of the SM3 and the note presentation is not as thick and creamy.
The thinner note presentation affords the SM64 a slightly clearer sound, which is also helped along by greater treble energy compared to the previous-gen model. The brighter treble results in a more neutral tone compared to the warmer SM3 – though the SM64 is not flat in FR, it is more balanced than its predecessor. The more mid-forward SM3 also boasts a more enveloping presentation, which is something that resulted in a lot of polarized opinions and heated debate. The new SM64 has a wider soundstage and a more conventional out-of-the-head presentation. Overall, while the two earphones are more different in sound signature than technical ability, I would rather listen to the new SM64 nine out of ten times.
Phonak PFE 232 ($599)
Phonak’s PFE 232 is a dual-driver design with a mildly v-shaped sound signature – quite a contrast to all EarSonics models, especially the old SM3. Compared to the new SM64, the 232 has brighter, more energetic treble and at times seems clearer and crisper, as tends to be the case with brighter earphones. However, the 232 also sounds a little “hot” and has a greater tendency towards sibilance when pitted against the more relaxed treble of the SM64. Its sound, especially the top end, seems thinner and less natural compared to that of the EarSonics.
The bass of the PFE is greater in quantity compared to the SM64 and tends to intrude on the more recessed mids of the Phonaks. The EarSonics, on the other hand, boast less aggressive bass and a fuller, more prominent midrage. That, combined with the smoother treble of the SM64, makes it more natural and easier to listen to than the PFE, which is why it has won my ear here.
Sennheiser IE 800 ($1000)
Sennheiser’s flagship in-ear boasts plentiful bass and a more v-shaped overall sound compared to the EarSonics. It offers greater mid- and subbass presence, as well as greater impact and note weight. The EarSonics, on the other hand, exercise a bit more bass control. The lower midrange of the IE 800 is more recessed but maintains clarity very well. At the same time the SM64, with its laid-back upper mids, sounds smoother than the somewhat splashy IE 800. Subjectively, the performance of these two is actually rather close, though the IE 800 did win my ear more often than the SM64 for its greater midrange accuracy and huge bass that does not sacrifice clarity.
AKG K3003 ($1300)
AKG’s BA-dynamic hybrid is yet another earphone with a more v-shaped sound compared to the EarSonics SM64. The K3003 is a set I’ve always rather liked, and that doesn’t change in head-to-head comparisons with the EarSonics. The AKG boasts more treble presence, energy, and sparkle, and the upper midrange is more filled-in, resulting in the K3003 appearing more detailed overall.
The bass of the K3003 is a little more powerful than that of the SM64, though the difference is not night and day. The mids of the SM64 are fuller and more forward, on the other hand, and the overall tone is warmer. The brighter, more v-shaped K3003 nonetheless sounds a little more neutral to me than the SM64, but it’s difficult to fault the bass and lower midrange of the EarSonics even next to the hugely pricy AKGs.
Clear Tune Monitors CTM-200 ($350)
The CTM-200 is an entry-level dual-driver custom monitor priced right near the SM64. Tuned for an accurate, musician-friendly sound, the CTM-200 is not as warm in tone as the SM64, with bass that rolls off earlier and lacks the impact of the EarSonics. The lack of proper subbass extension hurts the realism and accuracy of the low end – simply put, the EarSonics sound much more effortless and realistic when it comes to bass.
Aside from the bass, the dual-driver CTM-200 actually does offer some advantages over the SM64 – its mids, for example, are flatter overall and provide better accuracy. The upper midrange is more filled-in and the overall tone is cooler. Despite this, clarity is actually on-par between the two earphones and while the presentation of the CTM-200 is a bit more out-of-the-head, the SM64 keeps up very well in soundstage size, imaging, and overall sense of space. Choosing between these two earphones is a matter of choosing between the superior bass of the SM64 or the more accurate sound and marginally larger presentation of the CTM-200.
Value
(8.5/10) – EarSonics broke onto the worldwide audio scene a few years back with the rather controversial SM3 – an earphone that, with some reservations, I quite liked. The sound of the new SM64 retains resemblance to its predecessor but also seems to be tuned for more universal appeal. It’s not tonally neutral, but it refines the formula in many ways - even the fit has been improved dramatically compared to the first-gen EarSonics products.
These days there are dozens of great-sounding earphones available at almost all price points so all high-end purchases are tough to justify, but there’s one thing I’ll freely admit - the SM64 is much more proficient than most at getting my toes tapping.
Pros: Great bass and presentation; very comfortable, especially next to old EarSonics models; good isolation and overall user-friendliness
Cons: Could be flatter between the upper midrange and treble
(1C22) Custom Art Music One
Reviewed October 2013
Details: Single BA model from Poland-based Custom Art, owned and operated by a long-time Head-Fi member piotrus-g
Starting Price: €189 (est. $260) from thecustomart.com
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 41Ω | Sens: 109 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Wear Style: Over-the-ear
Accessories (5/5) – Cleaning tool, Otterbox 1000 crushproof storage/carrying case, and compact clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (5/5) – The Music One is a full-shell silicone custom monitor with excellent shell quality. A fixed cable is standard, but detachable cabling is available as an option. The fixed cable lacks external strain relief but the silicone of the shells does the same job better. The cord itself is among my all-time favorites - very soft and slightly rubberized, it is resistant to both microphonics and tangling. There are also far more customization options available for the Music One than my other silicone customs, and Custom Art even offers themed visual designs dubbed “State of Art” at an extra cost. My unit has blue shells, clear tips, and color-coded nozzles, and came with a matching blue carrying case
Isolation (5/5) – Excellent, falling just behind my Spiral Ear 3-way Reference, which has a musician’s fit with longer canals
Microphonics (5/5) – None – the soft, rubbery cable is completely silent
Comfort (5/5) – The flexible, low-profile silicone shells of the Music One can be hard to grip and take slightly longer to insert and remove compared to more rigid acrylic customs, but are extremely comfortable and maintain seal better with changes to ear canal shape, such as while chewing or talking. Built around a single balanced armature driver, the Music One has the lowest profile of all my custom monitors and its soft cables are made more unobtrusive by the lack of a strain relief and memory wire. All in all, it is the most comfortable of all my earphones, custom-fit or otherwise
Sound (9.2/10) – From the first listen it was clear that the Custom Art Music One, which utilizes a vented balanced armature driver, is one of the best earphones in its class. It pursues a very coherent, natural sound that impresses with its weight and smoothness. The low end extends well and offers up good impact. It is tighter than the boomier, more mid-bassy 1964EARS 1964-V3 but, as with the other silicone customs I’ve reviewed thus far, there is a certain difficult-to-describe characteristic to the bass that makes the earphones seem more impactful while taking away slightly from the detail and texture, which I attribute to the silicone. This allows the Music One to maintain good bass control while providing ample presence – more than with the dynamic-drover HiFiMan RE-400 and the Ultimate Ears 600, for example – but also means it can’t quite keep up with the low-end resolution of, for example, the pricier EarSonics SM64.
The mids of the Music One are smooth and clear, with good note thickness and again a very natural presentation. The midrange is definitely one of the strengths of the earphone but doesn’t present as overly forward, likely due to the impactful bass. The HiFiMan RE-400 and Ultimate Ears 600 both seem a touch more mid-centric than the Music One, for example. Clarity is excellent as well, falling just a hair behind higher-priced sets such as the EarSonics SM64 and 1964EARS V3.
The treble of the Custom Art is a little less prominent but still remains in good balance with the overall sound, reminding me of the way recent HiFiMan releases have been tuned. It is not the most crisp-sounding, but tends to be natural and smooth. The same is true of the presentation – the Music One has a spacious sound, especially compared to the majority of other single-BA earphones. It also impresses with good soundstage depth and the ability to portray intimacy properly when necessary, further making it a great all-rounder.
Select Comparisons
MEElectronics A161P ($100)
The A161P is a single-armature earphone based on a Knowles ED transducer and tuned for a crisp and punchy sound. The A161P and Custom Art Music One are not exceedingly different in terms of balance, and on some tracks sound rather similar overall. With in-depth listening, however, it becomes clear that the Music One is a significantly more refined earphone.
While the A161P has good bass punch for a single-armature set, the Music One is more impactful and has a thicker, weightier note presentation. Its tone is warmer overall and it makes the A161P sound thin in comparison. The A161P tends to be brighter and, next to the rather smooth Music One, sounds somewhat harsh and grainy. The A161P is also more forward while the Music One offers a wider presentation with better depth and imaging.
VSonic GR07 ($179)
One of the many reasons the dynamic-driver VSonic GR07 has maintained its popularity over the past few years is that it can go toe to toe with many higher-priced sets. Pitted against the Custom Art Music One, it loses out in midrange and treble quality but partly makes up for it with great bass. The main differences lie in the midrange, where the Music One offers better presence and clarity. The GR07, in comparison, sounds slightly mid-recessed. This, in turn, accentuates the bass of the VSonics, which appears a little more impactful but also quicker compared to the Music One. The Custom Art unit offers smoother treble while the more energetic GR07 is susceptible to sibilance. The presentation of the GR07 tends to have good width and little else, while the Music One is more well-rounded and offers depth and imaging to match.
Etymotic Research ER4S ($249)
Long-time industry leader and innovator Etymotic Research first released the ER4 in 1991, and its ER4S tuning remains one of my all-time favorite universal-fit earphones. The Custom Art Music One and ER4S each have advantages over the other and it’s difficult to pick a clear winner here. The Music One definitely sounds fuller and warmer overall, thanks in part to its weightier low end. Despite the bass, however, it appears a bit more mid-centric overall. Its treble is less prominent and more forgiving, and its midrange – thicker and more attention-grabbing. The leaner ER4S can at times sound a touch clearer and has a small advantage in overall balance, while the Music One oftentimes sounds more natural thanks to its thicker, fuller sound.
ClearTuneMonitors CT-200 ($350)
The ClearTuneMonitors CT-200 is a dual-driver acrylic custom priced higher than the Custom Art Music One. It is a neutral-sounding earphone that rolls off gently at either end of the frequency spectrum. Compared to the CT-200, the Music One has an advantage in bass depth and impact. Its low end is more extended and powerful, and grants the earphone a warmer overall tone. The CT-200 is brighter overall, presenting more forward upper mids in comparison. It also sounds a touch clearer and its treble is more crisp, appearing a little more detailed as a result. In terms of presentation, the CT-200 is more spacious and open-sounding while the Music One tends to be slightly more intimate. Nonetheless, the Music One again sounds very natural in this comparison – arguably more so than the CT-200 thanks to its warmer, thicker sound.
Alclair Reference ($399)
The triple-driver, acrylic-shelled Alclair Reference is an accurate-sounding earphone that offers good presence across the entire frequency spectrum. It has similar bass depth and impact to the Custom Art Music One but tends to be a little tighter and more detailed. As with the VSonic GR07, its midrange is more recessed compared to the Music One, which has rather prominent mids. The Reference is still clearer, however, and seems more resolving as well. In general, the Alclair monitor sounds better up to the upper midrange, where it starts to display some stridency. Its treble is more prominent overall and tends to be peakier and more sibilant. The Music One, on the other hand, is smooth and far more forgiving, and sounds more natural overall in the treble region. Finally, the Reference is overall more spacious and images a little better than the Music One.
Value (10/10) – The Custom Art Music One is an excellent value, combining the noise isolation of custom-fit silicone shells with a single balanced armature driver delivering an organic, coherent sound. The ultra-light low-profile silicone shells of the Music One put its fit and comfort above not only universal monitors, but other customs as well. Lastly, in addition to great attention to detail spanning everything from the cable to the accessory pack, the Music One offers more customization options compared to other silicone CIEMs, making it an even tougher earphone to fault on any front.
Pros: Great isolation & comfort; fantastic cable; great audio performance
Cons: Low-profile shells can be tough to remove from ears
(1C23) Fidue A83
Reviewed Dec 2014
Details: Flagship earphone from Fidue utilizing a dynamic + dual balanced armature driver setup
MSRP: $399.95 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $280 from amazon.com; $299 on ebay.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic + Dual BA Hybrid | Imp: 11Ω | Sens: 104 dB | Freq: 9-31k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug, detachable with MMCX connectors
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Comply T400; Sennheiser short bi-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear
Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips, foam tips (1 pair), 6.3mm adapter, airline adapter, Otterbox-style crush-resistant carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The look of the A83 might take a bit of getting used to, but construction quality is excellent. The metal faceplates comprise the most prominent design element and give the housings a very solid feel. The detachable cables utilize MMCX connectors modified to stop them from rotating, which is something I found slightly annoying with a few other MMCX earphones such as the Shure SE535. Fidue does this using an extra pin on the outside of the connector. This results in the A83′s cable being incompatible with other MMCX earphones, but other manufacturers’ cables will still work with the A83. The quality of the stock cable is excellent and the connectors at the earpiece end are angled to facilitate over-the-ear wear. The only thing the cable lacks is a cinch, but with the memory wire it’s not really a must-have
Isolation (3/5) – Average due to somewhat shallow fit
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low in the twisted cable
Comfort (4/5) – The A83 uses an ergonomic housing design and is worn over the ear with the help of memory wire and angled cable connectors. It’s not a small earphone, but it is relatively lightweight and the shape, which reminds me of the Sennheiser IE7, manages the size well
Sound (9.2/10) – The Fidue A83 is a dynamic + dual BA hybrid earphone that improves on the design – and the sound – of Fidue’s dynamic-driver A81 model. Like other triple-driver hybrid setups, it doesn’t suffer from a lack of bass impact. However, aside from the warm and smooth Sony XBA-H3, it is the least v-shaped and arguably the most balanced of the hybrid IEMs I’ve tried. The overall balance of the earphones did benefit a good amount from a tip switch – the best results I got were with Comply foam tips and “short” Sennheiser double-flanges.
In this configuration the A83 has mids that are not as thin as those of the DUNU DN-2000 and T-Peos Altone200 and a top end that’s not prone to harshness or sibilance. Bass quantity is above what I consider flat or “neutral”, but lower than with most other hybrids including the XBA-H3, Altone200, and even AKG’s flagship K3003 in its “Reference” configuration.
The A83 is clearly bassier than flat-sounding BA sets such as the Etymotic ER4, VSonic VC1000, and Final Audio Heaven II, but also a little less tight and controlled. The Westone W40, which is not as flat as the sets listed above, still can’t keep up with the A83 in bass impact, but the quality of its bass is closer to that of the Fidue.
The midrange of the A83 is a little warmer than neutral. It is thicker and more full-bodied than a flat-sounding IEM such as an Etymotic ER4, VC1000, or even Heaven II, but also a bit less clear. Clarity lags a bit behind the pricier AKG K3003 as well. The A83 also lacks a bit of crispness compared to these other sets, likely because it just isn’t as level across the board, but this is only noticeable when comparing it to a flatter, more accurate earphone. On the other hand compared to the warmer and darker Westone W40, the more v-shaped A83 is actually a little clearer.
The top end of the Fidue A83 carries good energy and strikes a fine balance between sounding revealing and harsh. Among the hybrid earphones I’ve tried it is the best bet for those who are worried about the warmth and bloat of the XBA-H3 being excessive but don’t want to risk the brighter and occasionally harsher-sounding DUNU and T-Peos sets. The treble here is by no means smoothed-over – it just avoids some of the harshness and sibilance of the hybrid competitors and even flatter-sounding earphones such as the VSonic VC1000 and Final Audio Heaven II, which tend to have more treble energy. However, this also costs the A83 some crispness in comparison to those. The Westone W40, on the other hand, is less bright and even more forgiving. At the end of the day, the A83 is a compromise between the brighter sound of many other hybrids and the purposely smooth sound of something like the Westone W40.
The A83 has a very unique presentation, with impressive width and depth but a somewhat diffuse sound. The soundstage is spacious – surprisingly so, in fact – but the slight lack of crispness leaves the presentation a bit vague. Still, it a little more out-of-the-head than even the AKG K3003, which has a more “conventional” with more coherent soundstaging and better imaging.
Mini Comparisons
VSonic GR07 Classic ($99)
VSonic’s dynamic-driver GR07 is, by and large, a balanced-sounding earphone, and sounds quite neutral next to the more v-shaped A83. The top end of the A83 is highly tip dependent but tends to be a little brighter and more energetic overall. With the stock tips it can be more sibilant than the GR07, but with my preferred eartips it is actually smoother and less sibilance-prone than the VSonic unit.
The bass of the GR07 seems a bit deeper. This is likely due to it having less of a mid-bass hump to draw attention away from the sub-bass, rather than due to actually having more depth. In the midrange, the A83 sounds both clearer and a little more full-bodied than the GR07 – an impressive feat. It also has a slightly more 3-dimensional presentation with better depth and is quite a bit more efficient.
T-Peos Altone200 ($185)
The T-Peos Altone200 is close to the Fidue A83 in performance but offers up more bass and brighter treble for a more v-shaped sound signature. The bass of the Altone200 digs deeper and delivers more of both impact and rumble, though it is also a touch more boomy. The A83 is more neutral and a little more natural-sounding, though I can definitely see the more colored sound of the T-Peos being preferable with some genres (such as EDM), thanks in large part to the juicy bass. The mids of the A83 are not as recessed while the Altone200 has a thinner and more withdrawn midrange. The clarity of the T-Peos is much more striking, due in part to the Fidue having thicker mids and lower overall treble energy, though the A83 is also smoother and less sibilance-prone.
DUNU DN-1000 ($199)
DUNU’s original triple-driver hybrid makes for a good contrast to the Fidue A83. Though both earphones follow v-shaped sound signatures, they are tuned differently. The DN-1000 has deeper bass with noticeably more slam. The A83 has more neutral bass quantity, but actually sounds a little warmer thanks to a slightly larger mid-bass hump. It is also a bit thicker and more full-bodied in the midrange, though the more v-shaped DN-1000 seems a touch clearer. The highs of the DUNU unit are less forgiving while the A83 has smoother treble (probably its biggest advantage). That said, the A83 sounds a little less crisp and coherent, but more spacious, whereas the DN-1000 offers a slightly more congested sound.
DUNU DN-2000 ($300)
The A83 and DN-2000 are both high-end triple-driver hybrid earphones that, to my ears, differ most in presentation, with the A83 having a more out-of-the-head sound and appearing a little more distant and diffuse, and the DN-2000 sounding more focused, but also a bit more closed-in. The Fidue set carries less emphasis in the sub-bass region and more in the mid-bass region, which actually makes its low end sound a little more integrated into the overall sound. The midrange of the DN-2000 is a little more recessed but the A83 is lacking in the way of crispness in comparison. The A83 also tends to be a little less forgiving up top, though it falls closer to the smoother DN-2000 than the lower-end DN-1000 in this regard.
Sony XBA-H3 ($348)
Compared to the Sony XBA-H3, the Fidue A83 boasts a brighter tonal character and sound that’s more balanced overall. The XBA-H3 has more bass impact at the expense of greater bass boom whereas the A83 is both lighter and more controlled at the low end. The mids of the A83 are slightly clearer, but also thinner. The XBA-H3 has a more full-bodied sound but also appears a bit more veiled/muffled in the midrange. The Sony is smoother, too, while the A83 is brighter and less forgiving. Surprisingly, the A83 has a slightly more spacious presentation than the XBA-H3, which is already very impressive in this regard.
Value (8.5/10) – The Fidue A83 is a triple-driver hybrid earphone with sound that combines impactful, yet well-measured bass with mids and treble that are less recessed and more forgiving, respectively, compared to other earphones of this type. The overall sound is slightly v-shaped and not 100% neutral, but punchy and enjoyable. The earphones are also very well made, with the plastic-and-metal housings and good-quality detachable cables covering all the bases. Indeed, there’s a certain thoughtfulness and attention to detail permeates all aspects of the A83, from the packaging onward, enhancing the user experience. Wearing comfort for the ergonomic-fit housings is also quite good. I do wish there was a mic cable included, as with the less expensive A81 model, but for the price that would simply be too much good stuff.
Pros: Great construction; detachable cable; enjoyable, slightly colored sound
Cons: Treble quality is tip-dependent
(1C24) DUNU DN-2000
Brief: Second-generation hybrid earphone from DUNU
MSRP: approx $315
Current Price: $280 from amazon.com; $280 from ebay.com; $315 from mp4nation.net; $315 from CTC Audio (US/Canada)
Specs: Driver: Dual BA + dynamic hybrid | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 10-30k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Wide-channel single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down (preferred) or over-the-ear
Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange wide-channel (3 sizes), single-flange narrow-channel (3 sizes), and bi-flange (3 sizes) silicone tips, foam tips, eartip spacer set (6 pairs in 3 sizes), ear fins (2 pairs), ear stabilizers (2 pairs), shirt clip, ¼” adapter, airline adapter, cleaning cloth, pair of cable guides, crush-resistant metal carrying case, and integrated cable wrap
Build Quality (5/5) – Like other DUNU earphones, the DN-2000 is very solidly constructed. The gold- and coffee-colored metal housings have a matte finish and the cable us DUNU’s typical TPE – soft, smooth, and tangle-resistant. “Genghis Khan” is printed on the side of the housings in Cyrillic script – not really sure why. The machined aluminum y-split, plug, and cable cinch add to the premium feel. The earfin retention nubs help identify left and right earpieces more quickly
Isolation (3.5/5) – Some of the best among hybrid earphones
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very good when worn cable-down; nonexistent when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (3.5/5) – The DN-2000 is similar to the older DN-1000 in size and shape. It is moderately large and a bit heavy for a straight-barrel design but can be worn cable-up, which makes it feel lighter in the ear. DUNU provides an extensive fit kit with plenty of eartips, three sets of eartip spacers (same ones included with the DN-1000), and new earfins in two different styles. The eartip spacers change where the eartip sits on the nozzle and can be used to position the housings farther out of the ear. They have an effect on sound similar to what is normally accomplished with tip rolling. However, some of the possible tip/spacer combinations make it easy for the tips to slip off the nozzles and it really does take some experimenting to find the optimal combination.
The earfins are installed using a retention arm on the side of the housing and are meant to keep the earphones in the ear more securely, likely a reaction to those who complained about the weight of the DN-1000 model. On the whole, DUNU has done all they can to make the earphone comfortable, allowing dozens of different combinations for the fit (and sound), but the DN-2000 still would not be my first pick for smaller-sized ears
Sound (9.3/10) – Having tested the hybrid IEM market with the impressive DN-1000, DUNU attempted to improve on the formula of combining robust dynamic-driver bass with clear mids and treble with a second-generation hybrid, the DN-2000.
The DN-2000 is by no means lacking in bass, but its low end is a little less emphasized than that of the DN-1000. There’s not really a mid-bass hump to deliver a conventional bass-heavy sound, but there is still plenty of low end presence on the whole. Bass extension is especially impressive – there is more depth to the low end of the DUNU than that of the pricier AKG K3003, for instance. Indeed, the AKG unit, in its “reference” configuration, delivers less enhanced but also slightly tighter bass than the DN-2000.
Compared to the VSonic VC1000, a high-end reference-flat BA earphone, the DUNU provides a bassier sound with a thicker, more natural note presentation. It comes out ahead of the TWFK-based VSonic set in overall SQ – something the DN-1000 didn’t quite manage.
The sound sig of the DN-2000 is a little v-shaped (or u-shaped, to be more exact) but its midrange is more prominent than that of the DN-1000, resulting in better overall balance as well as even better clarity and intelligibility. Clarity is just a hair behind the AKG K3003, which has slightly tighter bass and a thinner note presentation.
The treble of the DN-2000 is nicely extended and plenty sparkly. In fact, one of the earphone’s greatest strengths is great end-to-end extension, which is only made more apparent by its emphasis on deep bass and treble that carries much of its energy up high, as opposed to the upper-mid/low treble region.
Worth noting is that the DN-2000 is very sensitive to fit when it comes to treble quality. With the right combination of eartips, spacers, and insertion depth it’s quite refined for the quantity present. There’s definitely enough to properly convey the energy of cymbals, and yet compared to the DN-1000 the new model is slightly more tolerant of harshness and sibilance due to smoother lower highs. It’s still far from what I’d call “forgiving” and can be said to teeter just on the correct side of sibilance, but fares better than most earphones of the type.
The presentation of the DN-2000 is wide and airy – typical for a mildly v-shaped earphone with broad end-to-end extension, but more expansive than most. The soundstage is wider and more open compared to the DN-1000 and even the K3003, putting the DN-2000 well above average in that regard, but its low end can get boomier than that of the AKG unit on bass-heavy tracks, which doesn’t do the soundstage any favors.
Select Comparisons
VSonic GR07 Classic ($99)
Compared to the dynamic-driver VSonic GR07, the DN-2000 has an advantage in bass depth and treble smoothness, the note presentation is a little thicker, and the soundstage is a little more even in depth and width. The GR07 and even GR07 Bass Edition don’t have the sub-bass of the DN-2000 and sound more sibilant and less smooth up top. The DN-2000 has a slightly thicker and more natural note presentation, but bass control and overall clarity are on-par with the VSonics. The soundstage of the DN-2000 is a little more even in terms of width and depth and just better-imaged overall.
T-Peos Altone200 ($185)
The Altone200 is an impressive earphone, especially considering the much lower price tag, but lacks some refinement compared to the DN-2000. The DUNU is a little warmer and more balanced, with a more full-bodied midrange. However, the bass of the more v-shaped Altone2000 seems more impactful and digs deeper, standing out more next to its thinner, more recessed midrange. Clarity is very impressive with the T-Peos unit, augmented by its brighter treble. The DN-2000 can usually keep up in clarity, but only barely. Up top, the T-Peos is a little hotter through the upper mids and lower treble, with greater tendency towards sibilance, while the DN-2000 is smoother and more refined.
DUNU DN-1000 ($200)
The DN-2000 is about $100 more expensive than the model it supersedes. I don’t know if it can be called a direct upgrade over the DN-1000, but it does offer a few improvements. The most noticeable is the presentation – the higher-end model is more spacious. It creates a wider, airier, more spaced-out sonic image, making the DN-1000 sound more intimate and a touch congested in comparison. Part of the reason the DN-2000 is able to do this is a slight decrease in bass emphasis. Its sound is more balanced than that of the lower-end model, but it is by no means light on low end presence and maintains impressive bass impact, detail, and extension.
The midrange of the DN-2000 is more prominent and in better balance with the low end, which contributes to better vocal clarity. The treble has plenty of energy but seems to be a touch more refined on the newer model. The DN-2000 is nicely extended and just as sparkly as the DN-1000, but a little more tolerant of sibilance when it comes down to it. All in all, I consistently preferred the DN-2000, but the differences are subtle enough that I wouldn’t advocate DN-1000 owners to throw away their earphones just yet – hip-hop and EDM listeners, for example, may not see much benefit from the new tuning or even find the bassier, slightly more v-shaped DN-1000 preferable.
Fidue A83 ($280)
The A83 and DN-2000 are both high-end triple-driver hybrid earphones that, to my ears, differ most in presentation, with the A83 having a more out-of-the-head sound but appearing more distant and diffuse, and the DN-2000 sounding more focused and cohesive, but also a bit more closed-in. The Fidue set carries less emphasis in the sub-bass region and more in the mid-bass region, which actually makes its low end sound a little more integrated into the overall sound but takes away from the slam of the bass. The midrange of the DN-2000 is a little more recessed but has better crispness and definition in comparison. The DN-2000 also tends to be smoother up top with the right combination of tips and spacers.
Audiofly AF180 ($550)
Audiofly’s quad-driver AF180 is very good competition for the DN-2000, offering a slightly warmer and smoother sound at the expense of a bit of clarity and spaciousness. The DN-2000 has more bass quantity with deeper sub-bass reach, providing more “slam” on top of greater overall presence. It has a slightly more v-shaped signature, however, and sounds brighter than the AF180. The Audiofly unit boasts more upfront mids and sounds a little warmer and more natural. Clarity is on-par much of the time, but occasionally the brighter DN-2000 pulls ahead, which also affords it better intelligibility. Up top, the DN-2000 is a little bolder and can harsher as a result, whereas the Audiofly is a bit more tame and smooth. The DN-2000 also has a wider presentation while the AF180 sounds a little more intimate – but still plenty spacious and well-imaged for an IEM.
LEAR LUF-4B ($565)
The DN-2000 holds its own very well against the nearly twice as expensive LEAR LUF-4B, the bass-heavy version of LEAR’s universal-fit quad-BA earphone. The LEAR unit is a little warmer than the DN-2000, with slightly more powerful but nonetheless tighter bass. The DN-2000 actually sounds a little boomy next to the LUF-4B, but is brighter and otherwise clearer. The LEAR has more emphasis in the upper midrange and lower treble region, whereas the DN-2000’s brightness comes from emphasis higher up. This leads to the DN-2000 occasionally sounding smoother and more forgiving, but on most tracks the two are pretty even in that respect. The presentation of the LUF-4B is a touch more closed-in whereas the DN-2000 sounds a little more airy and open.
For the sake of fairness, I also pitted the DN-2000 against the less bassy LUF-4F model. The 4F puts up a better fight in ways that matter – while it still carries more emphasis in the upper midrange and lower treble, sounding harsher and less forgiving as a result, it is clearer than the DN-2000 and has a more neutral sound. Bass quality is even better than with the LUF-4F, though quantity is also reduced to below-DN-2000 levels. The bassier DN-2000 is warmer and a touch less balanced and coherent on the whole.
Custom Art Harmony 8 Pro (approx. $1100)
The Harmony 8 Pro is a high-end custom-fit earphone with a very clear, resolving sound that I thought would make for a good way to gauge how much room for improvement there is left with the DN-2000. The most noticeable difference between the two is in the bass region, where the H8P is rather flat and the DN-2000 isn’t. The bass of the DN-2000 is deeper, with greater sub-bass quantity as well as impact. However, next to the H8P, the low end of the DN-2000 sounds quite overbearing and fairly muddy. In addition to tighter bass, the Custom Art unit sounds more neutral. It also has an advantage in clarity and sounds more laid-back and spacious versus the more intimate DN-2000, with better imaging and detail resolution.
Value (9/10) – DUNU’s latest flagship, the DN-2000, pulls out all the stops in an attempt to improve on the preceding model. The packaging is significantly nicer and the accessory pack is bordering on excessive, adding several new bits and bobs to the DN-1000′s already-extensive kit to help stabilize the earphone in the ear. With all of the various eartips and accessories, it is a tinkerer’s dream, though that also means it requires more time and effort to use effectively.
In terms of sound quality, the DUNU DN-2000 is a successful hybrid design. It manages to leverage the bass of the dynamic driver without having it overwhelm the mids and highs, maintains pretty good coherency, and extracts the expected clarity and detail from the balanced armatures without losing note thickness. In its price range, it is one of the IEMs to beat for sheer performance.
Pros: Great end-to-end extension, deep bass, wide presentation, good clarity; very well-made; extensive fit kit and accessory pack
Cons: Physically large and a bit heavy in the ear
(1C25) FLC Technology FLC 8
Reviewed May 2015
Brief: Variable-tuning triple-driver hybrid IEM with a massive 36 possible sound settings
MSRP: approx. $350
Current Price: $318 from lendmeurears.com; $343 from amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Hybrid, dual BA + dynamic | Imp: 11Ω | Sens: 93 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges; MEElec M6 single-flanges; Comply T400
Wear Style: Over-the-ear
Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), treble/midrange tuning nozzles (4 pairs), bass tuning ports (3 pairs + spares), sub-bass tuning ports (3 pairs + spares), keychain container for tuning parts, tweezers, over-the-ear cable guides (pair), cleaning tool, airplane adapter, 6.3mm adapter, and nice semi-hard carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The angular plastic housings of the FLC8 are well-made and surprisingly small considering the 3-way hybrid driver configuration. What really sets it apart from other high-end earphones, however, is the tuning system. The housings boast prominent front and rear ports, each with its own set of interchangeable plugs, as well as interchangeable nozzles. A word of caution – be careful when working on the earphones for fear of losing and/or damaging the small parts. Changing sound settings is not something I’d recommend doing on the go.
The cables are detachable, with 2-pin sockets that are slightly recessed on the cable end. Oddly, the included cable is a little on the short side, especially considering the over-the-ear fit. The 1.3m length listed in the product specifications is optimistic by about 10cm.
Isolation (3.5/5) – Good, though mild audio leakage through the vents can occur at high volumes
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low
Comfort (4/5) – In the standard over-ear configuration, the FLC8 is very lightweight and comfortable. Next to conventional ergonomic in-ears, like those manufactured by Shure and Westone, its nozzles are slightly unusual – wide and not angled relative to the earpieces. While maybe not perfect for those with narrow ear canals, this, together with the memory wire-less cables, allows the FLC8 to be worn cable-down as well as cable-up in some ears. The stock eartips of the FLC8 also have an unusual design and only come in three sizes but work well, perhaps reducing bass a touch compared to more conventional tips.
Sound (9.4/10) – The tuning system of the FLC8 is far more complex than any other I’ve come across, utilizing three different types of adjustment. There are four interchangeable nozzles, which control the mids and treble, three sets of plugs for the front tuning ports, which control the sub-bass, and three sets of plugs for the rear ports, which control the bass.
Altogether, this allows for 36 different sound signatures – a massive number compared to the three that you commonly get with other variable-tuning earphones such as the AKG K3003 and RHA T10i. To put it another way, if I were to A:B all of the possible sound configurations of the FLC8 against one another, I would have to perform over 600 comparisons.
I’ve summarized how each of the FLC8’s parts is designed to affect sound in Table 1 in the off-site version of this review. As always, the tuning parts work by restricting flow through the respective aperture of the earphones. They range from open ports, to various filters, to completely plugged vents. I attempted to determine the hardware setup of each part and included that information as well.
Subjectively, the sound tuning filters do perform as promised for the most part. In some cases the differences are immediately audible and in others – quite subtle.
The manufacturer includes five sets of recommended combinations for the tuning parts, by music genre. These are listed in Table 2 here. I’ve also added my own preferred setting, which is identical to the “balance” setting save for the heavier sub-bass port.
All of the manufacturer-recommended tunings can be grouped into two categories – those with flat/light bass (vocal, light music, and strings), which differ in the relative balance of mids and treble, and those with the FLC’s equivalent of flat mids/treble, which differ in the amount of bass (balance and pop/rap). My own preferred tuning falls in this second grouping as well.
In my view, then, the FLC8 is best viewed not as an earphone with 36 discrete sound signatures, but one with two or three base configurations that may then be subtly adjusted to one’s liking.
I spent some time trying to ascertain the exact effects of each set of tuning ports. I thought the light bass tunings – the clear sub-bass and bass ports – lacked a little in the way of depth and punch for my liking. The gray medium sub-bass port and the red high sub-bass port, on the other hand, provided plenty of depth and only differed from each other minutely. I ended up preferring the red front sub-bass port – thehigh setting.
The effect of the rear bass tuning port was more apparent. With the gray medium bass ports, the bass has very nice punch. FLC Technology utilizes the gray ports in their default “balance” tuning, but realistically the impact is greater than with a reference-flat earphone. The clearlow bass port is closer in bass quantity to a flat unit such as an Etymotic ER4 or the VSonic VC1000, but I found this setting to also impact the treble curve of the earphones with my preferred midrange/treble ports, moving some of the treble peaks closer to the “sibilance” range. Since the extra bass impact of the gray bass ports doesn’t take away from the overall clarity and resolution, I find that setting to be preferable.
The black high bass port increases the impact even further, to the level of enhanced-bass dynamic-driver earphones like the Shure SE215 and Sony MH1C, albeit with better bass quality. While this doesn’t do bass control any favors, high-end earphones with enhanced bass are few and far between, so it is a welcome option. However, I thought the black bass ports, like the clear ones, caused the highs to sound less smooth and refined compared to the gray medium bass filters.
The relative levels of the mids and treble are controlled by the nozzle filters, of which there are four sets. The dark gray filters, which FLC Technology uses in their neutral setting, ended up being my favorites as the smoothest and most pleasant all around. These are said to offer medium midrange and medium treble levels.
The green high treble filters were too bright for my liking and made the earphones more harsh and sibilance-prone. The gold high midrange/medium treble filters perform as expected, raising the midrange and upper midrange. This setting is still brighter than the gray filters I preferred, though fans of a forward midrange may very much enjoy it. The last set of filters, the blue medium-mids/low-treble, were the least impressive to me, lacking a little in the way of clarity compared to the stock gray filters with no discernible gains elsewhere.
Keep in mind that the filters are only independent to an extent – making changes to one outlet can affect airflow through others. Therefore, swapping from one filter to another may have slightly different effects depending on the settings of the other ports.
After testing all of the filters, I used the neutral configuration of the FLC8 in most of my listening and A:B comparisons, except where it was an especially poor signature match.
In this configuration, the FLC8 has powerful bass that hits harder compared to most balanced-armature in-ear monitors, even relatively bass-heavy ones such as the EarSonics SM64. The SM64 has a noticeably less rich and impactful – though also marginally more controlled – low end. Same goes for relatively balanced-sounding dynamic-driver sets, such as the Philips Fidelio S2 and VSonic GR07 Bass Edition. The bass quantity reminds me of another hybrid earphone, the Fidue A83, and falls short of truly bass-heavy sets such as the Sennheiser IE 800 and JVC HA-FX700. Bass extension is very good and bass quality is superb for the quantity.
Equally impressive is the clarity of the FLC8 – the mids, while not at all forward in the stock configuration, can’t be called recessed either and are impressively close in clarity to high-end analytical earphones like the Brainwavz B2 and VSonic VC1000. The FLC8 is noticeably clearer than the very capable TDK BA200, EarSonics SM64, and Philips Fidelio S2. There is no upper midrange dip as there is, for instance, on the SM64 and Fidue A83, which allows the FLC unit better crispness and overall resolution, as well as superior vocal intelligibility.
Moving on up into the treble, the FLC8 strikes a fine balance of presence and smoothness. Even in the stock configuration it’s not a very forgiving earphone and can probably be classified as “slightly bright” on the whole. At higher volumes it gets harsher, as is usually the case with this type of sound sig, but still fares better than the excellent DUNU DN-2000, for instance. As expected, darker-sounding earphones like the TDK BA200 and EarSonics SM64 are smoother and more forgiving, but lack the sparkle and energy of the FLC8. Its strong treble presence and excellent end-to-end extension also give the FLC8 some advantage in dynamics in soundstaging, beating the TDK BA200, SM64, and Fidelio S2 in width and, with the exception of the SM64, depth and dynamics, by a margin.
Interestingly, I also found the sensitivity higher than implied by the earphone’s specifications – despite the 93dB/mW stated figure, the FLC8 actually exhibited above-average efficiency in my testing.
Select Comparisons
Note: unless otherwise noted, the neutral configuration of the FLC8 was used for comparisons
VSonic GR07 Classic ($99)
VSonic’s mid-range heavyweight generally competes well with pricier earphones, but the FLC8 is out of its reach. The bass of the FLC8, even in its “neutral” configuration, is deeper and more powerful, but the GR07 still impresses with its bass quality, matching if not beating the FLC8 in control and the overall realism of its bass presentation.
The biggest advantage the FLC8 has over the GR07 is its midrange. There, the FLC8 is more natural, with a more crisp, resolving sound and vocals that are more upfront and realistic. The slight midrange recession of the GR07 causes the mids of the VSonic unit to sound less clear, less detailed, and significantly more laid-back, even distant, compared to the FLC8.
The FLC8 is a touch brighter overall. It can be more revealing, but still sounds more natural than the GR07, thanks in part to the more level midrange and to the GR07’s greater sibilance. Also worth noting is the higher efficiency of the FLC unit.
DUNU DN-2000 ($280)
The DN-2000 is perhaps the closest overall match for the FLC8 in my IEM collection. Like the FLC8, it is a triple-driver hybrid earphone with a sound signature slightly on the v-shaped side of neutral. Both earphones have similar strengths, including bass punch, clarity, and soundstaging. The differences between them are subtle, but add up.
The DUNU boasts a little more of both bass impact and depth, for instance. Modifying the configuration of the FLC8 from “neutral” by moving to the high sub-bass port helps in this regard, but the DN-2000 still maintains slightly better depth. On the whole, the FLC8 sounds a little warmer than the DN-2000, thanks largely to its less bright treble presentation. Its bass still provides plenty of impact when called for but on average is a little more subtle and less intrusive compared to the DUNU unit.
The FLC8 has an overall less v-shaped sound signature with a little more midrange presence. Combined with its marginally larger and more dynamic presentation, this makes for a slightly more natural sound. Up top, too, the DN-2000 is slightly brighter and more metallic-sounding, though both earphones tend to be rather revealing. In fact, depending on track I sometimes found the treble curve of the FLC8 to be more bothersome in terms of harshness and/or sibilance, and other times the DN-2000 was the bigger culprit.
InEar StageDiver SD-2 ($450)
The SD-2 is a warmer, more mid-centric sort of earphone than the FLC8, but it is one of the most capable such sets I’ve tried and makes for an interesting comparison with the “neutral” configuration of the FLC8. First, the FLC8 is a bassier earphone all around – depth, impact, rumble, and so on. The bass of the SD-2 is slightly tighter, but that is as expected due to the bass quantity difference. Taking the FLC8 into its low-bass configuration creates more parity between the two in bass quantity and quality, but makes the already-brighter FLC unit even brighter – a poorer signature match on the whole.
The FLC8 is clearer than the SD-2, due in part to its stronger treble, while the more level SD-2 appears mid-centric thanks to its lower bass quantity and duller highs. One advantage the SD-2 does have is smoother and more forgiving treble, which is something the FLC8 can’t match in any configuration. The presentation of the SD-2 is competent, but a mid-centric sound is never an asset when it comes to dynamics. On the whole, I found the FLC8 to sound more convincing more of the time thanks to a combination of better soundstaging and dynamics, clarity, and bass punch.
Westone W40 ($500)
The W40 is a quad-armature monster with a bit of bass enhancement and a warmer, darker sound signature. In its “neutral” configuration, I did indeed find the FLC8 to be more neutral than the W40 thanks to its brighter sound and broader frequency response. The bass of the FLC8 is not too different the W40 in overall power, but appears deeper thanks to a greater sub-bass focus and a less audible mid-bass hump.
The FLC8 is clearer through the midrange, but up top it sounds more harsh and sibilance-prone than the smoother, darker Westone unit. The FLC8 also has a wider and more “broad” presentation, as v-shaped earphones tend to do when compared to warmer or more midrange-focused ones.
I also switched the FLC8 to its bassier “pop/rap” configuration, but it didn’t make much of difference in this comparison. In this setting, the bass of the FLC8 was clearly more powerful than that of the W40 and the bass quality was more equal between the two. Despite this, the remainder of the comparison above still held true with the FLC8 remaining the brighter, clearer, and “wider” of the two earphones. Also, the FLC8 is more efficient than the quad-driver W40 in any configuration.
Audiofly AF180 ($550)
The signature of the AF180 is an interesting one, with some traits from smoother and more mid-focused sets such as the StageDiver SD-2 and TDK BA200, and others from brighter, more analytical earphones. Audiofly’s flagship IEM turned out to be a stronger competitor for the FLC8 than its counterparts from Westone and InEar, the W40 and SD-2/SD-3.
Once again, the FLC8 is the more efficient earphone. Its sound signature is more v-shaped, with deeper, more enhanced bass and brighter, more sparkly highs. This brighter tone is most noticeable with vocals. The FLC8 is a bit clearer as well, though also more prone to sibilance thanks to its extra treble energy. Where the AF180 shines is in providing a very flat and neutral midrange. Though vocals are a little more dull compared to the brighter FLC8, they end up sounding more prominent, full-bodied, and natural on the whole.
Value (9/10) – Despite the ever-increasing number of IEM offerings on the market in 2015, it’s rare to come across an earphone as unique as the FLC Technology FLC8. The main draw is the flexible 36-setting sound tuning system, though I found it best viewed as two or three “base” sound signatures that can each be altered slightly to one’s liking.
Not all of the possible tunings are brilliant and swapping out the ports is an exercise in patience and finesse even with the included tweezers and spare parts, but it’s pretty easy to alter the sound once you get the hang of it. Those who get tired of listening to the same sound signature – or aren’t yet sure of exactly what sort of sound they want – are certain to find extra value here.
It’s not just the tuning system that makes the earphone special, however – even if limited to the default tuning, the FLC8 would be a superb-sounding set with one of the lightest and most comfortable form factors among hybrid IEMs, and that already makes it worthy of a strong recommendation.
Pros: top-tier audio performance; functional sound tuning system allows for more adjustment than other variable-tuning IEMs; very lightweight and comfortable for a 3-driver hybrid
Cons: small, easy-to-lose/damage parts mean this is an earphone solely for enthusiasts
(1C26) LIFE Headphones
Added December 2015
Brief: dual-BA sports/lifestyle earphone being launched via crowdfunding
MSRP: $309
Current Price: $250 at Lifeacoustics.com
Specs: Driver: dual BA | Imp: 36Ω | Sens: 119 dB | Freq: 20-15k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug; detachable with 2-pin connector
Nozzle Size: 4 mm | Preferred tips: Earsonics double-flanges; MEElec A151 single-flanges/Shure flex sleeves
Wear Style: Over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), cleaning tool, and zippered carrying case (note: the tips run a bit small – XS/S/M rather than S/M/L)
Build Quality
(3.5/5) – The LIFE Headphones use a two-piece plastic shell reminiscent of those used by professional in-ear monitor manufacturers such as Westone and EarSonics. The unusual shape of the earpieces seems a little more fragile than those monitors, but the earphones do use detachable, user-replaceable cables (with conventional 2-pin connectors) and are said to be sweat-resistant. The cable is similar to what is normally found on custom monitors – twisted and lightweight, with a medium length of memory wire at the earpieces and a slim L-shaped plug
Isolation
(4/5) – Good with the right tips; on par with other balanced armature in-ears
Microphonics
(5/5) – As usual with this type of cable, microphonics are nonexistent
Comfort
(4/5) – The shape of the monitors is very unusual but surprisingly comfortable. Because only the bottom half of the earpieces ends up in contact with the ear, they actually feel like a compact Shure or Westone model when worn. The extremely light weight of the plastic earpieces and cables, together with the moldable memory wire section on the cords, makes the fit extremely secure as well
Sound
(9/10) – One of several new crowdfunding-backed earphones I’ve tried in the past year, the LIFE Headphones are dual-armature IEMs tuned for a balanced sound. LIFE actually has a fairly lengthy – though at times oversimplified – explanation of the earphones’ specs on the company website, a pretty unique piece of content that implies a commitment to audio performance.
The two-way, dual-BA setup of the LIFE Headphones provides a broad frequency response and has very high sensitivity. This means a very clean audio source should be used – any hiss or electrical noise present will be heard clearly in the earphones. Even my FIIO E07k DAC, which has a fairly low noise floor, produces a small amount of audible hiss with the LIFE.
The sound of the LIFE Headphones is fairly unique for a dual balanced armature earphone – it is mildly v-shaped, with good bass punch, slightly laid-back mids, and bright treble. In many ways the tuning reminds me of the pricier triple-driver Alclair Reference custom-fit monitors.
To get a better measure of the performance of the LIFE headphones, I compared them to three of the best-performing dual-BA earphones I’ve tried – the recently-discontinued TDK BA200 and VSonic VC1000 and the Japan-import Audio-Technica ATH-IM02.
In terms of bass the LIFE falls about mid-pack. There’s a bit more bass power compared to the TDK BA200, but a bit less impact, depth, and weight compared to the Audio-Technica ATH-IM02. For a balanced armature earphone this is actually a very good amount of punch, and the bass quality is excellent as well. Of course, the LIFE isn’t a good match for listeners who prefer enhanced bass (and are willing to give up some tightness to get it). To put this in perspective, compared to Philips’ dynamic-driver in-ear flagship, the Fidelio S2 – itself a fairly accurate-sounding in-ear with only slight bass boost – the LIFE Headphones provide significantly lower bass quantity and better bass control.
The midrange takes a step back in emphasis – it is not as upfront and balanced as with the BA200 or VC1000 and tends to be a little less revealing of fine detail as a result. The IM02 from Audio-Technica, on the other hand, has clarity and detail levels similar to the LIFE Headphones but tends to sound a little more full-bodied. Keep in mind that this is all in the context of these four being high-end BA montors – the dynamic-driver Philips Fidelio S2 doesn’t manage the detail or clarity of the LIFE Headphones.
The highs of the LIFE Headphones pick up a bit and sound fairly bright – more so than the BA200 and ATH-IM02 and nearly on-par with the more energetic VC1000. The brightness helps the LIFE Headphones sound clearer, but they are also less forgiving and more prone to sibilance than the BA200 and IM02. Just like the popular VSonic GR07 monitors, I wouldn’t recommend the LIFE for listeners who are sensitive to sibilance.
My favorite aspect of the LIFE Headphones besides the bass is the presentation. The earphone’s soundstage is well-rounded and spacious, especially considering the sound tuning. The LIFE Headphones sound more dynamic than the flatter VSonic VC1000 and have a more natural soundstage with better depth compared to the Fidelio S2.
Select Comparisons
HiFiMan RE-400 ($79)
The RE-400 is one of the best-performing audiophile earphones in its price range and is tuned for a different type of balanced sound than the LIFE Headphones – one with more focus on the midrange and smoother, more relaxed treble. The LIFE Headphones deliver more linear bass with better depth and slightly greater punch compared to the RE-400. They also have brighter treble, which results in greater overall clarity compared to the RE-400 but also makes the LIFE headphones more prone to harshness and sibilance. Lastly, the more mid-centric RE-400 also tends to be a little less dynamic and doesn’t have quite as wide and versatile a soundstage as the LIFE Headphones.
VSonic GR07 Classic ($99)
Yet another tried-and-true in-ear monitor benchmark popular in the audiophile community, the GR07 is also tuned for a near-neutral sound but has significantly lower sensitivity and a slightly different sound signature with a bit more bass and less treble. The GR07 sounds a bit more scooped-out in the midrange, which makes me prefer the overall bass-midrange balance of the LIFE even though I appreciate the bass impact of the GR07. The LIFE Headphones have a thinner note and brighter treble with a similar amount of sibilance to the GR07 but slightly more harshness. The presentation, on the other hand, is slightly lacking in depth with the VSonics and is more well-rounded and three-dimensional with the LIFE unit.
Aurisonics Rockets ($249)
Like the LIFE Headphones, the Rockets are a Kickstarter-backed earphone that also happens to be similar in price ($250) and its lifestyle-oriented marketing message, including sweat resistance. Its straight-barrel metal form factor and dynamic driver are very different from the LIFE unit, however, and its sound much more closely resembles that of the HiFiMan RE-400.
Compared to the LIFE Headphones, the Rockets have slightly greater bass quantity and depth while maintaining similar bass quantity/tightness. The midrange of the Rockets is more forward, while the treble is more laid-back. The Rockets are smoother and more forgiving of harshness and sibilance, but also sound a little dull in comparison to the LIFE at times. The LIFE, on the other hand, has bright and energetic treble. The Rockets are also much less sensitive than the LIFE Headphones and will take a lot more power to hit the same volume levels.
InEar StageDiver SD-2 ($449)
The StageDiver SD-2 is a dual-balanced armature earphone, like the LIFE Headphones, but is designed and tuned primarily for stage use. Its sound is warmer, with more midrange presence and extremely smooth treble. The LIFE headphones sound thinner and clearer, partly because of the brighter treble. The downside is that they are more sibilant compared to the rather forgiving SD-2. The presentation of the SD-2 is more forward and intimate thanks to the more prominent mids, while the LIFE Headphones have a more laid-back sound and wider soundstage.
Value
(8/10) – The LIFE Headphones are a comfortable and balanced-sounding in-ear monitor that combines the usual perks of BA drivers – clarity, tight bass, good noise isolation, and high efficiency – with a feature set made for active use. The memory wire cables keep the earphones securely in place and detachable cables make up for the plastic housings, though care should still be taken not to exert too much pressure on the thin part of the housings when changing tips or detaching the cords. With the advertised sweat resistance, the LIFE Headphones may just be the most audiophile-friendly purpose-made workout buds on the market.
Pros: Surprisingly comfortable in the ear; no cable noise; excellent bass quality and soundstage presentation
Cons: Can be sibilant at times; housings should be handled with care
Tier 1B ($400-600)
(1B1) Audio-Technica ATH-CK100
Reviewed Apr 2010
Details: Triple-driver flagship from Japanese audio firm Audio-Technica
Current Price: (discontinued) (MSRP: $649.99)
Specs: Driver:
Triple BA | Imp:
23 Ω | Sens:
113 dB | Freq:
20-18k Hz | Cable:
4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
4mm | Preferred tips:
Sony Hybrid, stock foamies
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes), heat-activated foam tips, and a soft magnetic-clasp carrying case
Build Quality
(5/5) – The housings are made partially of Titanium and partially of thick plastic; an integrated strain relief protects the cables at the entry point. The thick and flexible cord (which is also used by the ATH-CK10) is internally braided for extra strength and is quite possibly the best in the industry. The well-relieved 3.5mm L-plug is shared with the lower-end ATH-CK90Pro
Isolation
(4/5) – Sealed-back and very small, the CK100 gives a perfect seal every time and isolates very well with the foam tips and nearly as well with silicones
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – Nonexistent when worn cord-up and barely noticeable when worn cord down
Comfort
(5/5) – Small housings are designed to be worn cable-up but the offset stem means that they can be worn cord-down very easily as well. The small size and low weight make it easy to forget about them completely
Sound
(9.2/10) – As a big fan of the older and wiser ATH-CK10, the CK100 has always had great appeal for me – appeal that was consistently counterbalanced by the $650 sticker price. When an opportunity to experience the CK100 for several weeks presented itself, I put all other reviews aside and began to prepare for the experience. I can say right up front that the CK100 is unlike any earphone or headphone I’ve ever heard. But let’s start at the beginning.
Initially everything is quite ordinary, with a subtle low end that gets bolder as the frequency counter approaches triple digits. Sub-bass is quite low on the CK100 – bass response definitely isn’t as linear as it is on either the CK10 or CK90Pro. Mid- and upper bass, however, is noticeably fuller on the CK100. Compared to the CK10 and CK90Pro, both of which have some of the shortest decay times of any IEMs I’ve tried, the bass of the CK100 actually carries more information. Still, the rumble commonly found in high-end dynamics is nearly nonexistent and the bass is very tight and fast. Naturally, there is no bass bleed. In fact, the CK100 are the only IEM I’ve tried so far in which the opposite is true – the lower midrange can overshadow upper bass.
This is counterintuitive for a reason – most headphones would need a gargantuan midrange boost to start drowning out the low end. The mids of the CK100 are indeed very forward, especially towards the top of the midrange. Listening to them side by side with the Ortofon e-Q7 makes the difference between mid-centric and mid-forward sound very obvious. The Ortofons are mid-centric – no part of their signature does anything to distract the listener from their midrange. The CK100s, on the other hand, do everything in their power to direct the listener to the midrange. Mids that are emphasized this much had better be good; and they are - with a single reservation – the CK100 has to like what it is plugged into (more on this later). The most striking property of the midrange of the CK100 is the extreme smoothness. Nearly as impressive is the transparency, which is partially responsible for the touchy nature of the earphones in terms of source pairing. Depending on the source, the mids of the CK100 can sound slightly cool or faintly warm. Towards the top of the midrange the emphasis reaches its peak without a trace of harshness or sibilance, resulting in a shiny but very controlled sound. Midrange detail is actually easier to discern with the CK100 than the CK10 due to the far greater midrange weight. Another effect of the peculiar balance is the low-volume prowess of the CK100 –only the Head-Direct RE252 can compete with them for minimal-volume listening enjoyment.
Moving on up into the treble, the CK100 maintains its incredible smoothness but due to the forward midrange, the treble seems less emphasized when compared to the ATH-CK10. Still, the CK100 can almost match the CK10 in extension and treble detail without sounding quite as bright or sparkly. Those who find the CK10 slightly sibilant should have no bones to pick with the CK100 – the shimmering and energetic treble is about as smooth as it gets without a sacrifice in quantity.
In terms of presentation the CK100 also holds its own quite easily against the best of the best. Though the soundstage is not the widest or deepest in absolute terms, instrumental separation, spatial positioning, and imaging are superb, especially in the midrange and treble. The forward nature of the mids results in a beautifully layered sound that works great with big band music and solo performances alike. Combined with the absolutely astonishing way in which the CK100 renders strings, woodwinds, and brass instruments this gives them an almost magical quality with string quartets and orchestral pieces. When vocals are present the CK100 always places them front and center. While this may not be to everyone’s liking, it really brings out more detail in vocals than I can hear even with my Heed-driven AKG K601, making them look like a great value compared to the $800 full-size rig.
Lastly, I want to discuss the one big caveat of the CK100 – the effect of source selection on that touchy and transparent midrange. When paired with a warm source, the mids of the CK100 are extremely sweet and actually somewhat relaxing. When paired with a source that is cold or neutral, the CK100 tends towards coolness and the quick-tempered midrange becomes a bit hard-edged, especially when it comes to female vocals. For this reason neither the Sansa players nor my iBasso D10 can elicit the full potential of the CK100. The S:Flo2 fares far better but buzzes very noticeably when paired with the CK100s. The buzzing is a problem with the player rather than the earphones but is annoying nonetheless. In order to kill the buzzing I had to run the S:Flo2 through an amp. The iBasso T4, though warm and very portable, actually detracts from the excellent resolution of the earphones. Ditto on my Music Valley RC-1. In the end, I settled on my aging DIY mini3, which is clearly overkill for the CK100 in terms of driving power but gives the desired tonality. If not for the tendency of the CK100 to reject otherwise decent sources for their tonal balance, I would have no problem declaring the CK100 the best sounding IEM I have heard; it certainly shows the most technical potential. But while it may be expected of high-end full-size cans, I consider this capriciousness of the CK100 a negative for an IEM and cannot put the CK100 a clear step above the other top-tiers.
Value
(7.5/10) – Audio-Technica’s strict hold on distribution of their earphones makes the ATH-CK100 one of the world’s most expensive universals outside of Japan. Due to the inconsistent pricing, the touchy nature of the signature, and the fact that some people will love the forward mids and others will hate them, the value of the CK100 is extremely subjective. What isn’t subjective is the build quality, which is superior to any and all earphones I have held in my hands. Isolation, microphonics, and comfort are all far above average as well. As a total package the CK100 makes sense to me even with a $450 price tag. Just prepare to do some source tweaking to unleash their full potential.
Pros: Market-leading build quality, great comfort and isolation, addictively forward sound
Cons: Inconsistent pricing outside of Japan, love-it-or-hate-it midrange, picky with sources
(1B2) 1964EARS 1964-T
Reviewed Feb 2011
Details: Two-way, triple-driver custom from Oregon-based 1964EARS
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: est. $500)
Specs: Driver:
Triple BA | Imp:
37Ω | Sens:
113 dB | Freq:
30-17k Hz | Cable:
4.6’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
N/A | Preferred tips:
N/A
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(5/5) – Shirt clip, ¼” adapter, cleaning tool, ear mold lubricant, carrying pouch, and protective storage case
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – At the heart of the 1964-T are twin Sonion 2015 armatures, used for the lows and mids, and a smaller treble driver I can’t identify molded in a dual-bore configuration. Molding quality is adequate – there are bubbles here and there and the finish around the cable socket and nozzle bores isn’t quite up there with what I’ve seen of Unique Melody molds. On the upside, the 1964-T utilizes a Westone Elite Series cable with a standard Westone socket (multiple lengths and colors are available). A recessed socket is available at an additional cost, as is custom artwork, custom colors, and carbon-fiber faceplates
Isolation
(4/5) – The isolation provided by the fitted acrylic shells is excellent, though it may not seem so at first. The passive attenuation is slightly below what the higher-end Etymotic earphones are capable of but higher than the universal stage monitors from the likes of Westone and EarSonics
Microphonics
(5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent, as is the case with all monitors fitted with Westone cables. The included shirt clip and cable cinch should still be used if the 1964-T was to be exercised in but for day-to-day use I don’t see myself bothering with either
Comfort
(5/5) – The most obvious contrast to universal earphones is the lack of ‘suction’ created by the soft tips of most universals. Putting the customs in requires a bit of getting used to but the twisting motion eventually becomes second nature. The acrylic shells are hard but not in the least uncomfortable – sometimes I am aware of them and other times I forget they’re in my ears at all. Obviously fit will always depend on the quality of the initial molds and maybe a bit of luck but I can’t imagine a properly-fitting custom being uncomfortable. Naturally, 1964 offers a 30-day fit guarantee, which should be taken advantage of if the customs remain even a tiny bit uncomfortable after an initial break-in period.
Sound
(9.2/10) - I ordered the 1964-T blindly, knowing nothing of its signature other than that it had less bass than the 1964-Q; that and the fact that two-way crossovers have always seemed sufficient to me in terms of covering the entire frequency spectrum - earphones such as the Fischer Audio DBA-02 are a testament to that. Those who have been following my IEM review thread or individual reviews have probably figured out that my preference leans towards leaner and brighter sound signatures – within reason, of course. The 1964-T, however, is neither lean nor thick, bright nor dark. It possesses one of the more neutral signatures I’ve heard out of an IEM which, I suppose, is the idea behind a stage monitor.
The bass is tight and controlled. Sub-bass roll-off strongly reminds of the Fischer-Audio DBA-02 and the mid-bass lift is only mild. In terms of impact and bass weight the 1964-T falls below earphones such as the EarSonics SM3 and Westone 3 but slightly above the Westone 2 and DBA-02 – around the level of a TripleFi 10 and more than adequate for my tastes. Next to bassier dynamic-driver earphones, the 1964-T suffers from no lack of texture or detail but the grunt isn’t really there. Those looking for a custom to match the bottom end of dynamic-driver sets such as the Sennheiser IE8 wand Monster MD will want to look elsewhere – perhaps at the 1964-Q. Despite barely keeping up with the UE TF10 in bass quantity, the 1964-T offers a more satisfying overall experience – its bass is simply more fleshed-out, more tactile. Texturing is better, individual notes are more resolved, and attack and decay times are more natural. The bass of the 1964-T is pretty much what one would expect from a very good armature-based earphone, much like that of the EarSonics SM3 but with slightly more clarity and bit less ‘viscosity’ and softness.
From the bass we move on to the midrange – a clean and crisp affair overflowing with texture. The 1964-T is the first earphone I’ve heard that nearly matches the CK10 and DBA-02 on both counts without sounding lean. It’s always been my opinion that high levels of texture are antithetical to what we commonly perceive as ‘smoothness’, and the 1964-T really isn’t a smooth earphone on that count. Thickness and articulation of note are both very impressive, falling closer to the healthy median of the Klipsch Custom 3 and Westone 2 than the thick-and-smooth SM3/UM3X or the leaner W3/CK10/DBA-02 crop. The 1964-T sounds tactile and well-weighted but not overly ‘creamy’. There is just a hint of warmth carried over from the bass but none of the ‘veil’ commonly attributed to such tonal characteristics. Although the mids are not particularly forward, I have no need to strain to pick out fine detail or tonal intricacies – my Triple.Fi 10 sounds both thinner and more smoothed-over in comparison. Indeed, the entire signature of the 1964-T is somewhat laid-back, with a low end that is a half-step more forward than the midrange and treble. Those looking for a forward, overly lush, liquid, or falsely sweet midrange will probably be best off looking somewhere else – what you get here is an earphone that’s slightly dry in sonic character but quite forthcoming with every little bit of information.
Not unlike the midrange, the treble is accurate and slightly laid-back. Crispness, clarity, and detail are all up there with the better universal earphones. Those looking for brightness or sparkle will be sorely disappointed – the 1964-T is offers neither – but when it comes to technical proficiency the single treble driver performs quite well. Neither sibilance nor harshness is an issue, unless of course sibilance is already present in the source material. Like the midrange, the treble is smooth and even on the whole but not ‘smoothed-over’ when examined more closely. In contrast to the 3-way EarSonics SM3, the treble of the 1964 triples never really sounds lacking in emphasis except at the very top and always remains relatively hard-edged when it comes to presenting detail. Those looking for a softened treble presentation would probably be better off with the Ortofon earphones or one of the high-end dynamics (RE262 or Monster MD). My personal tastes lean in the opposite direction and I find the 1964-T just aggressive enough to keep my attention most of the time.
Lastly we come to the presentation – perhaps the one aspect of the 1964-T’s sound least in-line with my expectations. For some reason I expected it to either be either thick, creamy, and mid-forward, like the UM3X, or spacious and airy, like the CK10, but the truth lies somewhere in-between. The soundstage of the 1964-T is above average in size but has neither the intimacy of the UM3X nor the wide-open feel of the CK10. A few months ago I would have been disappointed, but as I recently outlined in my EarSonics SM3 review, a stage of this size makes sense for an armature-based earphone. As I said in the SM3 write-up, a massive stage works (more or less) for something like the Sennheiser IE8, with its huge bass and immense dynamic presence, but an armature-based earphone would sound thinner trying to fill all of that space. In addition, the soundstage of the IE8 has an ‘inner limit’, meaning that it seems to start some distance away from the listener, but the ability to accurately portray intimacy is one of the necessary hallmarks of a good stage monitor. The 1964-T can indeed sound quite intimate, though not in the eerie centered-yet-enveloping way the SM3 can, but tends to spread things out more evenly across its stage. The stage is wider than it is tall or deep and the space is elliptical in nature, as is the case with most in-ears. The good, though not Monster MD-good, dynamics allow the 1964-T to portray distance as well as direction accurately and imaging is almost on par with what the thinner-sounding CK10 is capable of. Instrumental separation and layering are both good but stop short of what the Westone UM3X can achieve. On the whole, I don’t feel that the presentation of the 1964-T is necessarily better than that of most high-end universals but it does provide its - competitive - flavor.
Value
(8/10) – The 1964-T currently runs $400 plus the cost of shipping, customization, and impressions. For most, the base model will end up running just over $450 – a price lower than that of some top-tier universals. For that you get the fit and isolation of a custom earphone, not to mention the build quality and customization options that come with venturing into customs territory. I won’t say that the 1964-T is better than every universal I’ve ever heard in every aspect of its signature, but as a total package it is very proficient. Is it the earphone for everyone? Not exactly. The 1964-T has a sound signature – as do all universals and, I imagine, all customs – and that signature may not be to everyone’s liking. Moreover, the sound signature of a custom cannot be modified with alternate tips or a different insertion angle as it can with universal earphones. A set of customs is also not as easy to walk away from – to return or re-sell – and not quite as simple to live with day-to-day. Once the 1964-T is in my ears, however, all of these considerations simply melt away. Even when driven by a low-cost portable player, its sound is still on par with my favourite universal IEMs and, in my opinion, well worth the price of admission.
Pros: Balanced, detailed, and accurate sound on-par with the best universals in most aspects; excellent long-term comfort
Cons: Correct insertion takes some getting used to; less isolating than silicone-shelled customs;
For my full, in-depth review of the 1964-T please see
here
(1B3) Westone 4
Reviewed Mar 2011
Details: Westone’s new flagship and the first quad-driver universal earphone
Current Price:
$449 from bhphotovideo.com (MSRP: $639.00)
Specs: Driver:
Quad BA | Imp:
31Ω | Sens:
118 dB | Freq:
10-18k Hz | Cable:
4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
2.5mm | Preferred tips:
Shure Gray Flex, Shure Olives, Earsonics Bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(5/5) – Single-flange conical (3 sizes) and rounded (3 sizes) silicone tips, triple-flange silicone tips, Comply foam tips (3 sizes), ¼” adapter, in-line volume control, filter and tip cleaning tool, and hard clamshell carrying case with carabiner
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – The build of the W4 is almost identical to that the Westone 3. The housings are made of plastic and the multi-strand cables are twisted for extra strength. The y-split, housing entry, and 3.5mm L-plug are all very well-relieved
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Quite good, especially with longer tips
Microphonics
(5/5) – The W4 can only be worn over-the-ear and microphonics are nonexistent
Comfort
(4/5) – As is the case with the W3, the shells of the W4 are quite ‘fat’ in comparison to those used by the Westone 1 and 2 and quite a bit heavier. The nozzle is also a bit short for my liking but, luckily, the sound of the W4 seems far less dependent on seal quality than that of the W3 so a wider variety of comfort-oriented tips can be used
Sound
(9.3/10) – As the first quad-driver universal-fit IEM, the W4 brings with it an undeniably high level of expectations when it comes to sound quality, especially considering Westone’s expertise in portable audio. Having heard all of the company’s universal models except for the aging UM1 and UM2, I can honestly say that the W4 rules the coop. The UM3X, W3, and W2 are all top-tier earphones as far as I am concerned but they are not perfect. The W4 isn’t either, but it’s a tad closer, blending the best traits of the W2 and UM3X in a single, easy-going package. Interestingly, though the specifications of the W4 are remarkably close to those of the W2, I don’t find the earphone to be as sensitive to source as the lower-end W2 and W3 models. It does not hiss with my netbook and its sonic flavor remains fairly consistent across a wide range of sources, much like that of the ATH-CK10 and my 1964-T customs.
First, a note on the fit – while the W4 uses the same ergonomically-styled but somewhat tubby housings as the W3, it is far more forgiving of a less-than-perfect insertion angle. As a result, jamming it as far as possible into the ear canal really isn’t necessary and shorter tips such as the included gray single-flange sleeves will work just fine for many listeners. Once fitted, the W4 immediately surprises with the tame nature of its low end - for an earphone with two dedicated bass drivers, the W4 has undoubtedly been tuned for quality over quantity. Don’t get me wrong – there is still more bass than there would be in a strictly ‘flat’ earphone such as the CK10 – but the quantity trails the powerful and aggressive W3 by miles. In fact, the W4 seems to have a bit less bass body than the UM3X and only a touch more than the W2. The quality of the bass is very difficult to fault – it is extremely linear and speed and control impress even next to the ruler-flat ATH-CK10 and my 1964EARS customs. The bass is also very slightly soft in nature, providing a good compromise between the tight and decay-shy bass provided by more analytical earphones such as the CK10 and DBA-02 and the smoother, thicker, and more full-bodied low ends of the UM3X, SM3, and SM2. For me, the bass of the W4 is always plentiful but never excessive.
The W4’s midrange again strikes a good balance between the forward and creamy-sounding mids of the UM3X and SM3 and the thinner, slightly grainier midrange of the W2. In direct contrast to the slightly recessed midrange of the W3, the mids of the W4 are just a bit forward in the soundscape. They are also slightly warm and extremely smooth. Detail and resolution put the W4 on-par with other top-shelf earphones but clarity is still hindered slightly by the thickness in comparison to the CK10, DBA-02, FI-BA-SS, and other clarity-focused earphones. To me, the midrange presentation of the W4 sounds quite natural both in texture and tone but it really wouldn’t be much of a stretch to call the W4 a mid-centric earphone. In this particular case, however, the mids are so polished and refined that having them as the focus of the sound signature is fine by me.
The treble of the W4, too, achieves a compromise between the other Westone models. It is not as hot and exciting as that of the W3, nor is it as dull and lazy as that of the UM3X. Instead, it is smooth and inoffensive, with good extension and solid presence across the range. Detail is excellent as well and while the W4 isn’t nearly as sparkly or energetic as the ATH-CK10 or Fischer DBA-02, I can’t image anyone taking offense with its treble, either. It is definitely a sweet-sounding earphone on the whole, though, so those who are after something crisp and edgy will want to stick to the W3 or go with another brand.
The presentation of the W4 may just be the most impressive aspect of its sound. The soundstage is similar in size to that of the W3 but the outstanding separation and imaging are closer to those of the UM3X. The resulting sound is not nearly as intimate as that of the UM3X but remains full and coherent despite the greater soundstage size without becoming as ‘falsely’ enveloping as that of the Earsonics SM3. As stated in my review of the SM3, there is definitely a sweet spot for soundstage size in armature IEMs – too large and the earphones will start to sound ‘thinned out’; too small and congestion can become an issue. The W4 puts some natural-sounding distance between the listener and the music but does so without placing much of a ‘veil’ over the sound – an impressive feat. Though the UM3X does not sound notably veiled either, its notes are a bit softer than those of the W4 and its subdued treble results in decreased airiness compared to the new flagship. The tone of the W4, too, is slightly more neutral than that of the UM3X and the timbre is on-par with the SM3 and about as good as it gets for BA-based earphones.
Value
(8.5/10) – With the introduction of the W4, Westone has once again raised the stakes in the driver wars between high-end IEM manufacturers – something they’ve done at least twice in the past. The fit, comfort, build quality, and isolation are all what we’ve come to expect from Westone products but it should come as no surprise that the sound of the W4 is an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, step up from the company’s previous flagships. The sound signature requires almost no qualifications for those familiar with Westone products – well-rounded, refined, and spacious, the W4 is a very difficult earphone do dislike. Clearly it is not for those seeking FAD-like clarity, exciting treble, or explosive bass but the balance and realism of the new Westones is difficult to fault. Easily one of the best universal all-rounders I’ve come across.
Pros: Impressive isolation, build quality, and accessory pack; no cable noise; excellent balance & soundstaging
Cons: Tubby shells may not be ergonomic for some
Huge thanks to
rawrster for an extended loan of the Westone 4
(
1B4) Shure SE530
Reviewed June 2011
Details: Shure's previous flagship and one of the first triple-armature universal-fit earphones
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $449)
Specs: Driver:
Triple BA | Imp:
36Ω | Sens:
119 dB | Freq:
18-19k Hz | Cable:
18" I-plug + 3' extension (I-plug) or 9" extension (I-plug)
Nozzle Size:
2.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock triple flanges, Shure Olives
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(5/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes) and triple-flange silicone tips, Olive foam tips (3 sizes), cleaning tool, over-the-ear cable guides, ¼" adapter, in-line attenuator, airline adapter, hard clamshell carrying case, 3' extension cable, and 9" extension cable
Build Quality
(4/5) - The ergonomically-shaped housings of the SE530 are made out of shiny bronze-colored plastic. The nozzle is a separate piece (in contrast to the SE535) and the entire shell feels rather sturdy. Strain reliefs are extremely beefy and the modular cable is thicker than what's found on most portable headphones. Early production SE530s are infamous for cable cracking issues
Isolation
(4/5) - As with most ergo-fit monitors, the SE530 isolates quite a lot with longer tips such as the included triple-flanges
Microphonics
(4.5/5) - The SE530 can only be worn cable-up and microphonics are nearly nonexistent
Comfort
(4.5/5) - The rounded housings and over-the-ear fit of the SE530 make the earphones quite comfortable for prolonged use and the fit kit provides plenty of tip options. Size-wise the SE530 is similar to the W3 but longer, more shallowly angled nozzle should make the fit more universal. One annoyance is the modular cable, which is quite thick and can be unwieldy
Sound
(8.9/10) – Introduced back in 2005 as the E500 (not to be confused with the E5), the SE530 became one of the very first triple-driver universal IEMs on the market. The monitor utilizes a two-way design with dual low drivers – a configuration still common today. Unlike a few of the other multi-armature flagships, however, the SE530 is a consumer-oriented earphone through and through. Whereas the Shure E4 I owned a long time ago was mid-centric and neutral almost to the point of blandness, the SE530 overflows with sonic flavor. Tuned for a warm and full-bodied sound, it shares individual characteristics with a number of high-end IEMs but mirrors none in full.
Contrary to what I expected based on the hundreds of SE530 references I’ve read over the years, the low end is well-extended and lacks any significant mid-bass emphasis. Test tones are easily audible below 25Hz but the earphone lacks power, detail, and definition at the lowest of lows, making the usable frequency range a little narrower. Outside of sub-bass frequencies, however, the SE530 yields little detail to the new crop of high-end monitors and usually remains competent and polite. The character of the low end is reminiscent of the Earsonics SM2 but with diminished overall quantity. It is thick, full, and slightly round of note, with good punch and definition. The response also picks up weight and becomes more authoritative towards the lower midrange. Like the SM2, the SE530 is a touch on the boomy side for an armature-based earphone with fairly flat response. The Westone 4, which isn’t a whole lot leaner than the SE530, sounds significantly quicker and tighter.
The mids of the SE530 are powerful and upfront but despite the midrange bias the earphones sound fairly balanced. In my book, the presentation qualifies as mid-centric rather than mid-forward. The midrange is lush and full-sounding. It manages to be warm without coming off significantly veiled, partly because there is no bass hump getting in the way. It is detailed, but not aggressively so. Expectedly, some texture and microdetail ends up being sacrificed for the smoothness - the SE530 sounds very liquid next to my CK10, 1964-T, and even TF10. More noticeable are the sacrifices in clarity and transparency – the SE530 can’t quite keep up with the newer triple- and quad-driver models on the market on either front. I’ve seen the term ‘fat’ tossed around and I think it more or less applies to the midrange of the SE530.
The treble transition is extremely smooth and the earphone drops off more gradually than I expected at the top. There is no doubt that the high end is rolled off but my testing shows that it drops 10dB maybe 1kHz earlier than the (decidedly trebly) CK10. From a frequency response perspective, 1kHz isn’t much and the SE530 actually seems to perform better than the newer SE535 when it comes to absolute extension. What’s missing is treble energy – while the earphone is extremely non-fatiguing and polite, it is also quite laid-back and lacking in air. The top end is not at all sparkly or edgy – not even close – which tends to accentuate the roll-off and – as with the poor note weight at the extreme low end – sacrifice some realism. While the Earsonics SM3 and UM3X can be accused of the same, they do have greater resolution, clarity, and detail to make up for it. On the upside, the SE530 is one of the most forgiving earphones I’ve ever heard when it comes to compressed or poorly-ripped audio – probably not much consolation for seasoned audiophiles but it does make the SE530 more suitable for beginners.
In addition to its performance at the limits of the frequency spectrum, I was slightly underwhelmed by the presentation of the SE530. The soundstage is a bit above average in size, with good width and depth, but the lack of crisp, well-defined treble cuts down on airiness and the sense of overall space. As a result, the earphone leans towards intimacy with the way it presents music and tends to underemphasize the size of its stage. Imaging is average – sufficient, but not nearly as impressive as with the UM3X or SM3. Positioning precision, similarly, lags behind the CK10 and Westone 4, but not for lack of dynamics. Rather, the mid-centric balance messes with positioning cues and causes certain things to sound out of place. In addition, the sound simply isn’t very well-separated – the SE530 sounds blended, almost like a dynamic-driver set – in stark contrast to something like the UM3X or CK10. Of course for those who complain about armatures sounding artificial and consider a track to be more than a sum of its parts, the presentation of the SE530 may actually be preferable. In addition, the laid-back top end contributes to the tone leaning towards the dark side of neutral - not terribly so, but more than most of the competition. The earphones are also quite sensitive and will hiss more with poorly-matched sources than the competition.
Value
(7.5/10) – The Shure SE530 has been a staple of the audiophile market for the better part of the past decade. In that time it has been challenged by a number of newer designs but – thus far – has managed to maintain a loyal following. As an overall package, the SE530 is indeed impressive, especially considering its age. Early-production cable issues aside, the set is well-designed and user-friendly. The sound is mid-centric, warm, and polite – a signature still considered by many to be the audiophile ideal. Shure obviously thought the earphone aged well enough, admitting publically that sonic changes to the newer SE535 revision were kept to a minimum. What follows is a more personal question – why can’t I bring myself to like the sound? To me, the SE530 has a definite midrange bias while the bass and treble are merely decent. Granted, monitors such as the Earsonics SM3 and Westone UM3X have a different purpose and different signatures, as do the more V-shaped TF10 and W3, but all of these perform better across the spectrum as a whole than the SE530 does. The Shures lose additional points for questionable positioning precision and texturing. For a triple-driver setup, the SE530 simply runs out of steam too early when it comes to the finer points of audio reproduction and, while I appreciate the role of the earphone in shaping the high-end consumer IEM market, the SE530 is a difficult one to recommend in 2011.
Pros: Ergonomic; well-accessorized; lush and sweet sound
Cons: Modular cable can be unwieldy; not great at frequency range extremes; not very impressive on a technical level
Huge thanks to
carlsan for loaning me the Shure SE530 and SE535 for extensive head-to-head testing!
(1B5) Shure SE535
Reviewed June 2011
Details: Shure's latest flagship utilizing three armatures in a dual-low, single-high configuration
Current Price:
$410 from accessoryjack.com (MSRP: $549.99); $40 more for Shure CBL-M+-K mic/remote accessory
Specs: Driver:
Triple BA | Imp:
36Ω | Sens:
119 dB | Freq:
18-19k Hz | Cable:
5.3' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
2.5mm | Preferred tips:
Stock triple flanges, Shure Olives, Earsonics bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(5/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes) and triple-flange silicone tips, Olive foam tips (3 sizes), porous yellow foam tips, cleaning tool, ¼" adapter, in-line attenuator, airline adapter, and hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality
(4.5/5) - With the SE535, Shure has beefed up the construction of the flagship earphone, integrating the nozzle into the housing molds and foregoing the modular cable for a detachable single-piece design. The housings are now less rounded in shape and available in two colors. The cable connectors use a locking and swiveling design akin to that found on some customs but seems to suffer from an unusally high defect/failure rate so far. Strain reliefs are again extremely beefy and the cable is much thicker than average. One interesting issue is with the cable cinch – while it may loosen up over time, it was extremely difficult to move on the test unit
Isolation
(4/5) - As with most ergo-fit monitors, the SE535 isolates quite a lot with longer tips such as the included triple-flanges
Microphonics
(4.5/5) - The SE535 can only be worn cable-up and microphonics are nearly nonexistent
Comfort
(4/5) - With the SE530 as a starting point, it is difficult to imagine the SE535 being an improvement on the comfort front. Indeed, it isn’t - though the cable itself is lighter without the modular split halfway down, the connectors are big, bulky, and angled too far forward for my liking. The addition of a memory wire section doesn't help either – the entire setup makes the earphones more difficult to position and causes the angular housings to press against my ears
Sound (9/10) – The Shure SE535 replaces the aging SE530 – an earphone that, despite its unique and audiophile-friendly sound signature, certainly is not without flaws - as the company’s flagship. Admitting as much but downplaying the extent of the revision, Shure has gone on record commenting that while the core hardware of the earphone is unchanged, modifications to the housing have positively affected the treble and presentation of the earphones. Personally, I think the improvements go a little further than that, but then again the original SE530 failed impress me in any major way to begin with.
The low end is where the SE535 differs least from the previous model. The bass is flat and well-extended. Test tones are easily audible below 25Hz but power, detail, and definition are lacking at the lowest of lows. Bass detail is good and the low end lacks generally in neither control nor quantity. The bass is still punchy, full, and slightly round of note, but seemingly less so with the SE535 – the newer model sounds tighter and cleaner with quicker attack and decay compared to its predecessor. Other than a tiny bit of speed and recovery, the E535 is mostly identical to the SE530 at the low end. It still reminds me of the Earsonics earphones and, compared to the Westone 4 and 1964-T, is still just a touch too soft for my liking.
The midrange remains the focus of the presentation with the SE535. It retains the power and authority of the SE530 but sounds slightly less forward, mainly due to the greater treble presence. Despite a slight reduction in note thickness, the mids are still lush, full, and very smooth. Warmth is reduced slightly compared to the SE530 – the newer model is clearly the more neutral-sounding of the two. Detail levels are good but the detailing is not at all aggressive. Texture and microdetail levels lag behind many other BA-based earphones and even the dynamic-driver Sony EX1000 and JVC FX700. Clarity and transparency, similarly, are not strong suits of the SE535 next to the some of the other monitors in the price bracket.
The top end is where the SE535 deviates most from its predecessor – the treble is noticeably more prominent in the overall soundscape of the newer earphone. Strictly-speaking, there is still a similar amount of high frequency roll-off to the SE530 but the response stays stronger and cleaner right up to the roll-off point. Most of the differences between the two models stem from this minor change – the SE535 sounds a bit cooler, slightly less mid-centric, and a touch leaner than the SE530. It also carries more air and, unlike the SE530, can make claims to sonic balance. The overall amount of treble energy is a bit more realistic though the earphones are still quite polite and non-fatiguing. They are also a touch more critical of poor rips and recordings than the SE530.
The second area of “official” improvement is the presentation. I found myself slightly underwhelmed by the sizeable-yet-intimate presentation of the SE530. The extra air of the SE535 helps the earphone make better use of the sonic space and even the instrument separation seems (very slightly) improved. Overall soundstage size is still slightly above average, imaging is good, and the dynamic range is impressive. There still seem to be some minor positioning anomalies resulting from the relative strength of the midrange but nothing that would bother me. The characteristically ‘blended’ sound of the SE530 is mostly unchanged but the overall tonality is definitely closer to neutral. Clearly an improvement over the SE530 in my book but not one significant enough to warrant an upgrade for most current SE530 owners.
Value (8/10) - Though the market as a whole has changed drastically, high-end in-ear earphone hardware has seen little innovation in the past few years. Whereas UE has responded with drastic price cuts, Shure, Earsonics, and Etymotic Reseach seem bent on revising their products to maintain a higher price point. In the case of theSE530/SE535, the changes touch mostly on construction and performance. The build quality has undergone the largest improvement, with the modular cable dropped in favor of a fully detachable system. Unfortunately, the bulky cable connectors can make it slightly more difficult to achieve a comfortable fit with the earphone. The sound quality, too, has been improved but the changes are far from drastic. Shure managed to bring the signature closer to ‘balanced’, with improvements to the treble response affecting the rest of the spectrum in minor ways. The SE535 is, on the whole, a better earphone than the SE530, but sets such as the Westone 4 are quick to point out its remaining deficiencies. The new version, therefore, is not a must-have upgrade for SE530 owners but those buying a Shure product now will clearly be better off with the SE535.
Pros: Top-notch build quality, well-accessorized, performance improved over SE530
Cons: Detachable cable can be unwieldy
Huge thanks to
carlsan for loaning me the Shure SE530 and SE535 for extensive head-to-head testing!
(1B6) Sony MDR-EX1000
Reviewed Aug 2011
Details: Sony’s dynamic-driver flagship monitor
Current Price:
$480 from amazon.com (MSRP: $499.99)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic | Imp:
32Ω | Sens:
108 dB | Freq:
3-30k Hz | Cable:
4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
4mm | Preferred tips:
Sony Hybrids, generic bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) – Sony Hybrid silicone tips (6 sizes), Hybrid silicone+foam tips (3 sizes), and carrying case (Note: US version includes an EX600 cable; non-US version ships with a nicer 4' cord plus a shorter 2' cable)
Build Quality
(4.5/5) – The EX1000 housings are constructed of magnesium and plastic and styled in the typical Sony manner, with the driver positioned vertically outside of the ear. The detachable cable is held in place by a threaded bit, which seems pretty fool-proof except that I found myself gripping the threaded bit when removing the earphones, thereby unscrewing the cable a bit each time. The cord itself feels slightly underwhelming for a $500 product. It is very flexible but a little thinner than the Ortofon e-Q5 cord. The “memory wire” section is likewise very flexible, so it is more of a “suggestion wire” in practice. It can take a bit of time to settle into the desired shape and doesn’t retain form very well under its own weight. The cord is terminated with a slim 3.5mm L-plug
Isolation
(2.5/5) – The nozzles of the EX1000 seem rather long but the earphones are not well-designed for deep insertion. Isolation is mediocre with the standard Hybrid eartips and very slightly better with the supplied foam-stuffed tips. Wind noise can be an additional issue when used outside
Microphonics
(5/5) – The native wear style is over-the-ear and cord noise nonexistent in the soft cable
Comfort
(4/5) – Though housings designed around vertically-positioned drivers often feature angled nozzles or other ergonomic improvements, the EX1000 is actually a straight-barrel earphone. It is quite large and tends to protrude farther than most earphones when worn, looking a bit like the ridiculous PFR-V1. On the upside, the long nozzles position the driver far enough away from the ear not to cause discomfort. The fit is not as secure as with most other high-end monitors but the soft memory wire works well enough in conjunction with the cable cinch. Still, I would prefer a little more ‘memory’
Sound
(9.3/10) – The MDR-EX1000 slots in above the studio-oriented MDR-EX800ST/MDR-7550 in Sony’s lineup, competing directly with Sennheiser’s IE8 and JVC’s FX700 for the title of top consumer-oriented dynamic. Never having heard Sony’s previous flagship, or indeed any model higher up than the lowly EX300, the EX1000 was a complete mystery to me. What I found was a truly top-tier dynamic-driver earphone with a slight – but not unpleasant – treble tilt.
The low end of the EX1000 is accurate and controlled. In typical high-end dynamic-driver fashion, it is detailed and textured without losing body or fullness – clean, but relatively soft in the way notes are presented. There is no bloat and while the depth is not as immense as with the Monster MD or JVC FX700, the EX1000 is not severely rolled-off, either. Compared to the VSonic GR07, the Sonys skimp on speed just a little bit in favor a smoother and slightly softer presentation. The warmer, boomier Sennheiser IE7, on the other hand, is left completely in the dust by the bass control and detail of the EX1000. Not a bad tradeoff at all and one of my very favorite bass presentations among all universals.
The midrange of the EX1000 is neutral-to-bright, with a slight gain in emphasis towards the top. It is balanced very well with the bottom end, which is not quite something I can say for Audio-Technica’s dynamic flagship, the CKM99. The GR07, on the other hand, is a touch less prominent in the midrange, sounding flatter across the spectrum and slightly more neutral in tone than the EX1000 - not a huge surprise considering its pro-oriented tuning. The ATH-CK10 also sounds a bit flatter through the low end and midrange but treads on the brighter side of neutral, just as the EX1000 does, albeit without the benefit of dynamic-driver fullness. As expected, bass bleed is nonexistent with the Sonys and the smoothness is very impressive. The EX1000 is easily smoother and lusher than the GR07 and nudges the warmer, less clear, and noticeably less textured IE7 on both counts. Clarity is top notch, as is resolution, and there is only a very small bit of microdetail missing compared to top-tier BA-based earphones such as the CK10 and 1964-T. Overall, the detailing of the Sonys is very good but not very aggressive, which allows the earphone to remain extremely refined and liquid. The overall refinement is especially obvious next to a lesser dynamic such as the Sennheiser IE7, which lacks clarity and detail compared to the EX1000 and loses out by a fair margin in overall realism. Only in comparison to the 6-driver, custom-molded, hugely expensive UM Miracle does the EX1000 start to sound a little thin and lacking in note articulation.
The EX1000 picks up emphasis towards the upper midrange and treble but manages to keep its top end in control far better than the CKM99 does. Despite the moderate amount of emphasis, the EX1000 is only a hair hotter than the GR07 and manages to remain extremely smooth and refined without giving up crispness or resolution. It is not harsh and almost never sibilant. Over long listening sessions, the EX1000 can be a little more fatiguing than the GR07 but again not due to harshness or sibilance. Rather, it is the overall tilt towards treble that may grow tiresome for some listeners. Coming from the CK10, however, I wasn’t at all offended by it, though I prefer my treble emphasis higher up. On the upside, the EX1000 does an excellent job of conveying treble energy, which laid-back dynamics such as the RE262 and DDM2 simply cannot do. Interestingly, top end extension is not ‘bottomless’ – above average, certainly, but the EX1000 is on par with the GR07 in dropping off a bit earlier than my CK10 and 1964-T. Sony’s monitor is also a touch less revealing than the 1964-T - a blessing for those with a good number of mp3s in their library.
Whereas the signature of the EX1000 is lively and energetic, the presentation follows a more laid-back approach. Its soundstage is not quite the widest among all in-ears in absolute terms, but it is very spacious, airy, and open. There is not a hint of the confined, closed-in feel prevalent among stage monitors – the 1964-T, for example, sounds downright intimate in comparison. Surprisingly, the same can be said for the dynamic-driver Sennheiser IE7, though to a slightly lesser degree – the Sennheisers sound constrained and congested next to the Sonys. At the same time, the soundstage of the EX1000 is well filled-in and layered better than that of the GR07. The EX1000 also has an upper hand in dynamics, timbre, and overall refinement, though the GR07 is admittedly a bit more neutral in tone. Imaging and positioning are generally good but lag slightly behind a couple of the top-tier armature IEMs I’ve heard. Separation, similarly, is only above average. Those looking for extremely high instrument separation are probably better off with a BA-based monitor as the EX1000 takes a more cohesive approach. Likewise, those who want to be enveloped by the presentation will not get that ‘on stage’ feel with the EX1000 – the EX1000 tends to distance itself slightly and offers a higher degree of left-right separation. A BA-based monitor such as the UM3X, SM3, or 1964-T will give the on-stage feel in spades for those who require it. Personally, I do find that more coherent and centralized imaging provides a more realistic and involving listening experience but only my UM Miracle is capable of making that highly obvious in the Sonys without sacrificing airiness or soundstage size.
Value
(8/10) – Blisteringly expensive when first announced, Sony’s MDR-EX1000 has recently been dropping low enough in price to compete with other top-tier universal dynamics. In terms of sheer performance, Sony’s flagship readily asserts its dominance over the hi-fi mainstays - the newly-developed liquid crystal polymer driver is one of the best dynamic transducers I’ve come across, alongside those used by HiFiMan and JVC, and the tuning showcases its abilities beautifully. The sound is clean, quick, airy, and dynamic – everything a high-end earphone should strive toward. The design is reminiscent of the higher-end Sony monitors of yesteryear but introduces replaceable cables and native over-the-ear fitment. Isolation is only moderate and wind noise can be an issue but those who are willing to suffer through the fit and aesthetics of the thing will be rewarded with what may be the finest dynamic-driver universal on the market.
Pros: No cable noise; amazing combination of clear, detailed, open, and spacious sound
Cons: Average isolation; fit can be frustrating; wind noise can be an issue
Huge thanks to
esanthosh for the EX1000 loan!
(1B7) Alclair Reference
Reviewed May 2012
Details: Triple-driver acrylic custom from MN-based Alclair
Current Price
$399 from alclair.com (MSRP $499)
Specs: Driver:
Triple BA | Imp:
27Ω | Sens:
105 dB | Freq: N/A | Cable:
4.2' L-plug
Nozzle Size: N/A | Preferred tips: N/A
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) – Cleaning tool, cleaning cloth, and hard-shelled Pelican carrying case
Build Quality
(5/5) – The reference is a two-way, triple-driver monitor with dual low drivers – a setup similar to the 1964EARS 1964-T and several universal-fit monitors. The molding quality is very good, with clean shells and very clear faceplates. The excellent finish around the nozzles and cable connectors sets the Reference apart from my 1964EARS and Kozee customs. The cable uses a recessed Westone-style connector.
Isolation
(4/5) – The isolation provided by the fitted acrylic shells is excellent -slightly below what the higher-end Etymotic Research universal-fit earphones are capable of with foam or tri-flange tips but higher than that of the ergonomic monitors from Westone and EarSonics
Microphonics
(5/5) - Pretty much nonexistent as with all of the custom monitors I’ve tried
Comfort
(5/5) – The nozzles of my Reference were cut to a medium length – a bit longer than those of my Kozees and 1964s but nowhere near my Spiral Ear 3-way. As with all customs, putting them in will require a bit of getting used to for first-time users but the twisting motion eventually becomes second nature. The acrylic shells are hard but not in the least uncomfortable when fitted correctly. If the earphones remain uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a refit is probably a good idea. There is added cost with shipping the monitors back and, if necessary, getting new impressions but on the whole a perfect fit is well worth the trouble
Sound
(9.4/10) – The Alclair Reference utilizes a two-way, triple-BA setup with dual low drivers, much like that of the 1964EARS 1964-T. Its signature, however, is very different from the mid-focused sound of the 1964s. The Alclair pursues a more balanced response with some treble emphasis and a more laid-back presentation. At the same time the dual woofers give the sound a warm tone and fullness, making the Alclair Reference one earphone that can easily be enjoyed for casual listening as well as professional use.
The bass of the earphones is detailed and controlled, with good note thickness and minimal bleed. The low end is accurate, but impactful. It is crisper and more punchy than that of the Earsonics SM3 and similar in power but better-textured compared to a black-filtered Phonak PFE 232. Bass depth is also good - better than with the CTM-200 and 1964-T but not quite up there with the pricier UM Miracle, Spiral Ear 3-way, and AKG K3003. The Alclair Reference doesn’t produce a lot of sub-bass rumble but it sounds very clean and resolving across the range, as a good monitor should. It beats out the K3003 in clarity and control and produces a fuller, more realistic sound than the leaner CTM-200 – a good balance in my book.
The midrange of the Reference is balanced very well with the bass, making the Phonak PFE 232 sound slightly mid-recessed in comparison. It is warmed up a little by the bass and very well-detailed. Detail levels are higher than with the AKG K3003 and Spiral Ear 3-way and lag just behind the UM Miracle. The note presentation is on the analytical side but not overly so – the Reference is noticeably thicker-sounding than the CTM-200 as well as TWFK-based monitors such as the Fischer Audio DBA-02. The result is clarity worthy of a reference product without a drop in note weight and overall realism.
Things start to get a little complicated moving up from the midrange – the upper mids and lower treble of the Reference seem to be somewhat emphasized, likely tuned that way to give a boost to vocal clarity. There is a bit of treble unevenness, causing the Reference to sound a touch ‘hot’ with some tracks in a manner reminiscent of the VSonic GR07 and the Phonak PFE 232. The treble peaks of the PFE 232 come in a little higher up but are also slightly stronger, making the Reference less fatiguing for long-term listening, but I wouldn’t recommend either to those who generally prefer smooth and laid-back highs. On the upside, there is plenty of energy at the top, which can’t be said for the pricier Spiral Ear 3-way. Treble extension is good as well – not quite on-par with the Miracle or AKG K3003 but superior to the CTM-200 and vastly better than the 1964-T.
Presentation is a strong suit of the Reference – the soundstage is nice and spacious, with width similar to that of the CTM-200 but better depth and layering. It doesn’t have the best on-center feel – the AKG K3003 and Earsonics SM3 both do better when it comes to portraying elements that are up close but neither can match the sheer size of the Alclair’s soundstage. Instrument separation is also excellent and the Reference has good dynamics for a BA-based earphone. Overall coherence is also impressive, making obvious the slightly mismatched BA-dynamic sound of the AKG K3003 and the overly-mid-centric tuning of the 1964-T’s crossover.
Value
(9/10) – Starting at $399, the Alclair Reference is a mid-level custom monitor that combines a versatile sound signature with the usual isolation, fit, and customization options of a full-shell custom monitor. The finish is nothing short of excellent and the standard recessed cable sockets make me less apprehensive of long-term cable durability, though some aftermarket cables may be more difficult to fit. More importantly, the sound signature of the Reference should make it the best crowd pleaser among all of the mid-level customs I’ve heard - the triple-BA setup produces a slightly warm, spacious, and energetic sound, an excellent compromise between accuracy and musicality and a potential upgrade to some very popular universals such as the VSonic GR07.
Pros: Great build quality; comfort of a custom monitor; slightly warm sound with good clarity, detail, and space; excellent bass & midrange quality
Cons: Treble may be hot for some
(1B8) Phonak Audéo PFE 232
Reviewed July 2012
Details: dual-driver follow-up to Phonak’s renowned Perfect Fit Earphone
Current Price:
$599 from amazon.com (MSRP: $599.00); mic cable included
Specs: Driver:
Dual BA | Imp:
47Ω | Sens:
104-109 dB | Freq:
5-17k Hz | Cable:
3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
3mm | Preferred tips:
stock silicone, stock Comply, Shure Gray Flex
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(5/5) - Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes), Comply foam tips (3 sizes), 8 tuning filters (4 grey; 2 black; 2 green) & filter changing tool, cleaning tool, silicone ear guides, replacement cable with inline mic/remote, and zippered carrying case
Build Quality
(5/5) – While the housings of the PFE 232 are plastic, they are very well put-together and the finish is top notch. The cable is flexible, tangle-resistant, thick below y-split, and – most importantly – detachable
Isolation
(3/5) – Average with the included silicone tips but better with the Complys and some aftermarket tips
Microphonics
(4.5/5) - Very low with the intended over-the-ear wear
Comfort
(5/5) – Though the in-ear footprint of the 232 is a bit larger than that of the older PFE models, the earphones are still very lightweight and ergonomic and can really disappear during everyday use. The cable can be a little resistant to staying behind the ear but the fit is very secure with the included cable guides
Sound
(9.2/10) – Released in 2008, Phonak’s original PFE has been widely revered for offering accurate sound in a lightweight, highly ergonomic form factor at a price that all but obliterated the competition. Those days are long gone – the PFE still sounds excellent but has appreciated in price and no longer leaves as large a berth between itself and its rivals. The original PFE made excellent use of a single armature, so it’s not surprising that the PFE 232, the company’s first all-new earphone since 2008, is a “mere” dual BA despite its ambitious price tag.
The sound of the PFE 232 has been re-tuned to offer a fuller, weightier musical experience without sacrificing accuracy. Like the first PFE, it utilizes a tuning system comprised of three sets of color-coded nozzle filters. The gray and black filters are similar to those included with the original PFE and the green filters are adapted from the cheaper Perfect Bass model.
The bass-heavy green filters attenuate the midrange and a bit of the treble in order to bring the low end forward. Like the original PFE, the 232 is not very efficient to begin with, but the green filters still manage to increase acoustic impedance noticeably. They provide a warmer, bassier sound at the expense of a portion of the transparency and resolution of the PFE 232. Compared to the gray filters, the green ones are muddier, with veiled, somewhat muffled-sounding mids, a more v-shaped response, and less air. The PFE 232 with the green filters still boasts less bass than the pricier AKG K3003 with its ‘Bass Boost’ filters does, as well as a more recessed midrange and brighter, harsher treble. As with the previous PFE model and the K3003, I feel that the bass-heavy configuration of the 232 sacrifices too much of what makes the earphone special, and that if I were willing to accept a poorer-sounding earphone in exchange for a little more bass, the $600 Phonaks would not be in consideration.
Happily, the black and gray filters of the 232 provide a more agreeable audio experience. While the black filters still de-emphasize the midrange and upper midrange for a more v-shaped response compared to the gray ones, they are far more tolerable than the enhanced bass configuration. Most of the veil present with the green filters is lifted and the acoustic resistance seems to be closer to the more unimpeded gray filters. The gray filters are still the most transparent and – to my ears at least – the most balanced-sounding of the three. They do have the most treble energy, but only by a small margin. The entirety of the below review is based on the gray filters except where otherwise noted.
The low end of the PFE 232 is quite consistent between all of the different filters – whichever tuning is chosen, the bass remains controlled but very impactful for a BA-based monitor. Bass punch is reminiscent of the VSonic GR07, trailing slightly behind the AKG K3003 but beating out TWFK-based monitors such as the ATH-CK10 and VSonic GR01 without sacrificing any control. The dynamic-driver GR07 has a bit more deep bass in comparison but doesn’t sound quite as full and fleshed-out overall. Indeed, the PFE 232 sounds very dynamic at all times and strikes an excellent balance between body and tightness with its bass. It is quick and clean as a good BA-based monitor should be, but the note presentation is never thin. Compared to the Earsonics SM3, the bass of the PFE is noticeably cleaner and crisper-sounding, appearing a little less boomy despite similar power and weight. Taken as a whole, the bass of the PFE 232 is very solid – easily some of the best BA bass I’ve heard.
The low end of the PFE 232 is emphasized slightly in comparison to the mids. As a result, the earphone doesn’t sound quite as level as the VSonic GR07 and ATH-CK10 do. Indeed, even the original, single-driver Phonaks have better bass-midrange balance than the PFE 232. That said, the quality of the midrange is very good – it is detailed and very transparent - most so with the gray filters in place. It is not as warm and smooth as that of the Earsonics SM3 but sounds cleaner and clearer. Like the bass, the midrange does not overstep any boundaries – note weight is good and yet the PFE 232 sounds very crisp. It is slightly fuller than the TWFK-based ATH-CK10 and a bit more textured and refined than the VSonic GR07 and Final Audio Heaven A.
With the gray filters, the treble transition is reasonably smooth and the top end is highly reminiscent of the original Phonaks. The PFE 232 has a lot of treble energy, boasting plenty of sparkle and good extension. It reminds me of the VSonic GR07 in being a touch hot without sounding overly bright in terms of tone, and can occasionally accentuate the sibilance on a track. In comparison to the PFE 232, the AKG K3003 has just as much treble energy and similarly faultless resolution but tends to be smoother and less offensive with its ‘Reference’ filters in place. The Final Audio Heaven A, on the other hand, has noticeably less treble energy and sounds a touch grainy compared to the PFE 232.
The presentation of the PFE 232 is very well-rounded – the soundstage has good width and depth, great separation, and believable, versatile imaging. It is much more conventional compared to the enveloping presentation of the Earsonics SM3 and yet loses only a bit of headstage size. The PFE 232 is not overly intimate and boasts a good center image, with better layering and a more 3D sense of space than the VSonic GR07, though not quite to the level of the AKG K3003. The K3003 is also airier and more open-sounding, with slightly better reach up top and great dynamics that make it more involving at the lowest volumes.
The above comparisons are based on A:B listening with the PFE 232 and a slew of top-tier universals. Priced as it is, however, the PFE 232 competes directly with quite a few custom monitors as well, even with the cost of ear impressions factored in. Below are short comparisons between the PFE 232 and the Clear Tune Monitors CTM-200 ($350) and Alclair Reference ($500).
A dual-driver custom monitor from Florida-based Clear Tune Monitors, the CTM-200 follows a balanced sound signature with a neutral tone. Compared to the slightly v-shaped PFE 232, the CTM-200 is flatter and more level, with mids that are not recessed and smoother treble. Its bass is a touch quicker but significantly lower in impact and not as extended as that of the Phonaks. The tone is a little cooler with the CTMs and the transparency is slightly better on the whole. In addition, the presentation is more spacious and the imaging is a tiny bit more convincing.
The Alclair Reference is a triple-driver earphone with solid bass and a warmer tone. It has very similar bass punch and clarity to the PFE 232 but offers up more pronounced mids and a less v-shaped signature. The top end of the Reference is similarly hot but the treble peaks come in lower, making it slightly more prone to vocal sibilance. The mids are warmer, drier, and a little more textured compared to those of the PFE and the presentation is larger and a bit more convincing in terms of positioning.
Value
(8/10) – Phonak’s dual-driver follow-up to one of the best single-armature earphones on the market is a top-tier performer in every sense. The PFE 232 sounds excellent, though it differs greatly in signature from most of the top-tier Westone, Shure, and Etymotic monitors. Some listeners may be bothered by the slightly v-shaped signature and the edgy, revealing treble presentation but the PFE 232 provides some of the best bass I’ve heard from a universal and the clarity and resolution continuously impress. Plus, from the interchangeable cables to the lightweight, ergonomic housing design, the PFE 232 is one of the finest overall packages out there, making it worthy of recommendation despite Phonak’s ambitious pricing.
Pros: Very well-built with detachable cables, including a spare; lightweight & comfortable; clear sound with excellent bass and three tunings
Cons: Enhanced-bass tuning a step below the others; not as well-balanced as cheaper 112 model
Huge thanks to
5370H55V for the PFE 232 loan!
(1B9) 1964EARS 1964-V3
Reviewed November 2012
Details: 2nd-gen triple-driver custom from 1964EARS utilizing a new 3-way crossover
Current Price:
$425 from 1964ears.com
Specs: Driver:
Triple BA | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
119 dB | Freq:
12-17k Hz | Cable:
4.2' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
N/A | Preferred tips:
N/A
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(5/5) – Shirt clip, ¼” adapter, cleaning tool, carrying pouch, and crushproof Pelican storage case
Build Quality
(5/5) – The 1964-V3 utilizes a brand new 3-way setup in a familiar dual-bore configuration. Molding quality is greatly improved compared to my old 1964-T, with no bubbles, very clear faceplates, and better finish around the cable sockets and nozzles. Like the 1964-T before it, the V3 uses a cable with a standard Westone socket, albeit with a shorter memory wire section and a different plug and y-split. Options include recessed cable sockets, custom artwork, custom colors, and various exotic faceplates
Isolation
(4/5) – The isolation provided by the fitted acrylic shells is excellent -slightly below that of Etymotic Research earphones but higher than with stage monitors from the likes of Westone and EarSonics
Microphonics
(5/5) - Pretty much nonexistent as with all of my custom monitors
Comfort
(5/5) –The acrylic shells are hard but not in the least uncomfortable when fitted correctly. As with all customs, putting them in will require a bit of getting used to for first-time users but the twisting motion eventually becomes second nature. If the earphones remain uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a refit under the 30-day fit guarantee is probably a good idea. There is added cost with shipping the monitors back and, if necessary, getting new impressions but on the whole a perfect fit is well worth the trouble
Sound
(9.4/10) – The 1964-V3 is the second-generation triple-driver custom from 1964EARS. The original 1964-T will always have a special place in my heart as my very first custom monitor, but there is no denying that it had room for improvement. With an additional crossover point for a true 3-way configuration, the V3 is superior to the old model in both tuning and ability.
The bass of the V3 is delivered by one of the twin Knowles CI armatures and bests the lows of the old 1964-T in both quantity and quality. The V3 takes on an enhanced-bass profile with warm overall tonality. The bass impresses in both extension and impact, with better depth, more punch, and a more natural note presentation compared to the old 1964-T. The V3 also sounds more effortless and dynamic overall, and despite the above-average note thickness remains quick and clean. Bass bleed is minimized by the prominent midrange, though the V3 still appears a touch boomy next to leaner earphones such as the Alclair Reference.
The midrange of the V3 is smooth and forward, with good note thickness and a pleasant warmth. It sounds lush and fluid, in stark contrast to the somewhat dry 1964-T. Clarity is improved as well, with the mids sounding more transparent and making the 1964-T appear a touch muffled in comparison. Detail levels are still not quite as impressive as with some of my higher-end monitors but definitely not lacking. The treble energy of the V3 is not too great, allowing it to remain a warm-sounding earphone. However, it is brighter and has better top-end extension compared to the old 1964-T. Predictably, the V3 is slightly more sibilance-prone than the smoother, more laid-back 1964-T, but also more lively and energetic.
The presentation of the V3 is solid as well – the V3 is better at portraying intimacy than 1964’s previous triple-driver and has better soundstage depth in addition to very decent width. The result is better layering and a slightly more spacious overall sound compared to the previous model – not quite to the level of the AKG K3003 or Alclair Reference, but not too far off. It’s worth also noting that the V3 is a very sensitive earphone and tends to hiss with some of my poorer sources. Even the generally quiet Fiio E7 isn’t quite dead-silent with the V3.
Select comparisons
Clear Tune Monitors CT-200 ($350)
The CTM-200 is a dual-driver custom monitor from Florida-based Clear Tune Monitors. Designed for stage performance, the CTM-200 boasts a leaner, flatter sound signature that is more accurate than it is musical. The 1964-V3 offers up more of both sub-bass and mid-bass, providing added power and punch. It is also a bit more forward in the midrange and provides a livelier, more dynamic sound. The CTM-200 is more accurate and sounds a bit cleaner as a result of its lower bass quantity. Its tone is quite neutral compared to the warmer 1964-V3 and its treble is smoother, reducing harshness and listening fatigue. However, detail resolution lags behind the 1964-V3 a little. Soundstage size is similar between the two earphones with the exception of depth, which is won by the V3. In general, the CTM-200 sounds a bit more laid-back and may be boring for the casual listeners, whereas the more colored signature of the V3 may be ‘just right’. The opposite is true for someone chasing a flat, accurate sound.
Alclair Reference ($399)
The Alclair Reference is a 2-way, triple-driver earphone with impressive technical ability. Originally priced at $499, the Reference has recently dropped in price, putting it in direct competition with the 1964-V3. Compared to the new 1964EARS, the Reference sounds more laid-back and spacious. Its bass has similarly good depth but less mid-bass emphasis for a cleaner sound and cooler tone. Both earphones have impressive bass punch and power. Detail resolution is slightly better with the flatter-sounding Reference while the V3 is smoother and would probably be considered more “musical” by most. Its sound is more intimate and its note presentation – thicker and more “fluid”. The treble of the V3 is also a bit more forgiving of sibilance compared to the Reference.
Ultimate Ears 900 ($400)
UE’s quad-driver flagship is a top-tier universal with a sound signature that does a good job of treading the line between accurate and “fun”. Compared to the 1964-V3, the UE 900 offers a flatter bass profile with better balance between mid-bass and sub-bass, less upper midrange emphasis, and a smoother top end more forgiving of harshness and sibilance. The V3 is warmer in tone but also offers brighter, livelier treble. Its sound is more dynamic, albeit a touch more fatiguing compared to the smooth UE 900. Its midrange is clearer and slightly more detailed, with guitars and vocals sounding raw and transparent, in sharp contrast to the somewhat veiled upper mids of the UE 900. The V3 also sounds more intimate but still provides a more 3-dimensional presentation with better depth and a stronger center image.
Phonak PFE 232 ($599)
Phonak’s dual-driver flagship easily competes with some of the very best universals but is somewhat less impressive when compared to the cheaper 1964-V3. In terms of sound signature, the PFE 232 is far more similar to the Alclair Reference, pursuing a slightly v-shaped sound with prominent treble, and deep, punchy bass. The tone of the 1964-V3 is warmer and the earphone places more emphasis on the mid-bass region. Compared to the V3, the PFE 232 sounds more distant and has a thinner note presentation as well as less mid-bass emphasis. The midrange of the PFE 232 is not as clear and intelligible as that of the V3. With the V3, the mids are much more forward but also more transparent. There is also a large difference in efficiency – the V3 is very sensitive for an in-earphone while the sensitivity of the PFE 232 is definitely on the low side.
Unique Melody Miracle ($949)
Unique Melody’s flagship utilizes a 3-way 6-driver design, beating out the V3 in technical ability, but at a much higher price. The sound signature of a Miracle is a more neutral one, with a flatter frequency profile for a more balanced sound. The Miracle has better detail resolution and a more spacious—but still very enveloping—presentation. The Miracle focuses on deep bass, with less mid-bass boost compared to the V3 resulting in less impactful but tighter, cleaner, and more resolving bass. The V3 sounds less textured and a touch boomy in comparison, though it avoids mid-range bleed by pushing the mids forward. The treble of the Miracle is both more forgiving and more extended, with a sharp gain in refinement over the cheaper 1964s.
Value
(9/10) – Priced close to its predecessor but boasting a revised driver configuration and improved tuning, the 1964-V3 is an easy recommendation among entry-level custom earphones. Compared to similarly-priced universals, the V3 not only sounds fantastically good, but also offers the usual perks of going custom, including isolation, fit, and personalization options. The V3 also boasts better molding quality than my old 1964-T, competing with CTM and Unique Melody for the nicest shells I’ve seen so far. Sound-wise, the earphone still boasts full, forward mids but no longer sounds as mid-centric, offering deeper, more powerful bass and more energetic treble. The sound signature of the V3 is a warm and musical one – perhaps not ideal for monitoring purposes but very, very enjoyable in day to day listening.
Pros: Great molding quality; comfort and isolation of a custom monitor; warm sound with prominent mids, powerful bass, and a well-layered presentation
Cons: Colored sound may not be great for actual monitoring
(1B10) InEar StageDiver 2 (SD-2)
Reviewed December 2013
Details: dual-driver custom-inspired earphone from German in-ear monitoring experts InEar
MSRP: 359,00€ (est. $495)
Current Price:
$450 from otojoyiem.com (USA) 345€ from thomann.de (Europe)
Specs: Driver:
Dual BA | Imp:
40Ω | Sens:
119 dB | Freq:
20-18k Hz | Cable:
4.6' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, MEElec M6 bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), hearing aid cleansing wipes (3 sets), ¼” adapter, and crushproof hard shell pelican carrying case with carabiner
Build Quality
(5/5) – The StageDiver earphones are designed for longevity in professional applications and utilize extremely solid-feeling acrylic housings. Nozzles are protected by color-coded, interchangeable filters. Replacement filters can be purchased separately and come in sets of 15 pairs, complete with storage carousel and filter changing tool. The cable is sturdy and detachable, in the common 2-pin configuration
Isolation
(4/5) – Very good even with the stock single-flange eartips
Microphonics
(5/5) – No noise in the flexible twisted cable
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The housings of the StageDiver earphones were designed based on an overlay of over 500 ear impression scans. The shape is very unique, even among “universalized” custom in-ears, because the shell extends into upper part of the concha. This provides an extremely secure and stable fit but with smaller ears the concha “fin” can exert some pressure on the ear, so I would recommend trying before buying for those with small ears
Sound
(9.3/10) – The StageDiver 2 uses a 2-way, dual-armature configuration. Unlike its triple-driver sibling, the SD-2 is tuned for a balanced sound and impresses first and foremost with its impressive end-to-end extension.
The bass of the SD-2 is very level, offering slightly more overall presence than sets such as the Etymotic ER4S and VSonic VC1000. Compared to these, the SD-2 has a warmer tone, a-la HiFiMan’s RE-400, but still sounds pretty neutral overall. Its bass has very natural punch and excellent extension, maintaining presence all the way down.
The midrange of the SD-2 is well-positioned, coming across as neither recessed nor forward. Thanks to the natural and fleshed-out low end, the SD-2 never sounds mid-centric the way the HiFiMan RE-400 sometimes can. The StageDiver set also has more natural bass impact and depth than the Custom Art Music One while maintaining similar clarity and note thickness. The added bass makes the SD-2 appear less mid-focused than the Music One, but the note thickness keeps it from sounding mid-recessed or lacking midrange presence.
The top end of the SD-2 maintains a good balance of presence and smoothness. It’s not as bright as dual-driver earphones based on the Knowles TWFK driver, such as the Fischer Audio DBA-02 and VSonic VC1000, and as a result is not at all prone to harshness or sibilance. At the same time, it isn’t lacking in extension and has decent energy, resulting in a more balanced treble presentation than, for example, with the RE-400. For me personally, a little more treble energy wouldn’t be a negative but the SD-2 follows a treble curve that’s safe and comfortable, staying true to its stage-friendly name by avoiding listening fatigue.
The presentation of the StageDiver 2 is above average in size, reminding me of the EarSonics SM64. Both width and depth are excellent and the earphones sound very cohesive and natural, no doubt a result of the solid end-to-end extension and clarity across the entire frequency spectrum. Stereo imaging doesn’t leave anything to complain about, either.
Select Compasisons
InEar StageDiver 3 ($590)
The two StageDiver models share a very strong family resemblance – in fact, it’s tough to pick the better earphone between the two of them. The triple-driver SD-3 offers more bass presence, which is especially noticeable in the subbass region. Its bass is extremely deep and provides some of the best impact I’ve heard from a universal-fit BA earphone without giving up any bass quality to the SD-2. The SD-2, in comparison, has less punch, as well as less rumble and power.
As a result of the added bass presence, the SD-3 sounds a little warmer overall. The SD-2, on the other hand, appears a touch clearer and more neutral. Its presentation is less thick and full-bodied compared to the SD-3 but I found its balance to produce a more natural sound. Tonally, the SD-2 is a little brighter due to its lack of bass bias. The soundstages of the two earphones are very similar with the SD-3 sometimes sounding a little more forward and aggressive thanks to its bass emphasis and slightly more present lower mids.
HiFiMan RE-400 ($99)
The RE-400, a sub-$100 dynamic-driver earphone, is highly reminiscent of the StageDiver 2 in sound signature, though there is a substantial gap in performance in favor of the SD-2. The SD-2 has a touch more bass than the RE-400, with the difference being more apparent in the subbass region. It is also clearer and slightly more resolving, and boasts more treble energy while still remaining extremely smooth and non-fatiguing, beating HiFiMan at their own game. The RE-400, on the other hand, has more forward mids and sounds a little too focused on its midrange. The soundstage of the RE-400 also appears a little too forward and flat next to the spacious and well-layered StageDiver.
VSonic GR07 ($179)
Comparing the SD-2 to the GR07, one of my favorite sets in its price range, leaves no doubt as to the StageDiver’s superiority. Most apparent is that the SD-2 produces a clearer sound with tighter bass. The GR07 sounds bassier, with mids that appear recessed in comparison. The treble of the GR07 sounds splashy and exaggerates sibilance whereas the SD-2 is much smoother. Overall, the SD-2 sounds more neutral and more natural, making the GR07 seem colored in comparison.
Clear Tune Monitors CT-200 ($350)
The CT-200 is a dual-driver custom-fit monitor from Florida-based Clear Tune Monitors. The most noticeable difference between the SD-2 and CT-200 is in bass performance – the bass of the StageDiver is greater in quantity, extends much better into the sub-bass region, and sounds a great deal more effortless. The CT-200 lacks the more natural bass impact of the SD-2. In the midrange, the CT-200 sounds a touch clearer and has more presence in the upper mids. The SD-2 has less upper midrange presence and a darker overall tone. The CT-200 also has a slightly wider headstage, sounding more out-of-the-head overall.
Alclair Reference ($399)
The Alclair Reference is a 3-driver custom monitor with a “reference” sound signature. In many ways its performance is comparable to that of the SD-2 – bass quantity is about on par and while the Reference has slightly more recessed mids, clarity is similar between the two except at high volumes, where the Reference wins out. Tonally, the Reference is brighter and more peaky compared to the very smooth StageDiver. Its treble is hotter and more splashy, and sibilance is exaggerated compared to the SD-2. The treble of the SD-2 has less energy than I like, but still sounds more natural to me overall. The Reference has a wide soundstage similar to the SD-2 but boasts slightly better imaging.
Value
(8.5/10) – One of the most well-rounded earphones I’ve ever had the pleasure of trying, the InEar StageDiver 2 amazes with its all-round accuracy, exhibiting tight bass control, level mids, and a good balance between treble presence and smoothness. It can go toe-to-toe with any universal monitor in my collection and provides a compelling upgrade for popular mid-priced sets such as the HiFiMan RE-400. Construction quality on-par with custom in-ears only further substantiates the price tag of these German-made wonders.
Pros: Well-balanced and extremely capable sound; stellar build quality
Cons: While very secure, fit can be tight in smaller ears
(1B11) InEar StageDiver 3 (SD-3)
Reviewed December 2013
Details: triple-driver custom-inspired earphone from German in-ear monitoring experts InEar
MSRP: 489,00€ (est. $670)
Current Price:
$590 from otojoyiem.com (USA) 469€ from thomann.de (Europe)
Specs: Driver:
Triple BA | Imp:
40Ω | Sens:
119 dB | Freq:
20-18k Hz | Cable:
4.6' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, MEElec M6 bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), hearing aid cleansing wipes (3 sets), ¼” adapter, and crushproof hard shell pelican carrying case with carabiner
Build Quality
(5/5) – The StageDiver earphones are designed for longevity in professional applications and utilize extremely solid-feeling acrylic housings. Nozzles are protected by color-coded, interchangeable filters. Replacement filters can be purchased separately and come in sets of 15 pairs, complete with storage carousel and filter changing tool. The cable is sturdy and detachable, in the common 2-pin configuration
Isolation
(4/5) – Very good even with the stock single-flange eartips
Microphonics
(5/5) – No noise in the flexible twisted cable
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The housings of the StageDiver earphones were designed based on an overlay of over 500 ear impression scans. The shape is very unique, even among “universalized” custom in-ears, because the shell extends into upper part of the concha. This provides an extremely secure and stable fit but with smaller ears the concha “fin” can exert some pressure on the ear, so I would recommend trying before buying for those with small ears
Sound
(9.3/10) – The StageDiver 3 uses a 2-way, triple-armature configuration with dual bass drivers. Perhaps not surprising is that it sounds very much like the less expensive SD-2 model except in the bass region, where the SD-3 has significantly more presence.
The bass of the SD-3 is enhanced, putting it alongside the likes of the EarSonics SM64 as one of the most bass-heavy BA-based earphones on the market. Bass impact is slightly lower than with the significantly more expensive quad-driver FitEar TG334 but bass control is similarly good. All in all, the SD-3 can compete with many dynamic-driver earphones when it comes to low end power. Extension is excellent as well.
The SD-3 is a bass-boosted earphone with a warm tonal character, and while its midrange is not recessed, bass-midrange balance is definitely better on the flatter SD-2. The StageDiver 3 sounds rich and full, though, and offers good note thickness. However, it lacks the midrange forwardness, as well as some of the clarity, of the FitEar TG334 and high-end custom-fit monitors such as the UM Miracle. There is also just a touch of vocal intelligibility lacking compared to sets such as the Etymotic Research ER4S, in part due to the more laid back upper midrange and treble.
The top end of the SD-3, maintains a good balance of presence and smoothness. It’s not prone to harshness or sibilance and, like that of the SD-2, is less bright than average but not lacking in extension. As with the SD-2, I would not mind slightly more energy in the upper midrange and treble, but I also love the forgiving nature of the SD-3.
The presentation of the SD-3 is very similar to that of the SD-2 - above average in size and with excellent soundstage width and depth. It lacks the layering and 3-D imaging of the pricier FitEar TG334, as well as top-tier customs such as the UM Miracle, but still provides satisfying imaging.
Select Compasisons
InEar StageDiver 2 ($450)
The two StageDiver models share a very strong family resemblance – in fact, it’s tough to pick the better earphone between the two of them. The triple-driver SD-3 offers more bass presence, which is especially noticeable in the subbass region. Its bass is extremely deep and provides some of the best impact I’ve heard from a universal-fit BA earphone without giving up any bass quality to the SD-2. The SD-2, in comparison, has less punch, as well as less rumble and power.
As a result of the added bass presence, the SD-3 sounds a little warmer overall. The SD-2, on the other hand, appears a touch clearer and more neutral. Its presentation is less thick and full-bodied compared to the SD-3 but I found its balance to produce a more natural sound. Tonally, the SD-2 is a little brighter due to its lack of bass bias. The soundstages of the two earphones are very similar with the SD-3 sometimes sounding a little more forward and aggressive thanks to its bass emphasis and slightly more present lower mids.
Ultimate Ears / Logitech UE900 ($399)
The quad-armature UE is a very capable earphone with excellent top-to-bottom extension and an energetic but non-fatiguing sound. The SD-3, in comparison, has quite a lot more bass impact, though the UE900 can keep up in bass depth/extension. The SD-3 also has mids that are a little more prominent and level overall while the UE900 has less presence in the upper midrange. The top end of the UE900 gains presence again and on the whole the UE earphones sound brighter than the StageDiver 3. The SD-3, on the other hand, is smoother and sounds more natural overall despite its enhanced bass.
EarSonics SM64 ($399)
A triple-armature monitor with enhanced bass, the SM64 is one of very few BA-based earphones that can best the SD-3 in bass quantity. It has a little more subbass presence with more rumble compared to the SD-3, which also makes the EarSonics a little warmer tonally. The midrange of the SM64 is “sweet”, but thinner in comparison. The EarSonics have no advantage in clarity, though – in fact, the SD-3 oftentimes provided a slightly clearer sound. The StageDiver is also smoother in the treble region and lacks the upper midrange dip of the SM64. Overall, the SD-3 sounded more neutral to me but lacked some of the “fun” factor of the EarSonics—it definitely has more of a conventional warmer/darker signature while the SM64 is very unique, and it’s very difficult to pick a winner between the two.
Audeo Phonak PFE 232 ($599)
While it uses a dual-driver setup, the Phonak PFE 232 produces plenty of bass and makes a natural competitor for the similarly-priced SD-3. Bass impact between the two earphones is similar – both feature enhanced bass that is definitely on the heavy side for BA earphones. The PFE 232 has more recessed mids, however, and its treble sounds hotter and sharper. The smoother SD-3 sounded more natural to me, making the tone of the PFE 232 seem rather metallic in comparison. Both earphones boast similarly spacious presentations but overall, the SD-3 sounds more realistic compared to the PFE 232, especially in the midrange and treble.
Value
(8/10) – Turning up the bass on the less expensive StageDiver 2 model, the InEar StageDiver 3 makes a compelling case for itself as one of the few balanced-armature earphones well-suited for fans of hard-hitting lows. The midrange and treble of the SD-3 strike a good balance between energy and smoothness and the overall value is reinforced with stellar build quality that rivals high-end custom IEMs. The only reservations when it comes to the StageDiver 3 are the tight fit in smaller ears and the less expensive but equally capable SD-2 model, which differs only in sound signature.
Pros: Enhanced bass with great overall audio quality; stellar build quality
Cons: While very secure, fit can be tight in smaller ears
(1B12) Olasonic Flat-4 Nami TH-F4N
Reviewed March 2014
Details: Dual-dynamic earphone built for Olasonic by Japan-based Ocharaku
MSRP: $499 (manufacturer’s page)
Current Price: $499 from aloaudio.com
Specs: Driver: Dual Dynamic | Imp: 18Ω | Sens: 104 dB | Freq: N/A | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Comply foam (included)
Wear Style: Straight down (preferred) or over-the-ear
Accessories (3.5/5) – Comply foam eartips (2 sizes) and protective tin carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The construction of the Olasonics is solid, utilizing thick plastics with metal reinforcement. It is a dual dynamic driver earphone with a metal sound pipe connecting the two driver chambers. The cable is excellent, similar in quality to that of the Dunu DN-1000. It lacks a sliding cinch, but with the large size and unique shape of the Nami, I’m not sure one would have been of much use
Isolation (3/5) – Average, limited in part by the shallow fit of the Nami
Microphonics (5/5) – The smooth and supple cable carries no noise
Comfort (4/5) – The earphones are fairly large and stick a fair distance out of the ear when worn, but are very lightweight and the nozzles are angled slightly, improving ergonomics. Overall, the Olasonics are comfortable, especially with the included Comply eartips, and sound good with a shallow insertion. They are not particularly great for over-the-ear wear, but with the noiseless cable it doesn’t really matter
Sound (9.2/10) – The Flat-4 Nami is a dual-dynamic earphone built for Olasonic by Japanese Hi-Fi house Ocharaku. The twin 10mm drivers of the Flat-4 are oriented back-to-back, with a “sound pipe” connecting the chamber in front of the rear driver to the primary sound tube just before the nozzle. This is claimed to eliminate the 6 kHz ear canal resonance that is common with in-ear earphones (the US patent for this technology can be found here). The Flat-4 Nami nonetheless doesn’t have the smoothest treble response, but it does impress in several other ways. It boasts superb clarity and very tight bass, sounds airy and open, and has a very unique overall sound signature.
The bass of the Nami offers up excellent extension but the earphones are hardly bass-heavy - I expected greater bass quantity after reading the product description. Instead, the low end of the Nami tends to be tight, lean, and delicate. On tracks that call for bass it can beat sets such as the HiFiMan RE-400 in impact but still offers less bass and a cooler tonal character than, for example, the Philips Fidelio S2 and Dunu DN-1000.
Overall, the sound of the Nami is balanced to slightly v-shaped, not so much due to the mids being recessed (they aren’t), but more because of the emphasized upper midrange/treble region. It is a little more v-shaped than the Knowles TWFK-based VSonic VC1000, for instance, but less so than the VSonic GR07. The mids of the Flat-4 are very detailed and clear, albeit at the expense of some note thickness – compared, for example, to the GR07 and Fidelio S2, the Nami is clearer, but also less full-bodied.
The Nami carries a lot of energy through its upper midrange and treble. It tends to be somewhat bright and at higher volumes the treble emphasis can cause it to sound harsh. It is brighter, for example, than the Fidelio S2, with a treble peak that’s higher up, which makes the top end of the Nami a little splashier. Compared to TWFK-based earphones such as the VSonic VC1000 and Dunu DN-1000, the Nami also has a different treble presentation, tending to be a little harsher, but more tolerant of sibilance. To its credit, the Nami seems to avoid sibilance pretty well in general, perhaps as a result of the target 6kHz reduction. It works best with warmer sources and is a treat at lower listening volumes, which is not a tough order as the Nami isn’t a very sensitive earphone.
The presentation of the Olasonic Flat-4 is wide and a little distant. It is among the more open-sounding earphones I’ve tried – more so, for example, than Fidelio S2 and DN-1000, the latter of which is limited by its slightly boomy (in comparison) bass. It lacks the 3-dimensional imaging of certain top-tier balanced armature earphones, such as the Westone W40 and InEar StageDiver SD-2, but is plenty capable overall.
Select Comparisons
VSonic GR07 ($179)
The VSonic GR07 is a popular accuracy-oriented earphone with a fairly neutral sound signature. Compared to the GR07, the Flat-4 Nami sounds brighter and has tighter bass. The low end of the GR07 is a little more impactful and the VSonics are warmer and fuller-sounding, but also appear more mid-recessed and a touch veiled in comparison to the Olasonic unit. The sibilance of the GR07 is quite prominent next to the Flat-4, especially at lower listening volumes.
Westone W40 ($500)
Westone’s W40 is a quad-armature earphone similar in price to the Flat-4 Nami. The W40 boasts a warmer tonal character compared to the Flat-4, with more bass impact and a more full-bodied sound, while the Flat-4 is less bassy but more controlled at the low end. The W40 is a little veiled in the midrange, while the Olasonic sounds clearer. The W40 has smoother, less prominent treble, and darker overall tonality. The Nami is harsher, especially at higher volumes, but also makes the W40 seem lacking in upper midrange presence. The W40 does have a slightly more well-rounded presentation and imaging, and is significantly more sensitive than the dual-dynamic Nami.
Phonak PFE 232 ($599)
I had to break my PFE 232 unit out of retirement as my initial listening to the Flat-4 Nami made me think of the Phonak unit many times, especially when it comes to treble and soundstaging. The most striking difference between the two earphones is at the low end – the PFE 232, even with the gray filters, offers up significantly more powerful bass. It sounds a little more v-shaped as a result, but also thicker and more full-bodied. However, the Olasonic unit has clearer, less recessed mids that are extremely nuanced and delicate in a way the PFE 232 can’t match. Both tend to have good treble energy and though their treble character differs slightly, it’s hard to put one above the other in treble quality. The earphones have similarly wide soundstages and good overall imaging ability.
AKG K3003 ($1300)
AKG’s dynamic-armature hybrid was among the first in the current crop of $1000+ hyper-IEMs. I prefer to use the K3003 with the “Reference” tuning, though in this case the Treble Boost tuning makes for a slightly better signature match with the Flat-4 Nami. The K3003 offers up more bass impact, which gives it a slightly more dynamic sound compared to the lighter-at-the-low-end Olasonic unit. Both earphones have some treble hotness, but emphasize different areas of the treble, which is also true when comparing the Flat-4 to any other TWFK-based earphone. The Flat-4 ends up sounding a touch harsher than the AKG, but the difference is small. The K3003, like the Westone W40, also boasts a slightly more well-rounded presentation but isn’t far enough ahead of the Nami to justify the price difference.
Value (7.5/10) – In many ways the approach taken by Olasonic with these earphones makes me think of another Japanese headphone manufacturer—Final Audio. The Olasonic Flat-4 Nami has the same combination of no-frills, audio-focused design, genuine innovation, and clever marketing. The Nami is not just an interesting-looking earphone with a hefty price tag, however—the sonic signature of the earphones is very unique on the US market and listeners are sure to be impressed by the open sound with excellent clarity and bass control. To me, the Flat-4 sounds best for relaxed, low-volume listening, losing none of the sonic detail or energy and keeping its bass completely under control. It’s a niche product, but for this sort of application it’s as good as anything else I’ve tried.
Pros: Excellent clarity, open presentation, lean & tight bass; no cable noise
Cons: Mediocre-at-best noise isolation; scant accessory pack
(1B13) LEAR LUF-4 (LUF-4F / LUF-4B / LUF-4C)
Left:
transparent purple shells/“metallic” faceplates; Center: transparent light blue shells/black “true texture” carbon fiber imitation faceplates; Right: opaque white shells/“illusion/imaginary color” pearlescent faceplates
Reviewed September 2014
Details: custom-made universal IEMs from Hong Kong-based LEAR
MSRP: HKD 4,388 (approx. $565)
Base Price: Approx. $565 from lear.hk / Approx. $560 from treoo.com
Specs: Driver: Quad BA | Imp: 22Ω (4B), 28Ω (4F/4C) | Sens: 120 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Sony MH1C tips, MEElec M6 single-flanges, stock single-flanges, stock foam
Wear Style: Over-the-ear
Accessories (5/5) – Hybrid-style single-flange (3 pairs), bi-flange, and triple-flange silicone tips, Comply-style (1 pair) and generic (1 pair) foam tips, cleaning tool, cleaning cloth, Otterbox crush- and water-proof carrying case, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (5/5) – The LUF-4 earphones are essentially custom monitors cast in a universal mold. Build quality is on-par with high-end CIEMs, as are the customization options. Two types of detachable cable sockets are offered – conventional 2-pin is standard, with MMCX available at extra cost. There are more than a dozen options for shell and faceplate colors, and the faceplates can be upgraded to a different material – anything from wood to metal to denim – or outfitted with custom artwork, at an extra cost
Isolation (4/5) – Isolation is impressive thanks to the hefty shells, long nozzles, and ergonomic design
Microphonics (5/5) – No cable noise with the twisted cables
Comfort (4/5) – The housings of the LUF-4 earphones are large, but the bulk is msotly in their thickness, making for one of the more comfortable custom-come-universal designs out there (alongside Noble Audio’s universal-fit offerings). The longer nozzles allow the shells to sit comfortably without fatigue, and while the earphones do still require larger ears, they have a smaller footprint than, say, a FitEar TG334, StageDiver SD-2, or Shure SE846
Sound (9.3/10) – The LUF in LUF-4 stands for LEAR Universal Fit, and is the universal interpretation of LEAR’s pricier LCM-4 series customs. Unlike other custom-come-universal earphones, however, the LUF-4 models remain fully customizable, starting with the sound. There are three tunings available, as follows:
- LUF-4F “Flat”
- LUF-4B “Bass” (enhanced bass)
- LUF-4C “Crystal Clear” (enhanced treble)
The LUF-4 models each have four drivers in a rather unique 3-way configuration – 1 low, 2 mid, 1 high – and utilize a dual-bore design with metal sound tubes.
The three tunings have a lot in common and only differ a little in sound profile. The LUF-4B model, for instance, is quite a bit more impactful than the LUF-4F, but otherwise pretty much identical. As expected, the extra bass makes it sound warmer and towers over the mids a bit more, but bass quality is still very good and not much changes overall compared to the 4F.
The LUF-4C boasts a brighter top end compared to the LUF-4F and 4B. As expected, this makes the sound seem somewhat clearer, but treble quality is maintained – the 4C is no harsher or more sibilant than the 4F. In the real world, the tuning of the 4C results in the perception of slightly lower bass quantity, also making the 4F and 4B seem warmer in comparison.
Since the LUF-4 earphones are more similar to each other than they are different, throughout the following write-up I am referring to the LUF-4F unless otherwise noted.
Despite the fact that the F in “4F” stands for “flat”, the LUF-4F is a slightly v-shaped earphone (all three of the LUF-4 tunings are) and its bass is somewhat enhanced. All of the LUF-4 earphones sound quite a bit punchier compared to sets such as the TDK BA200 and more analytical BA-based earphones such as the Rock-It Sounds R-50 and VSonic VC1000. The bass power of the LUF-4F is below Dunu’s hybrid DN-2000 model, which has a separate dynamic driver for bass. The low end of the LUF-4B, however, is more powerful than that of the DN-2000, but also tighter and more controlled. The DN-1000, Dunu’s lower-end hybrid, is bassier still, providing a warmer, thicker, and more full-bodied sound, but cannot keep up with the LUF-4 earphones in bass quality.
The mids of the LUF-4 earphones fall slightly behind the bass in emphasis, creating a mildly v-shaped sound signature. As a result, “reference” earphones such as the TDK BA200 sound more mid-centric in comparison. Nonetheless, the mids on the LUF-4 sets are not as thin and recessed as they are, for example, on T-Peos’ Altone200 hybrid. The treble emphasis of the LUF-4 earphones also provides superb perceived clarity – better than that of the BA200 and DN-1000 and on-par with brighter, faultlessly clear sets such as the Altone200 and Rock-It Sounds R-50.
All of the LUF-4 earphones have quite a bit of presence in the upper midrange and lower treble. This type of tuning usually sounds best at reasonable volumes, and the LEAR units are no exception – as the volume is turned up, they get somewhat bright. Compared to the Dunu DN-2000, which uses a hybrid driver setup, the LUF-4F and 4B are not brighter overall, but the emphasis falls in the upper midrange and lower treble. With the Dunu unit, the treble energy is higher up, and as a result the earphone sounds smoother and more forgiving on some tracks.
The presentation of the LEAR units is on-par with other top-tier IEMs – well-imaged and spacious enough not to sound congested even with the enhanced-bass LUF-4B tuning. The Dunu DN-1000, for instance, is more intimate and not as open-sounding, whereas the popular VSonic GR07 lacks the depth and more versatile imaging of the LEAR units.
Select Comparisons (Note: in each comparison the LUF configuration with the best signature match was selected)
VSonic GR07 ($99) (vs. LEAR LUF-4F)
VSonic’s GR07 is a long-time favorite benchmark of mine, and with the latest version priced at just $99, will likely remain one for years to come. The LUF-4F made for the closest signature match here, with bass that is just a touch less impactful and full-bodied than that of the dynamic-driver VSonics and the most similar treble energy.
The biggest difference is in how veiled and muffled the midrange of the GR07 sounds next to the LEAR unit – there’s just no comparing the clarity between them. The LUF-4F is also significantly more sensitive, and while it has a little more upper midrange presence, it is still a touch less sibilance-prone than the VSonic set. Overall, the GR07 keeps up with the LUF-4F in several ways – bass quality, for example, is excellent on both units – but the clarity deficit is just too great to overcome.
InEar StageDiver SD-2 ($449) (vs. LEAR LUF-4F)
InEar’s custom-come-universal StageDiver SD-2 is a “mere” dual-driver, but one that offers a remarkably balanced and coherent sound. The bass of the LUF-4F is more powerful than that of the SD-2, but not emphasized enough to match up with the pricier (and more bass-heavy) SD-3 model.
As expected, the less bassy SD-2 sounds just a hair tighter than the LUF-4F. It also has flatter, more forward-sounding mids than the somewhat v-shaped LEAR. The LUF-4F has stronger upper mids, providing more emphasis in the “presence” region for electric guitars and appearing a little clearer overall. At the top, the StageDiver 2 is smoother and significantly more forgiving while the LUF-4F is brighter. The SD-2 has a wide and spacious soundstage but seems to lack some of the depth of the LUF-4F.
Westone W40 ($500) (vs. LEAR LUF-4F)
First off, compared to the fully customizable LUF-4F, the interchangeable red, blue, and black plastic shell inserts of Westone’s quad-driver model are rather unimpressive. Its sound, thankfully, is more competitive.
Overall bass quantity is similar between the two units, but the LUF-4F tends to sound a little tighter, with less bleed into the lower midrange. The mids of the W40 are less clear, even muffled, in comparison. The difference stems not only from the tighter bass of the LUF-4F, but also from the W40 having an upper midrange dip where the LEAR unit has emphasis. Forward vs. recessed upper mids make a very big difference on certain tracks, especially with vocals and especially at lower volumes.
The brighter, clearer LEAR unit is not as forgiving as the Westone, tending towards harshness, but both units have similarly well-rounded presentations. Tonally, both units are slightly short of perfect, with the W40 losing out thanks to its darker sound with more recessed upper mids and the LUF-4F – for moving too much in the opposite direction. Overall, however, I found myself preferring the LUF-4F, especially at lower volumes.
EarSonics SM64 ($499) (vs. LEAR LUF-4B)
The EarSonics SM64 is closest to LEAR’s enhanced-bass tuning, but tonally warmer and darker. The LUF-4B is more v-shaped, making it more prone to harshness and sibilance. Partly due to the brighter tonality, the LEAR unit is slightly clearer, but the clarity of the SM64 is still impressive considering its smoother sound and lower upper midrange energy. Vocals are still clear and highly intelligible with the EarSonics.
It’s worth noting also that the LEAR LUF-4B is much more sensitive. Overall, it is quite hard to pick between these two, but at lower volumes I found the LUF-4B preferable as the clarity boost makes a bigger difference and its extra upper mid/treble energy is kept in check. At high volumes, however, the smoothness of the SM64 made it very compelling.
AKG K3003 ($1300) (vs. LEAR LUF-4B)
AKG’s ultra-pricy hybrid flagship also has three available tunings, albeit in the form of interchangeable nozzle filters, of which I prefer the middle “Reference” configuration. The enhanced-bass LUF-4B is closest to the dynamic-driver bass of the AKGs, though the K3003 still provides a little more bass impact and a more full-bodied sound with the LUF-4B sounding thinner in comparison.
Clarity is similarly excellent between the two earphones, but LUF-4B doesn’t suffer from the slight lack in coherency of the hybrid system. It does have a little more energy at the top end, however. The K3003 has never been one to disappoint for lack of treble presence, but its sparkle comes from some well-controlled peaks whereas the LEAR has a general upper midrange/treble lift, causing it sound brighter and also making it a bit more prone to harshness and sibilance.
Etymotic Research ER4S ($299) (vs. LEAR LUF-4C)
All of the LUF-4 earphones sound a little v-shaped on the whole, but the least bassy LUF-4C made for the best comparison with the ER4S. The 4C unit still offers quite a bit more bass punch and sounds warmer due to the greater low end emphasis, but not as much as the other LUF-4 variants. The bass of the ER4S is a little gutless in comparison, as it tends to be next to bassier earphones.
The ER4S is not as full-bodied as the LUF-4C, but is also flatter and more balanced overall, with more midrange presence compared to the somewhat v-shaped LUF-4C. The LUF-4C is a touch less forgiving, but overall treble quality is similar. The LEAR unit has a more 3-dimensional presentation, which, admittedly, has never been a strong suit of Etymotic earphones.
Olasonic Flat-4 Nami ($499) (vs. LEAR LUF-4C)
Olasonic’s Flat-4 earphones utilize a dual dynamic driver configuration, but – surprisingly – are tuned for a little less bass impact than the BA-based LUF-4C. The LEAR unit has a stronger low end and more full-bodied sound. Both earphones have excellent clarity but the thicker note presentation of the LUF-4C is a little more natural. The Flat-4 is a bit brighter and can be slightly harsher, but ultimately neither earphone is very forgiving. In terms of presentation, the Flat-4 Nami sounds a little more airy and open, but the LUF-4C is more well-rounded and three-dimensional.
Value (8/10) – The LEAR LUF-4 models offer a competitive, yet well-differentiated alternative to more mainstream multi-BA earphones. The three slightly different takes on a v-shaped sound signature are consistent with each other, yet each delivers exactly what it promises without significant downsides compared to the “flat” 4F tuning. The unprecedented level of customization for universal IEMs is noteworthy as well – certainly a draw for those planning to spend over $500 on a set of in-ears.
Pros: Unprecedented customizability among universal-fit earphones; superb craftsmanship; excellent bass quality and clarity
Cons: Best suited for fans of v-shaped sound signatures; top-end emphasis can be too much at high volumes
Tier 1A ($600-1500)
(1A1) Final Audio Design FI-BA-SS
Reviewed Feb 2011
Details: Single armature setup from FAD most notable for its steep price tag
Current Price:
~$1100 from musicaacoustics.com (MSRP: est $1100)
Specs: Driver:
Vented BA | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
112 dB | Freq:
N/A | Cable:
4.6’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
4.5mm | Preferred tips:
Sony Hybrids, Fischer Bi-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and oversize zippered carrying case
Build Quality
(4/5) – The slim, elongated shell of the FI-BA-SS is made entirely of stainless steel and reminds me, in both size and weight, of Audio-Technica’s CK100, The nozzles contain non-replaceable mesh filters and the hard stems, while quite solid-feeling, lack real strain relief. The cable is very soft and smooth but thinner than most of the cords found on higher-end earphones and slightly prone to tangling
Isolation
(3/5) – The BA-SS is vented at the rear and isolates surprisingly poorly for a BA setup, though still sufficiently for use on most public transport
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – Though thin, the cord is pretty much silent even in the cord-down configuration
Comfort
(4.5/5) – The slim, long shells of the BA-SS are tapered on either end and quite easy to fit. Insertion depth is limited by the hard stems and the FADs are definitely on the heavy side for a set of IEMs but on the whole the fit is still excellent with the right tips
Sound
(9.2/10) – If the price is the most shocking aspect of the FI-BA-SS, the sound signature definitely comes in a close second. As a fitting segue, it’s worth noting that the type of transducer used in the FI-BA-SS has apparently been the source of some contention as the promotional materials claimed a proprietary “balanced air movement” technology but a blown-up sketch of the internals showed what looks like a conventional balanced armature. The transducer of the BA-SS is indeed a single armature but one that, against all convention, is vented. I’ll be the first to admit that the driver of the BA-SS has the best range of any single-armature transducer I’ve come across. In fact, except for slight roll-off at the lowest of lows, the FI-BA-SS can pretty much match my ATH-CK10 for presence across the frequency spectrum. Also worth noting is how sensitive the FI-BA-SS is to tip choice – bore opening and length seem to have a noticeable effect on the sound and especially the presentation of the earphones. I’ve had good results with narrower-channel tips such as the Sony Hybrids, Monster Single-flanges (or gel supertips), and FA Eterna bi-flanges – often with shallower-than-usual insertion. Comply tips can be used to tame the treble a bit but soak up a bit of the airiness of the FADs. As always, whether that’s desirable is a matter of personal preference – for the most part I got on just fine with silicone tips.
As noted above, the FI-BA-SS gives up a bit of bottom-end extension to multi-driver setups such as the CK10 and SM3, as well as many higher-end dynamics. Impact is greater than with the CK10 or DBA-02 but falls slightly short of the dedicated low-range armature of the SM3. It can be said that the BA-SS is a bit less ‘stingy’ with its bass than the CK10 or DBA-02, sacrificing some of the speed and tightness of the dual BAs for a healthy amount of impact. Texture and resolution are still very good so there is not much to complain about from a technical perspective. Indeed, the bass is the only part of the FAD’s signature that could be called a middle ground or, alternatively, ‘unremarkable’.
The midrange of the FI-BA-SS is more interesting, reminding me of both the smooth-yet-detailed CK10 and the warmer, more liquid Ortofon e-Q5. The noticeable gain in bass impact and body over the CK10 makes the BA-SS sound warmer while retaining the crystal clarity of the Audio-Technicas. On a ‘macroscopic’ level, the BA-SS is also quite smooth and level in the midrange but, while the more liquid-sounding e-Q5 tends to gloss over microdetail, the BA-SS, if anything, is guilty of magnifying it. The texture and detail levels of the FADs are indeed very high and the resulting transparency is simply off the scale – even the CK10 sounds slightly veiled next to the BA-SS. No other earphone I’ve heard gives quite the same sense of ‘nakedness’ to the sound – with the BA-SS it’s simply you and the track (note: I didn’t say ‘the music’ because the BA-SS is hugely unforgiving of source material; only with perfectly recorded, mastered, and ripped material will it be ‘you and the music’). Combined with the excellent balance of the earphones, this transparency has a strange result – the BA-SS certainly qualifies to be called a refined earphone but at the same time it’s quite aggressive and has a ‘raw’ edge to it.
Expectedly, the treble is just as revealing as the midrange and boasts equally impressive clarity and detail. Extension, far as I can tell, is on-par with the CK10, which is more than a little impressive for a single-armature design. There is, however, a bit of treble unevenness, leading to slight harshness and even occasional sibilance. This is not helped by the highly transparent nature of the earphones, which makes them all the more sensitive to any and all artifacts already present on the track. This raises a question - is it possible that an earphone can be too detailed, too clear, and too transparent? Even among high-end earphones there are still a few that elicit complaints of poor clarity when compared to the competition, but the BA-SS clearly breaches the opposite extreme. The BA-SS is the earphone equivalent of an unretouched hi-res image – it may be the technical ideal for many, but ultimately some things are better off airbrushed, if only slightly. It can be argued that the FI-BA-SS is simply taking the next logical half-step over the usual crop of top-tier clarity- and detail-heavy earphones – Audio-Technica’s CK10, Fischer Audio’s DBA-02, Etymotic’s ER4, and so forth – or taking the signature a step too far. Either way, it is an invaluable earphone in demonstrating that, as with most things in audio, there is a fine line for transparency that can be crossed and that clarity and detail need to be balanced against smoothness and cohesiveness – otherwise minor imperfections can simply get too distracting.
Next to the sound signature, the presentation of the FI-BA-SS is fairly pedestrian for a high-end earphone. Soundstage width and separation are compliment-worthy – the BA-SS may not sound ‘wide open’ like the JVC HA-FX700 but is quite airy and spacious. The tonality, on the whole, is just a tad on the bright side of neutral and the timbre, though not quite up there with HA-FX700, is quite good for an armature-based earphone – better than with the ATH-CK10, for example. Imaging, on the other hand, though very good, is just a tad less believable than with the Audio-Technicas. Lastly, the sensitivity of the BA-SS is quite high – higher than with any top-tier earphone I’ve heard recently. The earphones benefit very little from a dedicated amp and actually hiss slightly out of all my amps and DACs. A portable player is really more than powerful enough to drive the BA-SS, though fidelity is a different matter. Plugging one of the world’s most revealing (and most expensive) earphones straight into my $20 Sansa Clip does feel a little strange but I’ll take that over carrying the Fuze->D10 brick with a decrease in usability and increase in noise floor.
Value
(7/10) – It is difficult enough putting a value on earphones costing $400, but the price tag of the FI-BA-SS is nothing short of ridiculous. Even with diminishing returns factored in the FI-BA-SS would have to be the best earphone I’ve ever heard to truly justify its price tag – and in some ways it is. As a total package, however, the BA-SS is still a luxury item designed for those with a chunk of disposable income seeking the ultimate in both fidelity and exclusivity. The strangely ‘photorealistic’ sound of the BA-SS is clear proof that there is substance to FAD’s marketing claims and value in their patented Balanced Air Movement (BAM) technology – the BA-SS is as clear, detailed, and transparent as I can imagine an earphone being. At the same time, it is absolutely merciless when it comes to poor rips and recordings, too sensitive for most amps & DACs, and probably less than ideal in signature for the iPod crowd – not a mass-market seller, to say the least. Still, it is an invaluable proof of concept as any reasonably-priced FAD earphones utilizing BAM technology are now far less likely to pass me by unnoticed. Even as it stands, the FI-BA-SS might be the destination earphone for some but I am hanging on to both of my kidneys for the time being.
Pros: Class-leading clarity, detail, and transparency, comfortable form factor
Cons: Thin cabling, no strain relief on cable entry, mediocre isolation
Huge thanks to
takoyaki7 for the FI-BA-SS loan - I highly doubt I'd ever have heard them otherwise
(1A2) Unique Melody Miracle
Reviewed Jul 2011
A bit of backstory: This particular Miracle was a gift to me from the Head-Fi community. Frequenters of the portable forum may have seen the
original thread started by
12345142. At his suggestion, a fund was created to purchase a high-end custom in-ear for yours truly. Though the JH13Pro won the public poll, those who actually contributed to the fund settled on the UM Miracle. Much credit is due to
rawrster, who did
most of the footwork, to Stephen Guo of
custom-iem.com for the discount he was able to provide, and of course to everyone who contributed. An earphone of this caliber is far, far outside of my budget and I never would have experienced it had it not been for the community.
Details: Three-way, sextuple-driver custom from Unique Melody
Current Price: est.
$949 from
custom-iem.com (MSRP: est. $949)
Specs: Driver:
6-BA; 3-way crossover | Imp:
16Ω | Sens:
114 dB | Freq:
18-19k Hz | Cable:
4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size:
N/A | Preferred tips:
N/A
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(3/5) – Cleaning tool and fancy oversize storage case
Build Quality
(5/5) – The molding quality is phenomenal. The shells are perfectly clear – no bubbles, no cracks, no opaque areas – and the finish is superb. The stock Miracle cable is just as good as the Westone Elite Series cord found on so many other high-end earphones. The cable connectors are recessed by default but UM will make them flush on request
Isolation
(4.5/5) – My Miracle has longer nozzles and fits deeper than most of my other full-shell customs. The isolation is on par with the very best universals and just behind silicone-shelled customs
Microphonics
(5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent
Comfort
(5/5) – As with my other acrylic customs, the shells are hard but not uncomfortable – I often forget they’re in my ears at all. Normally, a well-fitting custom can be worn for hours on end with no fatigue, and the Miracle is certainly no exception. Obviously fit will always depend on the quality of the initial impressions, the skill of the technician making the earphones, and maybe a bit of luck. Naturally, UM will do refits if the fit is less than perfect
Sound (9.8/10) - It can be argued that I would have been better off going straight for a top-tier custom instead exploring the 200-some universal monitors I’ve had my hands on over the years. However, I feel that moving up the hierarchy as slowly as I’ve done has allowed me to appreciate the Miracle that much more - there is simply no substitute for experience when it comes to putting things in perspective. Admittedly, the Miracle is not my first custom IEM – that honor went to the 1964EARS 1964-T – but again owning the 1964-T makes the performance of the Miracle that much more striking. The 1964-T has been invaluable in showcasing what customs may be able to offer over similarly-priced universals but, as I’ve said before, really didn’t offer an increase in sound quality over the best universals I’ve tried. The Miracle, however – does – and I can say that with confidence having owned – or auditioned – nearly every top-tier universal monitor on the market at the time of this writing.
Though the UM Miracle is a "mere" 3-way system with dual drivers set up to handle each portion of the spectrum, its response is amazingly coherent and its presentation - entirely effortless. The low end extends without flinching to the limits of my hearing, performing beautifully right down to the extremes. In terms of quantity, the bass presents as quite flat, with no discernable mid-bass hump, but offers more presence across the range compared to the usual "level bass" suspects such as the Audio-Technica CK10 and Etymotic ER4. Bass detail and texture are the best I’ve heard from any headphone, portable or full-size. The bass is well-defined and articulate down to the lowest of lows, in stark contrast to the Shure SE535 I reviewed recently. The SE535, being a two-way system, has less-than-stellar performance at the limits and tends to sound a bit vague and dull below 40Hz. The Miracle, on the other hand, retains the ability to distinguish and texture notes all the way down.
The tight, punchy bass of the Miracle makes the Earsonics SM3 sound bloated and muddy. Compared, on the other hand, to TWFK-based earphones such as the CK10, the Miracle offers up significantly more body and more realistic note sustainment. As with the Klipsch Custom 3, Ortofon e-Q7, and a number of other high-end universals, the bass of the Miracle occupies a happy medium, appearing neither thick and bloated nor overly quick and thin. It is still armature-type bass, replete with immense resolution and clarity, but there is a sensation of vast power reserve behind every kick. One side effect of the highly detailed and yet punchy bass is superb low-volume performance. The Miracle is the best earphone I’ve used for listening at minimal levels to date, with around 10-15% of full volume with the Cowon J3 sufficient for relaxed listening and 20-25% plentiful on a busy street.
Like the bass, the midrange of the Miracle stands above all of the other IEMs I’ve heard when it comes to the balancing act of thickness vs. clarity. The mids are smooth and fleshed-out, much like those of the Earsonics SM3, but without the clarity sacrifice that comes with the Earsonics. The Miracle can match the natural clarity of the ATH-CK10 and Sony EX1000 despite being neither bright nor thin-sounding. Balance-wise, the midrange is very nearly on-par with the low end but has a laid back character that causes the bass to sound very slightly more forward overall. The Miracle is extremely detailed but not in the forward, aggressive manner of the CK10 and Ety ER4. Instead, everything sounds natural, dynamic, and effortless, though the detail and texture are certainly still all there. Tonally, the mids are a touch warm but not as much as with the SM3. The SM3 is actually made to sound quite veiled by the clarity and crispness. The 1964-T, similarly, sounds both thicker and more grainy, sacrificing a good amount of the smoothness and clarity of the Miracle, and yields in overall detail retrieval as well.
The treble of the Miracle is excellent in its own right, pairing well with the slightly laid-back midrange and bringing a bit of energy and excitement to the sound. Most obvious next the SM3, the treble emphasis of the Miracle balances the earphone out nicely. On the whole, the Miracle sounds neither bright nor dark and the sparkle is well-measured and controlled. Compared to the 1964-T, there is definitely more treble presence but the difference is not night-and-day. I have experienced no listening fatigue with the Miracle although the earphone is very revealing. Sibilance can be problematic if it is present in the recoding but the Miracle does not accentuate such flaws the way the CK10 or Westone 3 might. Top end extension is excellent and the natural tone puts the slightly hot and tizzy treble of the CK10 to shame. Overall, the Miracle sounds crisp yet coherent, with effortlessness of detailing that is simply staggering.
A signature as balanced as that of the Miracle deserves an equally well-rounded presentation, which it has. From the first listen it is obvious that the Miracle was not tuned to be a stage monitor. It lacks the forwardness of the Earsonics SM3 and Westone UM3X and makes the 1964EARS 1964-T sound small and confined. The presentation is enveloping but no to the same extent as that of the SM3. Those who like the clear-cut left side – right side soundstage of Etymotic earphones or the Sony EX1000 would probably be better off staying away but those who found the imaging of the SM3 pleasing, if mildly overdone, will be happy with the Miracle. The Miracle sounds wider than the SM3 and provides a more realistic, slightly distanced feel but still shares the centering ability and three-dimensional feel of the Earsonics. The noticeably greater clarity, along with the larger soundstage and headstage, help provide incredible imaging and positioning. Certain sonic cues take on an out-of-the-head character I’ve only previously heard from semi-open dynamic-driver earphones. Instrumental separation is excellent and dynamics are better than with any other BA earphone I’ve heard so far. The Sony EX1000 was often able to keep up with the Miracle but lower end dynamic-driver sets such as the ATH-CKM99, VSonic GR07, and Sennheiser IE7 were left completely in the dust. On the whole, the presentation of the Miracle really is an immense tuning achievement on the part of Unique Melody, and one that I don’t see myself getting tired of.
Value
(9/10) –
The jump in sound quality from top universals and entry-level customs to the Miracle is significant, but so is the price gap. The fit and finish of the earphone certainly are as sublime as the price tag indicates, though, and the performance is fantastic as well – the Miracle offers a different sort of sound compared to the 1964EARS 1964-T and stage-destined universals like the UM3X and SM3 but still surpasses them in technical ability. I’ve drawn comparisons to the presentation of the SM3, but the Miracle offers all of the advantages – coherent imaging and great on-center feel for maximum immersion – with none of the drawbacks of the over-enveloping SM3. The signature, too, is extremely pleasing, with surprisingly strong but very controlled bass, clean and detailed midrange, and strong, extended treble. One of the Miracle’s greatest strengths is its ability to remain crisp and retrieve all of the detail without appearing aggressive, even at minimal volume levels. Instead of turning the volume up to get the detail and texture out, the Miracle encourages you to lower the volume, offering up assurances that not a single nuance will be lost.
I have to insert one of my usual disclaimers here - the fact that the Miracle is the most proficient earphone I’ve heard is not necessarily an indication that more drivers mean better sound, nor does it mean that throwing more money at your portable audio rig will result in significant performance gains. All I can say is that having occasion to use the Miracle still puts a smile on my face and I plan to enjoy it for years to come – thanks, of course, to the Head-Fi community.
Pros: Excellent long-term comfort; high isolation; superb finish; fantastic overall sound quality
Cons: Correct insertion takes some getting used to; no portable carrying case included
Huge thanks to
12345142,
rawrster, Stephen Guo of
custom-iem.com, and everyone who donated to make this present a reality. Thanks also to average_joe for lending me his SM3 for comparisons.
(1A3) AKG K3003i
Reviewed May 2012
Details: AKG’s flagship IEM, built around a hybrid BA+dynamic driver setup
Current Price:
$1299 from amazon.com (MSRP: $1499.00)
Specs: Driver:
Dual BA + Dynamic | Imp:
8Ω | Sens:
125 dB | Freq:
10-30k Hz | Cable:
3.9' I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5mm | Preferred tips:
HiFiMan large bi-flanges, Sony Hybrids, stock single-flanges
Wear Style:
Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories
(5/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (6 pairs in 3 sizes), 3 pairs of tuning filters, airline adapter, TRS adapter, and genuine leather carrying case
Build Quality
(5/5) – Hand-made in Austria, the K3003 boasts a very solid construction and great attention to detail. The housings are machined from stainless steel and most of the hardware is trimmed in brushed metal. The interchangeable nozzle filters feature color-coded o-rings and are stored threaded through a steel plate. Strain relief is good and the cable is tangle-resistant. While not detachable, the cord is thick and nylon-sheathed below the y-split, and of average thickness above. The cable cinch can be detached from the right-side cable and moved above the microphone
Isolation
(3/5) – Decent with the right tips but the large housings limit insertion depth, especially with the stock single-flanges
Microphonics
(5/5) – Pretty much nonexistent
Comfort
(4/5) – The K3003 is a straight-barrel earphone with off-center strain reliefs. While it is neither the overly large nor exceedingly heavy, the cable actually wraps around the rear of the earphone before entering the strain relief, which adds to the diameter of the housings and can cause problems for those with smaller ears. The earphones can be worn cable-up, which puts the cable exit point outside of the ear and makes them more comfortable. Longer aftermarket eartips help as well.
Sound
(9.4/10) – The first time I heard the AKG K3003 was at a show, side by side with my Unique Melody Miracle. While the Miracle was and still is my best-performing custom monitor, following a 20-minute A:B test I had a strong feeling that the K3003 was the best universal-fit IEM I’d heard to date - a feeling that I've now had a chance to confirm with a much lengthier audition.
The K3003 is unique not only because it is AKG’s first properly high-end earphone or because the price tag is sure to send most consumers into shock – it is also unique because of the “hybrid” driver configuration. Combining a dynamic driver with one or more balanced armatures, “hybrid” setups are seen by some as the Holy Grail, capable – at least in theory – to capitalize on the individual strengths of both technologies.
Hybrid designs have been around for years – UE’s Super.Fi 5 EB combined a rather large dynamic driver with a single BA back in 2005. However, the K3003 is the first universal-fit three-way hybrid, combining a single dynamic driver - mounted at the rear of the cylindrical housing – with a dual balanced armature (TWFK) unit mounted in the nozzle.
The K3003 also utilizes a tuning system not unlike that of Phonak’s PFE earphones. The sound is changed by swapping between the three included nozzle filters, dubbed ‘Bass Boost’, ‘Reference’, and ‘Treble Boost’. In contrast to the tiny filters used by the Phonak PFEs, which can only be removed with the included tool, the K3003’s filters are macroscopic and can easily be unscrewed and swapped by hand.
Tuning filters are - by nature – subtractive. They shape the sound by attenuating some frequencies over others. In the case of the K3003, the Treble Boost filter is just a grille, taking nothing away from the unfiltered sound. It provides a bright but refined signature, with plenty of treble that is really quite smooth for a TWFK-based earphone. There is no problem with treble quality when it comes to the Treble Boost filter but the quantity may push the tolerance limits for some, causing long-term listening fatigue.
The Bass Boost filter acts to attenuate the mids and treble with the intent of bringing the bass forward. Though not quite to the same extent as Phonak’s green filter, it raises acoustic impedance, requiring several extra notches of volume for the same listening level. Compared to the middle ‘Reference’ filters, the Bass Boost setting indeed shows increased impact and a warmer, more consumer-friendly sound. Unfortunately the filters also reduce the fantastic transparency of the K3003, sacrifice some of the texture for a smoother sound, and result in a drop in audible treble extension. I can see why the bass filters are included – as a sort of insurance policy against consumers who buy the K3003 on a whim and then attempt to compare the bass to a Klipsch S4 or Beats by Dre – but don’t see them being popular around Head-Fi as – again like the green Phonak filters - they waste too much of the earphones' potential.
The remaining filter is dubbed ‘Reference’ and provides the most reasonable combination of tone and performance without masking detail or causing excessive treble fatigue. The below review is based on the Reference filter except where otherwise noted. It’s worth saying that even with the reference filter the K3003 doesn’t have a flat response – not in the way an Etymotic ER-4S or a well-tuned TWFK might. Instead, the K3003 is an earphone for those convinced that while a balanced armature can produce excellent clarity and detail, it just can’t match the realistic power of a conventional dynamic driver in the bass and sub-bass regions.
With the Reference filter the K3003 boasts a mild mid-bass boost with good depth and punch. Note thickness is also good and the bass sounds full and weighty, likely in the realm of what most would consider ‘natural’. It is not slow by dynamic-driver standards – certainly on-level with high-end bass-heavy earphones such as the JVC FX700 – but simply doesn’t have the speed and tightness of a balanced armature. Impact is good – bass quantity is closest to the green filters of the Phonak PFE 232 and has similar weight and fullness to the Earsonics SM3, albeit with more immediate punch and better dynamics. Texture and detail are both very good for a dynamic driver and the bass gives the K3003 some warmth in comparison to most armature-based sets. At the same time midrange bleed is mostly kept in check by the generally prominent mids and treble.
As expected, there is a slight coherence issue with the hybrid BA-dynamic system, stemming largely from the difference in note presentation between the drivers. The dynamic driver has greater note thickness and generally sounds softer and less crisp. It is helped greatly by the excellent dynamics but the armatures handling the midrange and treble are still more detailed and resolving – an audible disconnect with some tracks. The Bass Boost filters, which tone down the upper midrange and lower treble, make this less obvious to my ears but the coherence isn’t problematic enough to justify using them.
Moving up into the midrange, the K3003 impresses with sound that is extremely clear and detailed, yet very smooth and completely without grain. On both counts it performs a bit better than the grey-filtered Phonak 232s and the j-Phonic K2 SP, two of the clearest and most resolving universals I’ve heard. It sounds even cleaner next to the Earsonics SM3, which seems dull and muffled in comparison as a result of placing significantly more weight on the lower midrange and less emphasis on everything above it. Note thickness is typical of a TWFK-based earphone and the smooth and liquid midrange presentation of the K3003 is quite similar to that of the Audio-Technica CK10.
The treble of the K3003, while prominent in the overall mix, is smooth for a TWFK-based earphone, falling somewhere between the VSonic GR01 and Fischer Audio DBA-02 in emphasis. It and sounds clean and detailed, with plenty of sparkle and good air. While fans of Earsonics earphones and the Shure SE530 will find the top end overly prominent, it is on the whole smoother than that of the Audio-Technica CK10 while granting cymbals similar energy and excitement. It sounds refined and resolving at all times and has an uncanny ability to escape sibilance – a trait that makes it easier to listen to for long stretches than a gray-filtered Phonak 232 or VSonic GR07. Overall brightness is a touch behind the j-Phonic K2 SP and Phonak 232 with gray filters, though this can be reversed by using the Treble Boost port on the K3003.
The presentation of the K3003 is one aspect that continues to impress me – for a universal-fit earphone the AKGs are very spacious, yet still capable of portraying intimacy exceptionally well. Soundstage width is good but the K3003 also boasts excellent depth and layering, making earphones such as the VSonic GR07 sound flat and distant. The K3003 is on the whole more forward than the Phonak PFE 232, too, but also has the layering to make it sound 3-dimensional and immersive. Nevertheless, the presentation of the AKGs is more conventional than that of the overly-enveloping Earsonics SM3. The fleshed-out bass helps fill out the soundstage and give the earphones a big, full sound. It definitely doesn’t hurt that the dynamics of the bass driver are exceptionally good.
Instrument separation is also excellent and imaging is on-par with the Audio-Technica CK10 and among the best I’ve heard out of universal-fit monitors. The only area of concern is the bass, which can be a touch heavy next to the CK10 and can exaggerate the presence and prominence of low notes in the recording. On the upside, instrumental timbre is quite good – the K3003 sounds more natural than my j-Phonic K2 SP and ATH-CK10 and oftentimes beats the Earsonics SM3, which has some of the best timbre among all armature-based in-ears.
It’s worth noting that the K3003 is revealing but not overly punishing of poor recordings, rips, and masters, as stage monitors such as the j-Phonic K2 SP tend to be. It is also very easy to drive and scales up only moderately with amplification and higher-end sources – less so than the K2 SP and PFE 232, for example. Low-volume performance is also quite good, albeit potentially limited by the isolation in noisy places.
While the review above references only other universals in comparison to the AKG K3003, pitting the K3003 against custom-fit earphones played a large role in its evaluation. Below is a short set of A:B comparisons between the K3003 and three of my customs – the ClearTuneMonitors CTM-200, Alclair Reference, and Unique Melody Miracle.
The ClearTuneMonitors CTM-200 is a balanced-sounding dual-driver custom with neutral tone and a wide soundstage. In comparison, the K3003 is somewhat v-shaped in response, with stronger bass impact and bit more treble presence giving it a livelier, more exciting sound. The K3003 is significantly bassier, boasting more impact, body, and depth. Its bass is more dynamic and detailed, making the low end of the CTM-200 sound a bit flat and lifeless in comparison. The presentation of the K3003, though similar in width, is much deeper and more adept at portraying intimacy.
The Alclair Reference is a triple-driver earphone with a smooth sound on the warm side of neutral. It is a little more detailed and refined than the K3003 in the bass and midrange regions with smoother treble and similar soundstage size. The bass of the K3003 extends slightly better but sounds a touch boomy compared to the dry, tight bass produced by the dual bass drivers of the Reference. The K3003 also has slightly better on-center feel and a presentation that extends a little further inward. There is a tone difference as well – the K3003 is a bit brighter but no more fatiguing than the Reference, which has a slightly dry and analytical note presentation. The overall performance of these two earphones is very, very close.
The Unique Melody Miracle is the very first earphone I compared to the K3003, a test that convinced me that the K3003 may just be the best universal-fit earphone I’ve heard. The Miracle is clearer and more detailed in the midrange and treble and significantly tighter and cleaner in the bass region. The response is smoother overall and most of the time the Miracle sounds more natural and realistic. It has a wider presentation than the K3003 and better air, sounding more spacious with a better sense of dimensionality. The K3003 does boast a different sound signature, with quite a bit more mid-bass compared to the Miracle and a better ability to ramp up the punch and rumble on bass-heavy tracks. What’s impressive is how close the K3003 comes to the Miracle for sheer enjoyment, which wasn’t the case with the universal demo of the Miracle I heard a number of months ago.
Value
(8/10) – While its price tag is shockingly high, the AKG K3003i represents a new class of portable product. The remote control unit - a seemingly blasphemous feature on a high-end headphone – may be evidence of a coming shift in portable Hi-Fi spending. With highly capable media devices becoming more widespread, consumers are likely to become more open-minded to spending good money on a headset, just as many have become receptive to pricy portable cans following the Beats by Dre craze.
Of course the K3003 is expensive even by celebrity headphone standards; those in search of value-for-money can safely give it a pass. Comparing the headset’s performance to similarly-priced full-size headphone and speaker setups makes no sense either – the K3003 is a solution for those who value portability. While its performance may not match that of a similarly-priced custom-fit earphone, it is almost certainly easier and more practical to obtain, avoids all of the extra costs and delays associated with re-fits, and should retain more resale value. Like the Fitear ToGo! MH334 and several FADs, then, these AKGs are a niche product pretty much in a class of their own. They may not provide the most bang for your buck but I can see very few reasons why those who
can afford them wouldn’t be delighted with the sound.
Pros: Excellent overall build quality, exquisite packaging and presentation; very capable and enjoyable sound
Cons: Cables not detachable; moderate noise isolation; may not be comfortable for those with smaller ears; slight differences in note presentation between armatures and dynamic driver
(1A4) Spiral Ear SE 3-way Reference
Reviewed June 2012
Details: Silicone-shelled custom from Poland-based Spiral Ear
Current Price: €595 (est
$790) fixed cable, €665 (est
$885) detachable cable from spiralear.com
Specs: Driver:
Triple BA; 3-way crossover | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable:
4.2' L-plug
Wear Style: Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) – Cleaning tool and hard-shelled custom-printed carrying case w/detachable lanyard
Build Quality
(5/5) – The Spiral Ear IEMs use silicone shells that are completely filled in. Shell transparency isn’t as good as it can be with Acrylic monitors but the structure is solid, with a relatively small amount of give. The fixed-cable version utilizes Westone-style cables with the connectors encased within the silicone shell. Detachable cables (optional) boast internally-anchored, recessed connectors with conventional Westone ES-style plugs.
Isolation
(5/5) – The isolation of the deep-fit silicone shells puts every other earphone in my collection to shame, outperforming even my custom-tipped Etymotic Research earphones
Microphonics
(5/5) - Pretty much nonexistent
Comfort
(5/5) – The silicone shells of the SE 3-way take slightly longer to insert and remove compared to a more rigid and slippery Acrylic shell but once fitted the 3-way is just as comfortable as my UM Miracle and seems to maintain seal a tiny bit better with changes to the ear canal shape, such as while chewing or talking. Being a custom monitor, the comfort of the 3-way is highly dependent on the quality of the initial impressions and final mold so if the earphones remain uncomfortable after an initial break-in period a re-fit is probably a good idea.
Sound
(9.5/10) – While a number of promises are made on the 3-way Reference
product page, extended listening to the earphones causes none to ring as true as that of “rich and organic” sound. The 3-way is a listening experience unlike anything else I’ve heard, providing a neutral, highly polished signature but also causing all of the other BA-based monitors I’ve heard to sound thin and underpowered in comparison.
The sound of the 3-way takes some getting used to – it isn’t designed to immediately wow with detail and clarity, sparkly treble, or a wide, out-of-the head presentation. Instead, it impresses in the long term – around the time 4 hours and 3 full albums have passed. Most impressive is the bass – there is a certain disconnect between the neutral tone of the 3-way Reference and the voluminous bass. The bass has great body and good punch. On bass-heavy tracks the 3-way is capable of effortlessly producing more impact than any other armature-based earphone I’ve heard, beating out the Earsonics SM3 and the bass-heavy filters of the Phonak PFE 232 and competing with the dynamic-driver bass of the AKG K3003. The bass response scales back quite well when it is not called for, too – dynamics are some of the best among armature-based IEMs, slightly better than with the SM3 and far superior to anything built around a full-range TWFK driver, for example. As a result, the earphones can still sound rather balanced on the whole but are also capable of really belting out the low notes on cue.
While most of the power comes in higher, the low end of the 3-way is well-extended – better, for example, than that of the Alclair Reference. Note weight is on the heavy side and some of the fine detail is not as audible as it can be with a thinner-sounding earphone such as a UM Miracle or Alclair Reference, but the 3-way sounds very natural and detailed in its own way. It is not one for analytical listeners but the excellent note thickness and dynamics make for a uniquely tactile and powerful bass presentation – one that is smooth, yet easily felt. The Earsonics SM3 – which is also rather thick-sounding - has a similar overall feel to its bass but can’t quite match the depth, resolution, and control of the 3-way Reference, sounding a little loose and bleeding up into the midrange more.
The midrange of the 3-way Reference is smooth and rich without sounding excessively warm. Indeed, for the amount of bass the Spiral Ear can produce, the mids are surprisingly free of bass bleed and the overall balance is quite good. There’s no sense of the mids being pushed forward artificially but also not as much distance placed between the listener and the performers as, for example, with the ClearTune CTM-200 or the popular VSonic GR07.
On the whole, the 3-way doesn’t adhere to a typical high-end BA sound - it does not push for the greatest possible clarity and detail, instead focusing on a thicker, more natural note presentation and overall coherency across the spectrum. In this way it is highly reminiscent of the Earsonics SM3, though the 3-way is noticeably more transparent. Combined with the lack of bright, emphasized treble, this means that the overall clarity is not immediately impressive as it is with the UM Miracle or CTM-200. The detailing is also not at all aggressive – the 3-way does not push fine nuances forward as many analytical earphones do. The detail is mostly there, but it takes some listening for. Overall, it sounds very natural and pleasant.
The top end of the 3-way Reference is among the smoothest and most non-fatiguing I’ve heard from an IEM. Comparing it to the AKG K3003, Alclair Reference, and Phonak PFE 232 reveals peaks in their treble presentations that just aren’t there with the Spiral Ear. The treble is clean and detailed but – much like that of the Earsonics SM3 – lacks some sparkle and energy next to other high-end earphones. Most likely it was tuned this way to prevent listening fatigue over long listening sessions but as a result the 3-way has a darker tone and can sound a bit boring at low volumes compared to brighter earphones. Treble quality is good but again the top end of the UM Miracle is not only more prominent, but also has better detail and extension, resulting in a more airy sound and a boost in perceived clarity.
The presentation of the 3-way is very well-rounded – similar in size to that of the Phonak PFE 232 but with better layering for a more ambient and 3-dimensional feel. The 3-way gives a good sense of space but provides a less open, more intimate sound compared to the UM Miracle and Alclair Reference. Separation is very good, as are the dynamics, resulting in good imaging and allowing the 3-way to recreate very fine nuances, especially in live recordings. Listening to a Phonak PFE 232 with the green +bass filters (which result in the most similar, albeit still more v-shaped, balance) makes very apparent just how much more detailed the 3-way is.
In addition to the mentions above, I thought I’d add more concise comparisons against my two other higher-end custom monitors – the Unique Melody Miracle and Alclair Reference.
The Alclair Reference ($399) pursues a slightly warm sound signature with a drier presentation and some treble emphasis. Compared to the Spiral Ear 3-way Reference it has a more laid-back soundstage with a thinner, more analytical note. The tone is brighter overall and it can sound slightly ‘hot’ with some tracks due to emphasis in the lower treble region. As a result of the treble emphasis, the perceived clarity is a bit better than with the 3-way but natural clarity is similar between the two. The 3-way, on the other hand, has much smoother treble for a less fatiguing sound and darker tone. It provides a better sense of 3-D space and better on-center feel. It also sounds more effortless at the bottom end, with better bass weight, power, and impact compared to the Alclair.
The UM Miracle ($950) is a spacious, highly detailed monitor with a very slightly u-shaped response. Like the Alclair Reference, the Miracle sounds brighter and clearer compared to the 3-way. Despite being more laid-back in the midrange, the Miracle still provides better detail and texture in addition to being more airy and spacious. However, while the Miracle’s bass depth and subbass power are similar to those of the 3-way, its mid- and upper-bass response is far leaner. The 3-way has much more bass body and sounds thicker, with more bass weight and impact but also a bit of boominess and slight lack of detail next to the Miracle. This gives the 3-way a very dynamic sound but causes the Miracle to appear more resolving overall.
Value
(8.5/10) - The Spiral Ear 3-way Reference is a versatile and well-rounded custom monitor that eschews the usual analytical tendencies of high-end BA-based earphones for a holistic approach to sound more akin to that of EarSonics monitors. It is not for fans of a thiner note presentation, leaning instead towards the lush end of the spectrum, but its smooth, powerful, and full-bodied response is something that simply needs to be experienced, especially by those who claim dynamic drivers always sound more natural than armatures. The filled silicone shells offer similar comfort to acrylic shells (provided both are well-fitted) but easily best acrylic monitors – and every other earphone I’ve tried – when it comes to isolation. With the option to add detachable cables at additional cost, the only downside is that the Spiral Ear is limited in customization options compared to most of its acrylic counterparts. In addition, with its effortless low end and excellent dynamics, I feel that this is one custom monitor potentially suitable for bassheads as it is incredibly adept at making sure that whatever bass is on a track can be felt as well as heard.
Pros: Immense isolation; incredibly dynamic, powerful, and full-bodied sound
Cons: Inserting and removing silicone shells takes some getting used to
A full review of the SE 3-way with additional photos can be found
here
(1A5) FitEar To Go! 334
Added Dec 2012
Details: Custom-turned-universal IEM from Japan-based FitEar. This TG334 was gifted to me by the Head-Fi community and I would like to sincerely thank the organizers, including shotgunshane, james444, rawrster, Inks, and Anaxilus, as well as everyone else whose efforts made this a reality. It was an incredible display of generosity that makes me proud to be a part of this community. The original thread can be found
here
Current Price:
$1345 from musicaacoustics.com (MSRP: est. $1350)
Specs: Driver:
Quad BA | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable:
4' I-plug
Nozzle Size:
5.5 mm | Preferred tips:
Audiofly single-flanges; stock single-flanges, MEElec long single-flanges, short double-flanges
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(5/5) - Single-flange (3 sizes) & bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, cleaning tool, drawstring carrying pouch, and Pelican 1010 carrying case
Build Quality
(5/5) – The TG334 is probably the best-constructed earphone I’ve come across; the fit and finish are top-notch--the shells have a very solid feel to them and the cables are sturdy and detachable, albeit with non-standard connectors. The cords don’t tangle but are a bit stiff compared to the cables on my custom-fit earphones
Isolation
(4/5) – Very good for a universal – the TG334 fills up much of the outer ear and can provide excellent isolation with a good seal
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – Quite low despite the stiff cable
Comfort
(4.5/5) – The housings of the MH334 are on the large side, but quite ergonomic. The in-ear footprint isn’t too big and the bulk of the shell ends up outside of the ear. The stiff memory wire also keeps the weight in check
Sound
(9.5/10) – FitEar’s first mass-produced universal-fit earphone, the TG334 is derived from the company’s MH334 custom-fit model. It is noteworthy not only for being one of the few quad-driver universal earphones, but also as part of the exclusive $1000+ club. The sound signature of the MH334 is an interesting one and is best characterized as mildly off-neutral, with some emphasis on the bass and midrange relative to the top end.
My first listen to the TG334 left me slightly stunned – it was the best universal-fit earphone I’d heard, but its sound signature was also quite different from what I had expected. The bass surprised me most of all – so thick and full compared to the vast majority of the other BA-based sets I’ve heard. Unlike many other armature-based sets, the TG334 can move some serious air and bass depth is very good as well. The sub-bass rumble stops just short of bass-heavy dynamic-driver sets such as the JVC FX700. The TG334 still trails the dynamic driver of the AKG K3003 and the custom-fit Spiral Ear 3-way Reference in sheer impact, but only by a small margin.
The slightly thick note also means that the TG334 just doesn’t sound as tight and quick as a crisper BA-based set might. In fact, this bass presentation can at times make it difficult to pin the TG334 down as a BA-powered monitor altogether. Compared, for example, to the more level bass of the ATH-CK10, the TG334 sounds noticeably boomy but gains more natural power and depth at the bottom end. Unlike the CK10, the TG334 can produce some serious rumble when necessary – a rarity even among higher-end armature-based monitors.
The midrange of the TG334 is clean and prominent, quite possibly the best feature of the earphone’s sound for me. Even though the TG334 is not as entirely neutral to my ears, it manages to maintain top notch transparency. Its midrange is among the clearest I’ve heard, exhibiting no veil whatsoever--clearer, for example, than the mids of the Phonak PFE232 and the custom-fit Spiral Ear 3-way, and more forward and transparent than those of the AKG K3003. Vocals are incredibly intelligible and the mids are very smooth and full-sounding overall.
Moving on up, the TG334 remains smooth and refined. The top end is a bit laid-back on the whole, resulting in a slightly darker tone. The AKG K3003, for example, is both brighter in tone and more edgy in treble presentation, even with the ‘reference’ filters in place. Still, despite the soft treble, the TG334 remains pretty neutral – it is not as dark as the Spiral Ear SE 3-way, for instance. There are also no sibilance-accentuating peaks and sets such as the PFE232 and Audio-Technica CK10 sound downright splashy next to the FitEar. Top-end extension is good but doesn’t seem quite as impressive as that of the UE 900 or even the AKG K3003. As a result, the TG334 is not an extremely airy-sounding earphone, but the presentation is great regardless.
The ambient presentation is my second favorite aspect of the TG334 after the euphonic midrange. The earphone provides a very good sense of space for a universal – it may not sound as wide as the Sony EX1000, but the headstage has excellent height and depth in addition to good width. Add in great separation and it’s clear why the TG334 images extremely well. Due to the forward mids, it has a slight tendency to stay intimate and in-the-head but the overall versatility is impressive. The soundstaging is noticeably better than that of the PFE232 and the Alclair Reference customs – two very solid mid-tier earphones – and the imaging is at least as good as with any other universal-fit earphone I’ve heard.
Select comparisons:
HiFiMan RE262 ($149)
Perhaps the most reasonably-priced IEM I would dare pit against the TG334, the RE262 is a dynamic-driver design from one of Head-Fi’s favorite manufacturers. Compared to the far more expensive TG334, the RE262 yields in bass extension and power but sounds a bit tighter and quicker. It lacks the dynamics, deep bass presence, and overall impact of the FitEar, and at times can sound downright recessed at the low end in comparison.
The midrange of the 334 is slightly clearer, thicker, and fuller compared to the RE262 but the overall tonality is quite similar between the two earphones, with both sounding a little warmer/darker than what I would consider neutral. The treble of the RE262 is a little more laid-back but the overall balance is still good, seemingly benefitting from the lighter bass. Finally, the TG334 wins the soundstaging battle easily with a bigger, more out-of-the-head presentation along with better layering and separation and a more convincing center image.
VSonic GR07 ($180)
VSonic’s dynamic-driver reference monitor boasts a fantastic price/performance ratio but falls very short of the TG334 in a head to head comparison. While its bass is tighter and more controlled than that of the TG334, the GR07 fails to make up for its lack of midrange and treble performance. The midrange of the GR07 sounds overly lean and distant compared to that of the TG334. Vocals are less intelligible and generally sound less natural and refined. The mids of the TG334, on the hand, sound fuller and simply more “mature” than those of the GR07.
Moving up, the GR07 is brighter and has the treble energy that the TG334 lacks. However, in doing so it tends to be significantly more harsh and sibilant. Compared to the soft, yet detailed treble of the TG334, the GR07 seems unrefined and ultimately much less satisfying. The presentation, too, is no match for the FitEar. The layering and soundstage depth of the TG334 make the GR07 sound flat and distant and highlight its lack of a strong center image and the ability to portray intimacy properly.
Ultimate Ears 900 ($400)
UE’s latest and greatest boasts a similar quad BA configuration to the TG334 but fails to provide the transparency and spaciousness of the pricier FitEar. Compared to the UE900, the TG334 boasts more powerful and dynamic bass and more prominent mids. Its sound is significantly clearer and more transparent, with better detailing and better instrument separation. The UE900 sounds downright veiled in comparison but, on the upside, has slightly better treble presence and extension compared to the TG334.
1964EARS 1964-V3 ($425)
1964EARS’ second-gen triple-BA custom monitor is a mid-level custom earphone, but it does a surprisingly good job of keeping up with the FitEar. The TG334 does have slightly deeper bass and sounds more dynamic and natural than the V3. On tracks with heavy bass presence, overall bass quantity is quite close between the two but the TG334 does a better job of scaling down its bass response when necessary. In comparison, the bass of the V3 can be slightly more boomy and intrusive.
Both earphones have clean, upfront mids, but the TG334 doesn’t sound quite as forward as the V3, due in part to its superior layering and separation. Its sound is fuller, as well as slightly more detailed and refined. The V3 boasts more emphasis in the upper midrange and treble for a brighter sound. It can also sound just a touch harsh in comparison but generally remains well-behaved. The presentation battle is won by the TG334 with a more spacious soundstage and better imaging, but by a much smaller margin compared to the RE262 or GR07.
Unique Melody Miracle ($949)
The Miracle is a 3-way, 6-driver custom monitor priced slightly below the TG334. To my ears, the Miracle is a hallmark of full-range sound presented in an immersive way. The bass of the Miracle provides the best qualities balanced armatures have to offer, with great extension and a lack of mid-bass emphasis. The result is tight, quick, and very detailed bass that makes the low end of the TG334 sound slightly bloated. It would not be impossible to mistake the TG334, with its greater mid-bass impact and thicker note presentation, for a dynamic-driver earphone when comparing it to the more textured and detailed Miracle.
From the midrange upward, it becomes more difficult to split the two earphones except on preference. The TG334 sounds warmer overall, with more emphasis on the bass, mids that are more upfront (especially next to the more laid-back Miracle), and less prominent treble. Resolution is fantastic with both earphones but the brighter Miracle has a slight edge in perceived clarity. The greater sparkle and treble energy of the Miracle contrast the softer, smoother, more relaxed treble presentation of the darker FitEar very nicely without sounding harsh or grainy.
The presentation of the Miracle is wider and more spacious compared to the TG334. The TG334 has an impressively out-of-the-head soundstage and very good imaging for a universal-fit earphone but it can’t quite match the sheer size of the Miracle’s presentation, nor the psychoacoustic top-to-bottom and front-to-rear space. The tighter bass of the Miracle also gives it a leg up when it comes to providing a clean and well-separated sonic image.
Value
(8/10) – The FitEar TG334 earns its hefty price by joining off-the-charts construction quality with impressive sonic performance. The clean and strong midrange and excellent sense of space combine with soft treble and rich, full-bodied bass to appeal even to those who normally prefer dynamic drivers. The question many will be asking is whether the TG334 performs as well as similarly-priced custom monitors. Based comparing it to just the UM Miracle, the answer seems to be "not quite", but more than one data point would be needed for certainty. What I do know is that for many the TG334 is likely more practical to obtain than a custom, avoids all of the extra costs and delays associated with impressions and re-fits, and should retain more resale value. There is no question that the 334 is a niche product, but as a universal-fit earphone it is simply sublime.
Pros: Fantastically clear and strong midrange; great imaging and sense of space; high isolation; amazing build quality
Cons: Bass could be tighter
Huge thanks to
shotgunshane,
james444,
Anaxilus,
Inks,
rawrster, and everyone else who pitched in to make this TG334 a reality!
(1A6) Ultrasone IQ
Added Feb 2013
Details: Ultrasone’s flagship earphone built around a hybrid BA/dynamic driver system
Current Price:
$899 from bhphotovideo.com (MSRP: $949)
Specs: Driver:
Dynamic/BA Hybrid | Imp:
20Ω | Sens:
106 dB | Freq:
17-21k Hz | Cable:
3.9' L-plug
Nozzle Size:
2.5mm | Preferred tips:
Etymotic triple-flange, Westone TRUE-FIT Foam
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 pairs standard, 2 pairs cone-shaped), Comply foam tips (2 pairs), spare cable with inline mic/remote, TRRS smartphone adapter, airline adapter, and magnetic-clasp carrying case
Build Quality
(5/5) – The build is rock-solid, boasting sturdy die-cast housings and detachable cables with coaxial connectors. Filter-less nozzles, together with the lack of a wax loop in the accessory pack, may be an issue for those with waxy ears, though the included Comply tips provide wax guards. The clear-coated cables are soft and flexible, similar to the cords on MEElectronics earphones
Isolation
(3.5/5) – Isolation is above average with the stock silicone tips and better with the included Comply foams as well as my preferred triple-flanges
Microphonics
(5/5) – Nonexistent in the coated cable
Comfort
(3.5/5) – The housings are cube-shaped and on the large side, holding both a balanced armature and an 8mm dynamic driver per side. The profile reminds me of the Earsonics SM3 and the overall volume of the housings isn’t much bigger than some of the mutli-armature sets on the market. However, “cube” is not the most ergonomic shape in the world and the housing corners can cause soreness after some time unless longer tips are used to allow the housing to sit farther outside the ear
Sound
(9.3/10) – Ultrasone’s first in-ear monitor utilizes a hybrid driver system with an 8mm side-mounted dynamic driver and a single balanced armature. Quite a few hybrid setups have been released in the past year but it is still an unusual choice for a company’s first foray into IEMs. Happily, Ultrasone pulls the IQ off rather well, with the exception of one issue - the tuning seems to favor a deep insertion while the included eartips, in conjunction with the large housing, favor a shallower fit for average-sized ears.
With the stock tips the treble response of the IQ peaks heavily right in the sibilance region, making many tracks sibilant and some - downright uncomfortable. The silicone tips are the worst offenders, followed closely by the Complys. After a few hours of tip rolling, I found the Etymotic triple-flange tips to cut the sibilance completely while retaining an acceptable amount of treble energy for me. An inline impedance adapter can tame the treble a bit more, likely due to the non-linear impedance characteristic of the balanced armature driver. Using both the Etymotic tips and impedance adapter together results in a drastic change but proved unnecessary, so this review and the subsequent comparisons were all done with the Etymotic triple-flange tips as the only modification to the IQ.
No matter the eartips, the bass delivered by the 8mm dynamic driver of the IQ is surprisingly poised and precise. The IQ is an enhanced-bass earphone, no doubt, but the bass is textured, quick, and not at all overbearing for a dynamic-driver set. It is somewhat reminiscent of the AKG K3003 in this respect. Bass extension is good, with plenty of sub-bass rumble, and the overall impact is still impressive, in the realm of the armature-based Phonak PFE 232 and FitEar TG334. Bass bleed is minimal and the IQ, again like the K3003, does not sound particularly mid-recessed despite its v-shaped sound profile.
The midrange is clean and clear, with surprisingly little warmth for an earphone with such robust bass. The mids are lagging in emphasis compared to the low end but not enough to warrant being called recessed, and the upper midrange and treble have good presence. Despite the treble spikes that annoy me with the stock tips, the IQ is not a particularly bright earphone – it doesn’t have the treble energy of the AKG K3003 or the Audio-Technica ATH-CK10, for example; it just seems to hit all of the sibilance-prone areas. The treble presentation with the stock tips does hurt tonality, reminding me of Ultrasone’s HFI-780 headphone – a fun but slightly metallic-sounding full-size set. The HFI-780 never appealed to me over Utrasone’s more balanced Proline models, and the IQ likewise is a tad too colored with the stock eartips. With proper eartips it remains only slightly harsh, to an extent that can be dismissed except when pitted side by side against something like the K3003.
In terms of presentation, the IQ is competent all around. It is a spacious-sounding earphone with a very consistent and even-handed presentation. Its soundstage is larger compared to many other top-tier universals, including the Phonak PFE 232, but doesn’t stay as free of congestion due to the nature of the dynamic driver. Imaging, however, is good and the IQ can provide a very enveloping sonic presentation without sounding forward. It’s worth noting the high sensitivity as well – the IQ is well above average in this regard and is both revealing of source matching issues and very, very easy to drive.
Select Comparisons
UE900 ($400)
Logitech UE’s latest and greatest is a quad-armature monster boasting excellent presence across the frequency spectrum and a sound signature somewhere between “neutral” and “Triple.Fi 10”. The UE 900 seems to miss out on the full, natural bass impact of the IQ’s dynamic driver but matches its low-end extension. The bigger, more dynamic bass of the IQ emphasizes the fun factor, but also scales up more convincingly on bass-heavy tracks.
The midrange of the UE 900 sounds a little muffled in comparison to the IQ, likely due to the upper midrange dip noted in my original review. The IQ remains flatter through the midrange, though its treble is not quite as smooth as that of the Ultimate Ears. I prefer the greater treble energy of the IQ once it is tamed with my aftermarket tips, but with both earphones using their stock fittings the UE 900 bothers me less. In terms of presentation, both sets are spacious and image very well, with no clear winner for me.
Phonak PFE 232 ($600)
Yet another detachable-cable universal with a massive price tag and headset functionality, the PFE 232 is rather bassy for an armature-based earphone and proves to be good competition for the dynamic-driver bass of the IQ. Indeed, the bass presence of the two earphones is quite similar, with the Ultrasone providing a bit more punch and body. The overall sound of the PFE 232 is more v-shaped, with less prominent mids compared to the IQ. The lower midrange especially is set a little too far back with the Phonaks, which does them no favors when it comes to intelligibility. The IQ, meanwhile, sounds clearer and flatter through the midrange. Treble is a close call – both earphones have good treble presence and the Ultrasone only wins out in refinement when paired with aftermarket eartips, and even then just barely. The gray-filtered Phonak ends up just a touch hotter and thinner-sounding. The soundstage of the IQ is larger, providing a slightly more out-of-the-head listening experience and superior imaging.
AKG K3003i ($1300)
Similarities between the K3003 and the IQ abound – each is a flagship product from a company with a history of headphone Hi-Fi, each uses a hybrid driver setup, and each has a borderline shocking sticker price. The K3003 utilizes a 3-way setup, with dual armatures handling the midrange and treble. Surprisingly, however, its bass driver is not as well-optimized as that of the IQ. The low end of the K3003 ends up sounding slightly more intrusive and less controlled, with the resulting fuller bass note leading to poorer coherence between the drivers compared to the IQ.
The lighter, snappier bass of the IQ affords it even less midrange bleed. Both earphones have minimal midrange recession and energetic, prominent highs. The K3003 (with the Reference tuning filter) has a bit more treble energy but still sounds smoother and more refined than the IQ. Both have large, well-layered presentations, with the K3003 having a slight upper hand when it comes to portraying a more convincing soundscape.
1964EARS 1964-V3 ($425)
1964EARS’ triple-driver model is a high bang/buck earphone for those willing to invest in a custom-fit product. Compared to the IQ, the V3 pursues a more aggressive and intimate sound, with forward mids, an enveloping presentation, and very high sensitivity. The dynamic driver of the IQ can’t quite keep up with the speed of the V3’s bass but provides similar slam. The V3 seems less bassy due to the forward mids but its sound is overall more colored than that of the slightly v-shaped IQ. Neither set has the most refined treble, nor is picking a winner easier when comparing the broader soundstage of the IQ to the smaller but more 3-dimensional presentation of the V3.
Unique Melody Miracle ($949)
The Miracle is a 3-way, 6-driver custom that, with the cost of impressions and shipping factored in, would be priced just above the IQ. The Ultrasone competes with this flagship custom monitor surprisingly well despite its more colored, v-shaped sound signature. As expected, the Miracle is flatter and more accurate overall, with mids that are less recessed, more extended treble, and a slightly broader presentation not bogged down with the heavier bass of the IQ’s dynamic driver. It is smoother and more refined, especially in the treble region, while the Ultrasone ends up sounding warmer and harsher. Still, the IQ provides a bassier sound with little sacrifice in the way of clarity and overall resolution – a feat in and of itself. It also does a good job of keeping up with the imaging and dynamics of the Miracle, which few other earphones, custom or universal, manage to do.
Value
(7.5/10) – Ultrasone’s new flagship in-ear takes a page right out of the Edition playbook, providing an on-the-go listening experience for the well-to-do. The IQ is a top performer in many ways but seems to sound better with a difficult-to-achieve deep seal. It is an interesting proposition – an earphone that doesn’t quite impress out of the box but has tons of potential for those willing to work towards a good fit. Is this reasonable for such a high-end product? I’m not so sure, but the fact remains that the IQ can make a good case for itself in the sound department.
Audio quality aside, the IQ scores high marks for its superb construction, including die-cast housings, detachable cords, and soft, tangle-free cabling. Cable noise is nil and noise isolation is good compared to the Sennheiser IE 800 and AKG K3003. High sensitivity and a secure, over-the-ear fit add to its versatility. It’s not going to win over the value-minded, but the IQ is yet another simpler, easier alternative to spending copious amounts of cash on a custom-fit monitor.
Pros: Sound can be very competent; solid crafstmanship
Cons: Treble response poorly sculpted with stock tips; awkward housing shape; no nozzle filters or wax loop included
(1A7) Hidition NT 6
Added Jun 2013
Details: One of two flagship models from Korea-based Hidition
Current Price: est.
$1200 from
hidition.co.kr
Specs: Driver:
6 BA / 4-way crossover | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable:
4.2' I-plug
Nozzle Size: N/A | Preferred tips: N/A
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) – Custom hard-shell carrying case, cleaning tool, and cleaning cloth
Build Quality
(5/5) – The build quality of the NT 6 is excellent, with thick acrylic shells and a well-made cable featuring angled connectors and a metal Palics plug. The cable is braided and covered in heatshrink tubing for extra protection but is prone to the memory effect, maintaining its shape after being coiled up for storage. On the cosmetic side, Hidition offers a massive number of customization options, including some very unique mother of pearl faceplates (one of which is shown)
Isolation
(4.5/5) - The isolation provided by the deep-sealing shells is excellent - slightly below that of my silicone-shelled customs but higher than with my other acrylic-shelled units
Microphonics
(4.5/5) – The heatshrink-wrapped cable produces slightly more microphonics than the cables on my other customs
Comfort
(5/5) – My NT 6 was built with a musician fit, extending to the second bend of the ear canal. As with all acrylic customs, the shells are hard but comfortable when fitted correctly. If the earphones remain uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a refit may be required
Sound
(9.9/10) – Hidition’s lineup is notable for having not one but two six-driver flagships – the NT 6, which features a 4-way passive crossover, and the NT 6-PRO, which adds another crossover point for a 5-way setup. The PRO model promises enhanced bass, while the vanilla NT 6 is said to be more neutral.
The overall signature of the NT 6 is balanced, with a slight treble emphasis. The earphone impresses most with its bell-like clarity, but there’s a whole lot more to like. The bass is linear, with a small boost in the sub-bass region. The low end is a little leaner compared, for example, to the JH13 Pro and Westone ES5, but remains extremely tight and controlled at all times. Overall accuracy is great and the neutral bass quantity is very welcome, though perhaps a little surprising considering the triple bass drivers of the NT 6. One may expect more bass boost, but the low end of the NT 6 is punchy when it needs to be, otherwise staying out of the way.
The midrange is flat and level, boasting striking clarity and detail. There is no bass bleed and the mids are not in the least bit recessed. With nothing to get in the way of the midrange, detail resolution and overall definition are fantastic. Vocal intelligibility is excellent as well – better compared to the UM Miracle and Heir Audio 8.A, for example. Only the JH13 Pro competes in clarity, and even then its mild bass boost puts it at a slight disadvantage to the NT 6.
On the whole, the NT 6 is well-balanced aside from an upper treble bump, which gives it a characteristically brighter, cooler tone. It is not a forgiving earphone but, happily, the top-end emphasis falls above the 4-8 kHz range where sibilance typically originates, so the NT 6 does not introduce sibilance or harshness to recordings. Treble extension is excellent, contributing to an airy and open sound with entirely unconstrained dynamics.
The tight, clean sound of the NT 6 does wonders for the presentation of the earphone. The Hidition boasts a wide and spacious soundstage but does not lack in the way of a central image. Overall imaging is excellent, resulting in a convincing presentation, and while soundstage depth and layering aren’t quite on-par with the JH13Pro or UM Miracle, they are certainly close enough to compete.
Select Comparisons
JH Audio JH13 Pro Freqphase ($1099)
Like that of Hidition, JHA’s lineup offers two flagships, the 8-driver JH16 and the 6-driver JH13, and, like the NT 6, the JH13 is the more neutral-sounding of JHA's two flagships. For me, these two monitors are the cream of the crop – both impossibly clear and resolving, with very good imaging and lifelike presentations. The differences between them lie largely in sound signature, with the JH13 being very close to – but a pinch on the warm side of - neutral and the NT 6 being slightly bright.
While the low end of the NT 6 is extended, punchy, and dynamic, the Hidition just doesn’t crank out quite as much bass the JH13. Personally, I don’t find the low end of the JH13 excessive but the bass of the Hidition is flatter in profile and a little tighter as a result. The bassier JH13 carries a slightly warmer tone as well, though the mids on both earphones are completely free of veiling and fantastically clear. The NT 6 is brighter, with more emphasis on higher frequencies, but it also has a more fluid note presentation. On the soundstage front, the JH13 sounds a little more 3-dimensional and enveloping while the NT 6 has slightly less depth to it. The JH13Pro is significantly more sensitive.
Unique Melody Miracle ($949)
Unique Melody’s 6-driver flagship remains one of my favorite earphones even after more than two years of ownership. On the whole, it keeps up rather well with the NT 6. The NT 6 is overall brighter, crisper, and more resolving than the Miracle, with a flatter midrange presentation and better vocal intelligibility. Despite its cooler tone, the NT 6 has a bit more bass impact while the Miracle is a little softer and more polite.
The Miracle boasts smoother, more relaxed treble while the NT 6 has more energy, coupled with outstanding treble extension and a very wide and airy presentation. The Miracle, in comparison, is a little more constrained, with a narrower soundstage and slightly less dynamic overall sound. Like the JH13, it gives up some of the width of the NT 6 for better depth and a slightly more enveloping presentation, but unfortunately loses some of the effortlessness of the Hidition and JHA sets in the process.
Lime Ears LE3 (est. $690)
The LE3 from Poland-based Lime Ears may be a mere triple-driver, but it is the most balanced such setup I’ve heard. Compared to the Lime Ears, the much-pricier NT 6 has some advantages – its bass is both tighter and more impactful, and the earphone is a little clearer overall – but the difference on all counts is not night and day. Tonally, the LE3 has less treble emphasis for a more neutral overall sound compared to the brighter NT 6. Its treble is smoother, but also doesn’t quite have the extension of the Hidition. The presentation of the NT 6 is also larger and more dynamic, though the LE3 is no slouch itself.
Value
(9/10) – The market has changed a lot since my first review of a high-end custom IEM, the UM Miracle, more than two years ago. The inception of a new breed of hyper-expensive universals and dozens of new CIEM companies from all around the world have made the market more crowded – and more confusing – than ever before. One thing is clear in trying to make sense of it all – sound signature remains the key to finding the perfect earphone, custom or otherwise, for every individual.
That said, the NT 6 is undoubtedly one of the very best earphones I’ve had the pleasure of trying, combining incredible clarity and resolution with tight, level bass and extended treble with plenty of energy. Top to bottom, the NT 6 does not lack presence at any frequency and is the ideal earphone for those who want accuracy, avoiding any and all bass bloat and providing a leaner sound with a neutral-to-bright tone. Hiditon’s excellent build quality, deep-sealing shells, and plethora of customization options are just icing on the cake.
Pros: Great finish; high isolation due to deep fit; outstanding audio quality
Cons: Cable more Microphonic than most custom cables
(1A8/1A9) Lime Ears LE3 and LE3B
Added Jul 2013
Details: sister flagship CIEMs from Poland-based Lime Ears
Current Price:
529€ (est. $700) from limeears.com
Specs: Driver:
3 BA / 3-way crossover | Imp:
46Ω | Sens:
109 dB | Freq:
N/A | Cable:
4.3' L-plug
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) - Hard-shell crushproof carrying case and tube of ear lubricant
Build Quality
(5/5) – Construction is on-par with the likes of 1964EARS and Alclair, falling just short of pricier UM and Hidition sets. The acrylic shells have a very smooth finish and while my LE3B unit has some mild internal imperfections, the shells of the newer LE3 are very clear. The earphones boast recessed 2-pin connectors in the common configuration. There are five standard colors and myriad other customization options available. The cables have a smooth feel but suffer from a bit of memory character, maintaining their shape after being coiled up for storage. On the upside, unlike most clear cables found on custom monitors, these don’t seem to oxidize and turn green over time
Isolation
(4/5) – Similar to my other shallow-fit acrylic customs and slightly below that of the Hidition NT6 and Etymotic Research universals
Microphonics
(5/5) – Nearly nonexistent in the smooth clear-coated cable
Comfort
(5/5) – The LE3 and LE3B have medium length nozzles and are very comfortable when fitted correctly. As usual, if the CIEMs seem uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a refit is probably a good idea. There is added cost with shipping and, if necessary, getting new impressions but on the whole a perfect fit is well worth the trouble
Sound
(9.5/10) – Lime Ears currently offers two different configurations of their triple-driver flagship. The standard LE3 provides a balanced and neutral sound while the LE3B, built by request only at this time, is an alternate tuning meant to supply a warmer tone with more bass kick. This review will cover both units.
The standard LE3 offers up a balanced sound with a very mild warm tilt, akin to the JHAudio JH13 or, from the realm of universals, a newer HiFiMan set. To my ears, it is more uncolored than the vast majority of my other custom-fit earphones. The Hidition NT6, for example, is brighter than the LE3 and tends to emphasize treble more while the Spiral Ear SE-3 is warmer with its deep, visceral bass. The bottom end of the LE3 lacks a little in the way of extension – while not exactly poor in this regard, it definitely gives up depth to its enhanced-bass sibling.
That’s pretty much the extent of the LE3’s concessions, however – moving up from the subbass region, it boasts punchy and controlled bass and clean, accurate mids with no hint of recession. It remains smooth through the upper midrange and treble, coming across as quite forgiving for an IEM with such a neutral tone. There is a bit of crispness missing compared to higher-end sets but nothing drastic and despite the soft treble character, the LE3 does not sound dark, again reminding me of current-gen HiFiMan earphones. The LE3 also provides a sonic image that’s neither forward nor too far back, thanks to its prominent, veil-free midrange. Compared to higher-end custom-fit sets, the only thing its presentation is a bit of depth – in this regard it is similar to top-tier universals such as the AKG K3003.
Switching over to the LE3B, the enhanced bass immediately makes itself known. The two earphones have many similarities – as they should, using identical drivers and all, but the LE3B delivers on its promise of extra bass, putting out perhaps the best combination of quantity and quality I’ve heard out of a single bass driver. In this regard the LE3B competes with the pricier Westone ES5. Compared to the LE3, the warmer and bassier LE3B boasts not only more punch but also less roll-off while the extra bass impact and depth lend it a richer, fuller, more dynamic sound.
The bass of the LE3 on the other hand, lacks the depth and rumble of the LE3B’s bass and its presentation actually seems more intimate next to the more dynamic LE3B. The less prominent bass of the LE3 results in a cooler overall tone and slightly cleaner mids. The difference in clarity is small between the two, however, and the treble is very similar - smooth but not lacking in presence.
Select Comparisons – Lime Ears LE3
Clear Tune Monitors CTM-200 ($350)
The most reasonably-priced of my customs, the CTM-200 is a dual driver that strives towards a flat/neutral sound, which made it the perfect starting point for LE3 comparisons. Compared to the CTM-200, the LE3 has better bass presence and sounds a little warmer overall. The bass is both deeper and more impactful, which results in the Lime Ears having a more natural and dynamic sound. The midrange of the CTM-200 seems more forward overall while the LE3 is more relaxed. The treble of the LE3 is smoother, though the CTM-200 is not a harsh-sounding earphone. The differences in the midrange and treble are minor and can easily be chalked up to preference. Presentation, however, is a win for the Lime Ears – they are simply more spacious and well-separated, with better imaging and depth that cause the CTM-200, with its more forward mids, to sound a bit flat and dull in comparison.
Alclair Reference ($399)
While still pricier than the CTM-200, the Alclair Reference recently underwent a $100 price drop to a more comfortable price point, which has worked in favor of its value proposition. The Reference keeps up with the LE3 very well, with the only major differences stemming from its midrange and treble presentation. Signature-wise, the Reference is a very mildly v-shaped earphone that reminds me more of the UM Miracle and VSonic GR07. Its lower midrange sounds a little withdrawn compared to the more balanced Lime Ears but otherwise the two earphones have a lot in common right up to the upper midrange, which is noticeably grainier on the Reference. This theme continues through the treble, which is more harsh and sibilant with the Alclairs. The extra treble energy of the Reference does make it seem clearer at times, but it’s a dubious tradeoff that causes me to choose the LE3 almost every time.
Unique Melody Miracle ($949)
A top-tier flagship that has been popular for several years running, the Miracle is a mildly v-shaped earphone, though one with fewer caveats than the cheaper Alclair Reference. Compared to the LE3, the Miracle has better deep bass, with extension that easily matches the bass-heavy LE3B tuning of the Lime Ears, but without of the bloat. The UM is a little warmer overall and suffers from a slightly recessed midrange in comparison to the LE3, which actually appears more balanced as a result. The Miracle does catch up in treble presence, with a top end that is more prominent but still a little more refined and just as smooth as that of the Lime Ears. Overall, I was impressed with how well the LE3 kept up with the Miracle - its downsides were not as obvious as those of the LE3B and its midrange was actually preferable much of the time.
JHAudio JH13 Pro Freqphase ($1099)
Currently my CIEM of choice, the JH13 Freqphase is yet another neutrality-oriented custom that made for a natural comparison with the LE3 – indeed, I found the signature of the JH13 to be more similar to the Lime Ears than those of the Alclair and Unique Melody sets. In terms of performance, the LE3 is less extended at either end and not as clean, crisp, and resolving as the JH13. The JH13 also offers up a bit more bass punch, exercises tighter control over its low end, and provides slightly more convincing imaging but the two earphones definitely share a similar sound signature, with the LE3 approximating the sound and performance of the JH13 as well as can be expected for the price.
Select Comparisons – Lime Ears LE3B
EarSonics SM64 ($399)
Like the LE3B, EarSonics’ universal-fit flagship utilizes a 3-way, triple-armature setup and pursues a sound on the warm side of neutral. Compared to the SM64, the bass of the LE3B is a little more enhanced – not in depth, but certainly in impact and overall power. Despite this, the clarity of the LE3B is slightly better and overall detailing appears better as well, likely because the upper midrange dip of the SM64 is not present. There also is more treble energy with the LE3B which, combined with the flatter midrange-treble transition, makes it less forgiving and more prone to exposing sibilance. That’s not to say the LE3B is sibilant on its own – it isn’t – but the SM64 is a more tolerant of such artifacts in recordings. Lastly, the presentation of the LE3B is slightly wider whereas the SM64 appears more intimate, though still far from congested.
1964EARS 1964-V3 ($425)
1964EARS’ triple-BA model is tuned for a decidedly consumer-friendly sound with big bass and sparkly, energetic, treble. The enhanced-bass Lime Ears boast a bit less bass than the V3 and offer a slightly clearer and more neutral overall sound. The midrange of the LE3B is flatter, in contrast to the bumped-up, more forward mids of the V3. The treble is smoother, with less sparkle but also less danger of harshness and sibilance. The V3, on the other hand, tends to be fairly revealing of sibilance and more colored-sounding overall. In terms of presentation, the V3 is more aggressive while the Lime Ears are more laid-back.
Unique Melody Miracle ($949)
Unique Melody’s flagship IEM offers a level sound signature more in line with the regular LE3, but for the sake of posterity I decided to compare it to the LE3B as well. Unsurprisingly, the results are much the same as when the LE3B is pitted against the LE3. Next to the Miracle, the LE3B sounds mid-bassy and bloated, with a warmer overall tone and a slight loss in overall clarity and refinement. The Miracle boasts more treble presence/energy, is more neutral in tone, and enjoys a slightly more spacious presentation. Still, though I found myself leaning towards the Miracle more here than in the LE3/Miracle comparison, the difference between the two can easily be negated by signature preferences.
FitEar To Go! 334 ($1345)
The TG334 is quite similar in performance to the LE3B but whereas the FitEar is unabashedly warm and dark, the Lime Ears at least make an attempt at a reference sound. Overall, the LE3B is more balanced and neutral while still offering good bass punch. The more prominent treble of the LE3B makes it sound a touch clearer and its soundstage is a little more out-of-the-head. Other than that, the two earphones are about even in performance, with both lacking a bit of treble extension and some of the refinement of more neutral sets. I preferred one or the other on most of the tracks used in the comparison, but never strongly.
Value
(8.5/10) – Operational for only a few months so far, Lime Ears is off to a very good start with their first flagships, the LE3 and LE3B. Functionally and aesthetically, the earphones are identical, with the same customization options, construction, and accessories. In terms of sound, the LE3 is a reference monitor that sacrifices a bit of bass depth to maintain a clearer, more prominent midrange while the LE3B is warmer and bassier without throwing accuracy under the bus. Both units offer advantages over the entry-level customs I’ve previously come across and compete with pricier earphones. As for choosing between the two, there’s no right or wrong answer, but I have found the bass depth and dynamics of the LE3B very persuasive in day to day listening.
Note: as of August 2013, the LE3SW is available as a 50€ option, incorporating a switch that allows the user to switch between the sound signatures of the LE3 and LE3B models.
Pros: Both tunings offer competitive performance for their sound signatures
Cons: Cables prone to memory effect
(1A10) Sensaphonics 3MAX
Reviewed October 2013
Details: Silicone-shelled custom from Sensaphonics
Current Price:
$1050from sensaphonics.com
Specs: Driver:
3 BA / 2-way crossover | Imp:
14.2Ω | Sens:
114 dB @ 0.1V | Freq:
20-16k Hz | Cable:
4.2' L-plug
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(5/5) – Shirt clip, cleaning tool, 1/4" adapter, lightweight zippered carrying pouch, and padded Pelican hard-shell storage case
Build Quality
(5/5) – The 3MAX utilizes silicone shells. As is usually the case with silicone, shell clarity isn’t as good as with acrylic monitors but the overall construction is very good. The 3MAX is the only custom earphone in my collection to use coaxial connectors. This means most aftermarket custom earphone cables will not fit, but also allows cords for Shure and some Ultimate Ears universals to be used as reasonably-priced replacements. Finally, the Sensaphonics cable resists oxidation better than other clear cords – a good thing as my other clear cables usually start turning green after just a few months
Isolation
(5/5) – The isolation of the silicone shells is excellent, falling just behind my other silicone-shelled custom, the Spiral Ear 3-way Reference
Microphonics
(5/5) - Pretty much nonexistent
Comfort
(5/5) – The silicone shells of the 3MAX take slightly longer to insert and remove compared to more rigid and slippery acrylic shells but are extremely comfortable once fitted and seem to maintain seal a bit better with changes to the ear canal shape, such as while chewing or talking. Being a custom monitor, the comfort is highly dependent on the quality of the initial impressions and final mold so if the earphones remain uncomfortable after an initial break-in period a re-fit is probably a good idea
Sound
(9.4/10) – Tuned in collaboration with professional mastering engineers, the Sensaphonics 3MAX follows a different sound signature than other musicians’ monitors I’ve tried. Despite the dual woofer design, its sound is focused more on the midrange, especially the upper midrange. The bass has good punch but is not as emphasized as one may expect from an earphone with twin bass drivers. Depth is good – nearly on-par with enhanced-bass earphones such as the Westone ES5 and Heir Audio 8.A. Bass quality is about on par with the universal-fit AKG K3003 – the 3MAX is a little tighter and less mid-bassy, but also less impactful.
The sound of the 3MAX is a bit on the thick side, so while the earphone is fairly neutral in tone, it doesn’t sound analytical. Rather, it has a natural note presentation and tends to emphasize the midrange, placing vocals front and center. As a result, its sound appears more full-bodied next to sets with less prominent mids, such as the Alclair Reference. The emphasis on the upper midrange does cause the earphones to sound a bit “shouty” but the prominent vocals that result are in keeping with Sensaphonics’ goal of encouraging lower-volume listening.
The upper midrange emphasis of the 3MAX gives way to largely smooth treble. There is a bit more treble energy than with the darker-sounding Westone ES5 but less than with the JH13 Pro. The treble doesn’t “sparkle” and is very non-fatiguing – a definite plus for those who intend to wear their customs for hours at a time. In this respect the 3MAX is better than, for example, the AKG K3003 and Alclair Reference. The presentation of the 3MAX is a little on the intimate side, which is not unusual among stage monitors. It is more spacious and open-sounding than the AKG K3003, for example, but sounds a little flat and dull compared to the Heir 8.A.
Select Comparisons
Spiral Ear SE 3-way Reference (est. $790)
Like the 3MAX, the Spiral Ear 3-way uses a three balanced armatures in a full-shell silicone mold. However, despite its single bass driver and 3-way crossover, the Spiral Ear is significantly bassier than the Sensaphonics, offering a more full-bodied low end with quite a bit more impact. It boasts more subbass rumble and can summon up a lot more bass power when the track calls for it, appearing more dynamic as a result.
The more prominent midrange of the 3MAX gives it a forward vocal presentation and makes its mids appear clearer compared to the thicker and warmer-sounding 3-way Reference. The 3MAX is still a bit on the warm side of neutral, but not as much so as the 3-way. Due to the powerful bass of the 3-way, the 3MAX is more balanced overall, but outside of the bass region the response of the Spiral Ear is actually flatter and smoother. In the upper midrange region, the 3MAX boasts extra emphasis, which lends it a brighter tone, while the SE 3-way is very smooth. Lastly, there is a big difference in efficiency between the two earphones, with the Spiral Ear being much less sensitive and requiring more power.
Unique Melody Miracle ($950)
Unique Melody’s 6-driver flagship is tuned for a balanced, slightly laid-back sound, providing a healthy contrast to the 3MAX. Bass quantity is greater on the 3MAX - the Miracle boasts less mid-bass while extension and subbass presence are similar to the Sensaphonics. The Miracle sounds thinner, too, and its clarity is expectedly a bit better. The upper midrange emphasis of the 3MAX makes it sound somewhat “honky” next to the flatter and more laid-back Miracle. Tonally, both are close to neutral but the Miracle is a brighter with its more sparkly and crisp treble presentation. It sounds a little more spacious as well.
JH Audio JH13 Pro Freqphase ($1099)
The JH13 has recently become my benchmark for what a custom monitor should be – balanced, accurate, endlessly resolving, and yet dynamic and fun to listen to. The pro-oriented 3MAX doesn’t pursue the same sound signature, but it’s still interesting to compare the two. Like the UM Miracle, the JH13 is brighter in tone and clearer than the 3MAX. It’s more detailed, too, revealing fine musical nuances more readily and sounding more refined overall. The JH13 boasts similarly ample bass impact on tracks that call for it but also has greater ability to scale back, providing tighter, quicker, less intrusive bass when necessary. It also has more treble energy, sounds more crisp, and is more spacious as well, with a soundstage that boasts better width and depth in comparison to the 3MAX.
Value
(7.5/10) – The Sensaphonics 3MAX may seem expensive for a triple-driver in-ear monitor, but it is a good earphone, though perhaps more so for musicians than casual listeners. One of the few custom manufacturers committed to using silicone shells, Sensaphonics maintains that the material offers advantages in fit, comfort, and noise isolation compared to acrylic. They certainly aren’t wrong - the 3MAX is extremely comfortable and its isolation is second only to the other silicone custom I have – the Spiral Ear 3-way Reference. Its sound signature also works with Sensaphonics’ stated goal of encouraging lower-volume listening – always a respectable focus. It may be limited in customization options compared to most of its acrylic counterparts, but if comfort and isolation are a priority alongside a near-neutral sound, the 3MAX is the custom earphone to get.
Pros: Great isolation & comfort
Cons: Inserting silicone shells takes some getting used to; limited customization options
(1A11) JH Audio JH13 Pro Freqphase
Added Oct 2013
Details: One of the flagship models from Florida-based CIEM experts JH Audio
Current Price:
$1099 from jhaudio.com;
smartphone cable with mic and 1-button remote available for $54.95
Specs: Driver:
6 BA / 3-way crossover | Imp:
28Ω | Sens:
116 dB | Freq:
10-20k Hz | Cable:
4’ L-plug / other lengths available
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4.5/5) – Cleaning tool, Comply Soft Wraps, Otterbox 1000 hard-shell carrying case, and drawstring carrying pouch
Build Quality
(5/5) – The JH13 boasts fantastic fit and finish all around, with crystal-clear shells and faceplates. The cables use the common 2-pin connector. Numerous customization options are available for the earphones via the JH Audio website
Isolation
(4.5/5) - The isolation provided by the custom shells is excellent - slightly below that of silicone-shelled customs but on-par with my UM and Hidition units
Microphonics
(5/5) – No cable noise to speak of
Comfort
(5/5) – The nozzles of my JH13 were cut a bit longer than average, similar to the UM Miracle. As with all acrylic customs, the shells are hard but very comfortable when fitted correctly. If the earphones are uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a refit is probably a good idea. JH Audio does refits at no cost within the first 30 days and for $50 thereafter
Sound
(10/10) – A staple of the audiophile scene since its release in 2009, the JH Audio JH13 Pro underwent an update dubbed “Freqphase” last year. Both the JH13 and the bassier JH16 are currently shipping with the Freqphase tweak, which is meant to ensure phase coherency between the drivers by delivering all frequencies to the ear at once. Regardless of the technical details, the JH13 Pro sounds absolutely fantastic to me. It is tight, balanced, and impossibly clear. The bass is quick and extended, with a few decibels of boost and the ability to produce a good amount of punch when necessary. The JH13 can sound lean and quick one moment, and crank out beats with some serious authority the next. Its tone is, on the whole, a bit warmer than that of the Etymotic Research ER4S, but still close to neutral.
Great dynamics and transparency carry over to all aspects of its sound – in addition to good bass control, the JH13 boasts unbelievable clarity and resolution. The mids are in balance with the bass and expose every nuance of the recording with great definition. The sound is, on the whole, a little fuller and more natural compared to the Etymotic ER4S without sacrificing any clarity whatsoever. Comparing the JH13 to the quad-armature Ultimate Ears UE900, for example, makes the UE set sound muffled, thanks in part to its recessed upper midrange and slightly boomier bass.
The treble of the JH13 is nicely prominent but not at all harsh or sibilant. Treble energy is spot-on, appearing about even with the Etymotic ER4S while doing a similarly good job of minimizing harshness and sibilance. Westone’s flagship custom monitor, the ES5, sounds a little dark in comparison to the JH13 and appears a touch more congested. The JH13, on the other hand, sounds airy and has superb instrument separation and stereo imaging. Is presentation has much better depth than that of the Ety ER4S and an airier, more open feel than that of the UE900. The sum sound is crisp and accurate without missing out on the enjoyment factor, especially for those who don’t need tons of bass boost to tap their toes.
Select comparisons
VSonic GR07 ($179)
VSonic’s dynamic-driver flagship is an order of magnitude less expensive than the JH13 but, as one of the more capable earphones in its price range, makes for an interesting comparison. The most obvious difference between the two lies in the bass – the GR07 has a softer bass presentation that lacks the speed, tightness, and texture of the JH13’s low end. Overall bass quantity is similar between the two earphones but because it lacks the bass control, as well as the more forward midrange, of the JH13, the GR07 sounds boomier in comparison and its low end appears heavier and more intrusive.
The midrange of the GR07 is not as prominent as that of the JH13 and lacks some clarity in comparison. The treble of the VSonics tends to be hotter and vocals generally appear more sibilant. The JH13 sounds significantly smoother, but not for lack of energy. Rather, it follows a treble profile more like that of the Etymotic ER4S, avoiding the peaks that can make the GR07 offensive while maintaining similar overall treble presence. The JH13 also has a more three-dimensional presentation with better depth compared to the VSonic set.
HiFiMan RE-600 ($399)
One of the few accuracy-oriented dynamic-driver earphones in its price range, the RE-600, much like its lower-priced RE-400 sibling, is an impressive performer when it comes to delivering accurate, yet smooth sound. The biggest difference between the RE-600 and JH13 is the treble – the HiFiMan set sounds dull and lacks treble presence in comparison. Its tone is a little warmer overall and there is a touch more bass bleed and less clarity than with the armature-based JH13. The JH13, due in large part to its tighter bass and superior treble presence, appears a little more detailed and textured, and boasts a more spacious and airy presentation with better imaging.
Unique Melody Miracle ($950)
Unique Melody’s flagship is one of my favorite custom-fit earphones and the standard against which I’ve compared all other monitors for the past several years. Its 3-way, 6-driver configuration and balanced, spacious sound make it a natural competitor for the JH13, but on closer inspection the two earphones are as different as they are similar. The bass of the Miracle is rather level whereas the JH13 has its low end boosted by a few decibels. This is especially noticeable in the mid-bass region and gives the JH13 greater overall bass impact. It also makes the Miracle seem more focused on deep bass in comparison as there’s no mid-bass boost to get in the way. Nonetheless, the punchier JH13 still sounds a touch more resolving than the Miracle.
The JH13 boasts more midrange presence and clarity while the UM set has more recessed mids that end up sounding a bit veiled in comparison. At the top, the Miracle is a little smoother, but otherwise similar in both treble energy and top-end extension. The presentation of the JH13 is, on the whole, more forward but both earphones provide a great sense of space and have excellent imaging.
Sensaphonics 3MAX ($1050)
Sensaphonics’ flagship earphone is a pro-oriented monitor with good bass, a mild midrange focus and smooth, inoffensive treble. The JH13 boasts similarly ample bass impact on tracks that call for it but also has greater ability to scale back, providing tighter, quicker, less intrusive bass when necessary. It is brighter, clearer, and more detailed than the 3MAX, revealing fine musical nuances more readily and sounding more refined overall. The JH13 also has better treble energy and sounds more crisp. It is more spacious as well, with a soundstage that boasts better width and depth in comparison to the 3MAX.
Hidition NT 6 ($1200)
The 4-way, 6-driver NT 6 is less bassy than its pricier NT6-Pro sibling, just as the JH13 Pro is less bottom-heavy than the pricier JH16. The similarities between them run deeper, however. For me, both of these monitors are the cream of the crop – impossibly clear and resolving, with very good imaging and lifelike presentations. The differences between them lie largely in sound signature, with the JH13 being a pinch on the warm side of neutral and the NT 6 being slightly bright.
While the low end of the NT 6 is extended, punchy, and dynamic, it doesn’t crank out bass with quite the same authority and impact as the JH13. Personally, I don’t find the low end of the JH13 excessive, but the bass of the Hidition is flatter in profile and a little tighter as a result. The more mid-bassy JH13 carries a slightly warmer tone, though the mids on both earphones are completely free of veiling and fantastically clear. The NT 6 is brighter, with more emphasis on high frequencies, while the JH13 is a little flatter up top. On the soundstage front, the JH13 sounds a little more 3-dimensional and enveloping while the NT 6 has slightly less depth to it. Interestingly, the JH13 Pro is also significantly more sensitive than the NT 6.
FitEar To Go! 334 ($1345)
One of priciest and most exclusive universal-fit earphones in the world, the Japan-made TG334 utilizes a quad-armature configuration to deliver a warm and powerful sound with smooth, relaxed treble. It sounds quite different from the accuracy-oriented JH13 – significantly bassier and darker in tone. The JH13, with its tighter, less powerful low end, makes the TG334 sound quite muddy in comparison. The mids of the TG334 also appear somewhat muffled next to the JH13, with the JH Audio set offering up better treble presence and superior overall balance as well. On the presentation front the two are more similar, but the TG334 is slightly less coherent-sounding than the JH13.
Value
(9.5/10) – The IEM market has changed a lot in the past several years, becoming saturated at an increasing rate. Still, of all of the earphones I’ve tried recently, the JH Audio JH13 Pro has been the biggest eye-opener, delivering clarity and resolution unlike anything else I’ve heard. It effortlessly produces extremely nuanced and refined sound across the entire frequency range, complete with fantastic instrument separation and imaging.
I do believe that the best Hi-Fi component is one that does its job so well, you don’t even know it’s there, and after a year spent with the JH13 Pro I still marvel most at its ability to simply fade away, leaving only the music. In fact, finding anything that mildly displeases me about this earphone is a struggle, but one I really don’t mind.
Pros: Class-leading sound quality; great fit & finish
Cons: N/A
(1A12) 1964EARS V6-Stage
Reviewed November 2013
Details: 6-driver flagship custom in-ear from Portland, OR-based 1964EARS
Starting Price:
$699 from 1964ears.com
Specs: Driver:
6-BA / 3-way crossover | Imp:
22Ω | Sens:
115 dB | Freq:
10-20k Hz | Cable:
4’ L-plug / other lengths available
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(5/5) – Shirt clip, ¼” adapter, cleaning tool, and custom crushproof Pelican storage case
Build Quality
(5/5) – Aside from its triple-bore configuration, the V6-Stage is similar in construction to my 1964-V3. Molding quality is excellent with no bubbles, very clear faceplates, and good finish around the cable sockets and nozzles. It uses a cable with a standard Westone socket and short memory wire section. Options include recessed cable sockets, ambient vents, custom colors, custom artwork, and various exotic faceplates
Isolation
(4/5) – Very good isolation from the fitted acrylic shells
Microphonics
(5/5) – Nonexistent as with most of my custom monitors
Comfort
(5/5) – As with all acrylic customs, the shells are hard but very comfortable. If the earphones are uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a refit is probably a good idea. 1964EARS does refits at no cost within the first 30 days
Sound
(9.7/10) – The 1964EARS V6-Stage is the company’s latest flagship, designed for “stage, studio and everyday music listening”. It utilizes a 3-way, 6-armature configuration – a setup similar to those of the Unique Melody Miracle and JH Audio JH13 Pro. The sound signature of the V6-Stage combines near-neutral bass, a rich and clear midrange, and crisp treble.
The bass of the V6-Stage is slightly above neutral in quantity – a touch less impactful than with the JH13 Pro but more so compared to other reference earphones such as the Custom Art Music One, HiFiMan RE-600, and Etymotic Research ER-4S. Bass depth is very good and the low end is tight and controlled. In a way, the V6-Stage is the best of both worlds – it makes bassier earphones such as the FitEar TG334 sound boomy in comparison without giving a bass quality advantage to flatter sets from HiFiMan, Etymotic Research, and the like.
The midrange of the V6-Stage has a neutral tone with a smooth and rich character that prevents it from sounding “analytical”. Note thickness is good and the mids appear very natural overall. The V6-Stage is not as lean as the Etymotic ER-4S and its upper midrange is a little less prominent. Clarity is excellent –aided by its prominent treble, the 1964EARS unit has an advantage here over sets such as the FitEar TG334 and Heir Audio 8.A, and makes the more treble-shy RE-600 sound downright dull in comparison.
However, the treble is prominent enough to where recording quality becomes important. The earphone is significantly brighter than sets such as the Custom Art Music One and Heir 8.A, and its treble character has a tendency accentuate sibilance. This is somewhat source-dependent and more prone to occurring at higher volumes, but the fact remains that the V6-Stage is less forgiving than even the Etymotic ER-4S. Other than that, the treble is excellent – crisp and well-extended, carrying enough energy to balance out the overall sound, bass emphasis and all.
The impressive end-to-end extension of the V6-Stage also reflects in its presentation, which is broad and spacious. The soundstage is larger compared to most universals as well as many customs, such as the Music One. It is a touch more constrained than that of the JH13 Pro but on the whole the presentation of the V6-Stage is as well-rounded as anything I’ve heard in its price bracket.
Select Comparisons
EarSonics SM64 ($399)
The SM64 is a triple-armature universal-fit earphone that impresses, among other things, with its bass response. Compared to the V6-Stage, its bass reaches deeper and hits harder but still maintains excellent control. In the midrange, the 1964EARS perform better – while the SM64 is biased towards the lower midrange, the V6-Stage is quite level throughout, offering flatter upper mids and a more balanced and neutral sound. It sounds clearer, less congested, and more refined than the SM64 except for a bit of peakiness in the treble, which makes the V6-Stage sound a little hotter and more “tizzy” next to the darker EarSonics.
Alclair Reference ($399)
Alclair’s Reference monitor pursues a sound signature very similar to that of the V6-Stage, falling a bit short of the V6 in overall performance. Bass quantity is similar between the earphones but the Reference is slightly mid-recessed and sounds more “dry” whereas the V6-Stage has a fuller, smoother sound with a more prominent midrange. Treble performance is also similar between the two – both units have a tendency to exaggerate sibilance and sound a little “hot” on certain tracks, with the V6-Stage performing a bit better in this regard. In terms of presentation, too, the V6-Stage comes across as more versatile and convincing, with a little more imaging prowess and better balance of width and depth.
1964EARS 1964-V3 ($425)
While the similarly-priced Alclair Reference bears a strong resemblance to the V6-Stage, 1964EARS’ own triple-driver sounds quite different. The 1964-V3 is bassier and more “boomy” than the V6-Stage, with the powerful mid-bass response providing much greater impact. This results in a warmer and at times more bloated sound. The V6-Stage, with its tighter, less powerful bass, also has better clarity, especially in the midrange, and sounds more refined and detailed. It is more balanced and neutral whereas the V3 is more colored. In terms of presentation, the boomier bass of the V3 makes it a touch more congested but both units provide a good sense of space.
Westone ES5 ($950)
Westone’s flagship custom is a warm and smooth affair that emphasizes it lows and mids. The ES5 has more bass than the 1964EARS V6-Stage, but the V6 is a little more textured and controlled. Its mids are leaner and clearer while the ES5 sounds fuller and more forward in the midrange. The treble of the Westones is smoother but the overall sound is darker and a bit more muffled. The 1964EARS, on the other hand, have treble that is brighter and peakier, and tend to be more sibilant. I find the V6-Stage to sound more natural overall, though the peaks in the treble region sometimes cause it to sound a little “tizzy” in comparison. In terms of presentation, the ES5 tends to be more intimate, especially in the midrange, whereas the V6-Stage is wider and more laid-back, a-la the UM Miracle.
Unique Melody Miracle ($950)
The UM Miracle has always impressed me most with its ability to sound neutral and balanced, yet remain smooth and not at all analytical. Compared to the Miracle, the V6-Stage produces a little more bass, especially mid-bass, lending it a slightly fuller and warmer sound. The 1964EARS sound a bit more colored as a result of the bass emphasis whereas the Miracle is more neutral and balanced. The Miracle also remains flatter through the upper midrange, boasting more presence there a-la the Etymotic ER-4S. At the top, the V6-Stage is more sibilant despite having similar overall treble energy, while the Miracle is smoother and has a bit more air. The Miracle is slightly more open-sounding with a marginally more spacious soundstage.
Value
(9/10) – The mid-level 1964EARS customs I’ve tried have offered solid value for money, and the new 1964EARS V6-Stage is doing the same for the flagship segment of the still-developing custom in-ear market. The earphones are very well-made and the sound hits the sweet spot, falling just warm of neutral with a bit of added bass, mids that are clear but not thin, and crisp, if slightly hot, treble. It is an extremely competent earphone that competes with pricier models such as the Westone ES5 and Heir Audio 8.A. Like the less expensive 1964-V3, the V6-Stage is an easy recommendation in its price range and, in contrast to the V3, should work for professional applications as well as consumer audio.
Pros: Great molding quality; isolation and comfort of a custom in-ear; impressive overall performance
Cons: Can accentuate sibilance
(1A13) Noble 4S
Reviewed November 2013
Details: 4-driver silicone-shelled CIEM from Noble Audio, a CA-based CIEM company run by The Wizard and team, previously of Heir Audio fame
Starting Price: $999 from nobleaudio.com
Specs: Driver: 4 BA / 3-way crossover | Imp: >30Ω | Cable: 4′ 45-degree plug
Wear Style: Over-the-ear
Accessories (4/5) – Cleaning tool, Noble Audio stickers and wristbands, and padded hard-shell storage case
Build Quality (5/5) – It’s safe to say that Heir Audio’s legendary aesthetic flair has carried over to Noble, because the 4S unit I have on hand here is simply stunning. To escape the artwork limitations of silicone shells, Noble has fitted their silicone customs with acrylic faceplates, which allow full customization. Attention to detail is excellent, down to the neat Noble logos printed on the sides of the housings. The internal setup of the quad-driver 4S is dual low, single mid, and single high with a dual bore configuration. The earphones use a conventional two-pin socket and come with a Westone ES-style cable, but orders placed with Noble’s US office will instead ship with an upgraded cable that has a longer memory wire section, a 45-degree plug, and is braided below the y-split akin to the Heir Magnus-1 cable. This new cable also works with smartphone cases a little better as a result of its plug being narrower
Isolation (5/5) – The isolation of the silicone shells is excellent, falling just behind my most-isolating custom, the Spiral Ear 3-way Reference
Microphonics (5/5) – Nonexistent
Comfort (5/5) – The silicone shells of the Noble earphones take slightly longer to insert and remove compared to more rigid and slippery acrylic shells but are extremely comfortable once fitted and maintain seal a bit better with changes to the ear canal shape, such as while chewing or talking. Being a custom monitor, the comfort is highly dependent on the quality of the initial impressions and final mold, and if the earphones remain uncomfortable after an initial break-in period a re-fit is probably a good idea. Noble performs refits at no charge within 30 days
Sound (9.9/10) – I freely admit to being a sucker for a pretty face(plate), one of my few character flaws. As expected, I was immediately enamored with the appearance of my Noble 4S, so it’s safe to say I would have been doubly disappointed had it turned out to sound–well–disappointing. Happily, the 4S sounds rather good, with a neutral and natural sound that is, on the whole, more balanced compared to my other high-end customs.
The bass of the Noble 4S works for me in both quality and quantity – it is not the most plentiful in the subbass region, giving up a bit of depth to sets such as the UM Miracle and Westone ES5, but it has a nice, healthy, balanced punch akin to the Miracle and HiFiMan RE-400. The Noble 4S is definitely not an enhanced-bass earphone but there’s a lot to like about the clean, natural low end. The 4S is less bassy than the VSonic GR07, for example, but its low end is tighter and cleaner.
The midrange of the Noble 4S is very flat and neutral in tone. It makes both the Miracle and GR07 sound a little mid-recessed and appears a touch clearer as a result. Next to the smooth and liquid-sounding Miracle, the midrange of the 4S is more transparent and has a “raw” quality to it. The midrange is also where the Noble differs most from entry-level and mid-tier customs – even neutral-sounding ones like the Alclair Reference and Lime Ears LE3 can’t match the clarity of the 4S. Note thickness and clarity always make for a precarious balancing act and the 4S performs as well as any other earphone I’ve heard on this front, making the Etymotic ER4S sound a touch thin without yielding to it in clarity.
Moving through the upper midrange, the 4S remains very smooth and pleasant. It has a little less upper midrange presence than, for example, the Ety ER4S but overall the sound is very close. In fact, out of all the universal monitors I used in my comparisons, the ER4S was closest to the Noble in tone and balance. The Noble 4S has very smooth treble, too – it definitely isn’t lacking in treble energy but also isn’t as revealing of harshness or as critical of recording quality as, for example, the UE Reference Monitor and JH Audio JH13. The GR07 sounds quite splashy in comparison while the Etymotic ER4S is more similar, but still a touch brighter than the Noble. The presentation of the 4S is open and airy. Soundstage size is good – about on-par with the Heir 8.A and Hidition NT 6 customs and more spacious and open compared to the less expensive Lime Ears LE3 – and overall imaging is just short of the JH Audio JH13.
Select Comparisons
HiFiMan RE-400 ($99)
The RE-400 is one of my favorite earphones in the sub-$200 range, pursuing a balanced, slightly mid-focused sound signature with very smooth treble. While the RE-400 is a touch on the warm side of neutral, the Noble 4S is balanced out by its brighter, more energetic treble. The bass of the two earphones is similar in impact but the Noble is tighter and resolves detail better in the bass region. The midrange, where the RE-400’s focus lies, sounds veiled with the HiFiMan set compared to the 4S.
The treble of the RE-400, too, is dull and lacks crispness in comparison, causing it to sound muffled next to the crystal-clear Noble. The brighter Noble is nonetheless very smooth-sounding when it comes to treble and has a wider presentation as well, making the RE-400 sound a bit small and in-the-head. There is, of course, a tenfold price difference between these two earphones and much less than a tenfold difference in performance, but, great as the RE-400 is, it can’t keep up here.
VSonic VC1000 ($125)
Another relatively inexpensive universal monitor, the VC1000 uses dual balanced armature drivers and actually makes for a better matchup against the Noble than the RE-400. For the most part, the VC1000 can compete with the Noble in clarity but has a leaner sound and its bass lacks the tactile impact of the Noble. The Noble sounds more natural when it comes to bass impact and body. The Noble also has a thicker note presentation and fuller sound. While the earphones are similarly balanced overall, the Noble is smoother and more natural. The VC1000 sounds splashy in comparison and has a narrower, more in-the-head presentation. Overall, the signatures of these two earphones are a pretty good match and the Noble can be considered a VC1000 upgrade quite easily.
1964EARS V6-Stage ($699)
The V6-Stage is one of 1964EARS’ flagship earphones and provides a nicely balanced sound. The Noble 4S pursues a different type of reference signature. For one, it has less bass – the bass extension is similar between the two earphones but the V6-Stage has more impact and its sound signature is on the whole warmer and more colored than that of the Noble. The Noble, on the other hand is flatter and more neutral, and is much more forgiving of sibilance than the V6-Stage. The 4S also has a broader soundstage and provides a slightly airier, more spacious presentation than the 1964EARS set.
Ultimate Ears Reference Monitor (UERM) Universal Demo ($999)
The quad-driver, silicone-shelled Noble is different from my other “reference” custom IEMs mostly in that its sound is more mid-centric. Sets like the JH13, UERM, V6-Stage, and even the Miracle tend to have more bass and stronger, more energetic treble than the Noble. The 4S, on the other hand, reminds me of HiFiMan earphones in the way it presents a neutral signature in a more mid-centric way without masking detail. It sounds very flat, with less bass compared to the UERM and a more neutral tone. The Noble is an amazingly smooth earphone that makes the UERM seem a little peaky in the treble region. Tonally, the 4S makes the UERM sound a little colored – no small feat by any means. In comparison to the more level Noble, the UE Reference Monitor has a bassier sound and added treble energy.
JH Audio JH13 Pro ($1099)
JH Audio’s 6-driver model is rather neutral and balanced save for a small bass bump. The 4S differs from it in sound signature more so than performance. On the whole, the 4S sounds more neutral to me. The JH13 is a little warmer and has more bass impact and depth. It is also a bit more full-sounding as a result, which makes its outstanding clarity all the more impressive. The 4S sounds more mid-centric – unlike the JH13 and most of my other custom IEMs, the 4S is not even a little v-shaped in signature. Moving on up, the JH13 has more treble sparkle while the 4S is smoother and more forgiving. Personally, I don’t find either the bass or treble of the JH13 excessive, but the neutrality of the 4S appeals to me a great deal. Lastly, due in part to its deeper and more powerful bass, the JH13 sounds a touch more dynamic overall and provides a more layered presentation but the Noble is quite close here as well.
Hidition NT 6 ($1200)
While the JH13 is a neutral-sounding monitor with a bit of added bass, the Hidition NT 6 leans the opposite way – towards a brighter sound with a cooler tonal character. The triple bass drivers of the NT 6 grant it better bass extension with more emphasis on subbass compared to the Noble 4S but mid-bass impact is similar – neither earphone suffers from elevated mid-bass. The 4S does have a bit more presence in the lower midrange, giving it a fuller, slightly warmer sound, very similar to the “neutral” tone of the HiFiMan RE-400. Overall, the 4S sounds a little mid-focused but also very natural and neutral. The NT 6, in comparison, has less prominent mids and can at times appear a touch clearer thanks to its brighter tone. Lastly, the treble of the 4S is more forgiving but remains just as clean and resolving as that of the NT 6.
Heir Audio 8.A ($1299)
Heir Audio’s 8-driver flagship is a warm and smooth affair, with endlessly extended bass and very non-fatiguing treble. Compared to the Noble 4S, the 8.A is significantly warmer and more bottom-heavy. It has quite a bit more bass, especially deep bass, providing a more visceral and tactile experience. However, even next to the bassy Heir, the 4S doesn’t sound anemic or thin and the bottom end. The 4S is more neutral in the midrange and brighter at the top. The treble of the darker-sounding 8.A is even smoother and more forgiving than that of the Noble, which is great news for those whose greatest audio-related fear is the potential for listening fatigue. Overall, aside from the huge difference in bass quantity, there are quite a lot of commonalities between these two earphones but the more neutral and accurate Noble appeals to me quite a bit more.
Value (9/10) – The Noble 4S is a neutral-sounding monitor that is, on the whole, more balanced than the other “reference” customs I have here. Its ultra-smooth, slightly mid-focused sound invokes impressions of a cross between Etymotic Research and HiFiMan universals and makes it a direct upgrade to certain other custom-fit sets, such as the Clear Tune Monitors CT-200 and Lime Ears LE3.
The aesthetics of the Noble 4S are reminiscent of Heir Audio – that is to say, fantastic – with the Wizard continuing to experiment with new looks and materials, and the comfort and isolation of the silicone shells are second to none. All in all, the 4S is one of the very few earphones I can’t find much to complain about with, and that alone makes it worth recommending.
Pros: Very clear, neutral, and natural sound; excellent fit, finish, and design; superb comfort and noise isolation of silicone
Cons: N/A
(1A14) Clear Tune Monitors WLS-5
Reviewed November 2013
Details: 5-driver flagship from Florida-based Clear Tune Monitors
Starting Price:
$800 from cleartunemonitors.com
Specs: Driver:
5 BA / 3-way crossover | Imp:
20Ω | Sens:
124 dB | Freq:
20-20k Hz | Cable:
3.9' L-plug
Wear Style:
Over-the-ear
Accessories
(4/5) – Cleaning tool and small hard shell pelican case
Build Quality
(5/5) – The WLS-5 is part of Clear Tune Monitors’ Wood Legit Series, so called for the use of real wood faceplates. The faceplate on my unit is definitely substantial – a thick wooden slab with an engraved CTM logo. The unit looks great overall, with a metallic brown swirl in the acrylic housings to match the faceplates. The WLS-5 utilizes a triple-bore setup and boasts detachable cables in the standard 2-pin configuration. The cable is twisted and on the whole quite typical except for the longer memory wire section, which I rather like
Isolation
(4.5/5) – My WLS-5 was made with long nozzles so the isolation is excellent – slightly below that of silicone-shelled customs but on-par with my UM and JH Audio units
Microphonics
(5/5) – Nonexistent
Comfort
(5/5) – As with all acrylic customs, the shells are hard but very comfortable when fitted correctly. If the earphones are uncomfortable after an initial break-in period, a refit is probably a good idea.
Sound
(9.5/10) – Clear Tune Monitors describes the sound tuning of the Wood Legit Series earphones as “extremely warm and punchy”. While the flagship WLS-5 is not overly warm to my ears, it certainly does have good punch. The bass is not the deepest, but emphasis picks up quickly and it can hit quite hard – certainly much harder than Clear Tune Monitors’ dual-driver CT-200 model. Bass impact is greater than with the average custom monitor and about on-par with my benchmark, the JH Audio JH13 Pro, in being a few dB north of neutral.
Emphasis drops off a bit for the midrange, which is less forward than with sets like the JH13 and Ultimate Ears In-Ear Reference Monitor (UERM). Note presentation is a little thinner here as well, which affords the WLS-5 great clarity but also makes the mids sound a touch dry and recessed, not unlike what happens with JVC’s carbon nanotube earphones, such as the FXD80.
The WLS-5 gains presence in the upper midrange, strongly reminding me of the similarly pro-oriented Sensaphonics 3MAX. The lower treble has good presence as well, though top-end extension ultimately doesn’t quite keep up with the JH Audio JH13, resulting in a slightly darker overall tone and a presentation with less “air”. The relative emphasis on the upper mids and treble gives the WLS-5 a slightly “shouty” character, which again reminds me of the 3MAX as well as the Japan-exclusive j-Phonic K2 SP monitors. Despite this, the top end of the WLS-5 is surprisingly forgiving compared, for example, to the Alclair Reference and 1964EARS V6-Stage customs, as well as universals such as the VSonic GR07. The presentation, likewise, is competent – a little narrower than average, but well-positioned and accurate.
Worth noting also is the high sensitivity of the WLS-5 – it is highly recommended to use the earphone with a noise-free source as background hiss can get quite noticeable with a subpar audio player.
Select Comparisons
Clear Tune Monitors CT-200 ($350)
One of Clear Tune Monitors’ lower-end models, the dual-driver CT-200 provides a sound radically different from that of the Wood Legit Series earphones – smooth, mid-centric, and light on subbass. The WLS-5 is significantly more extended at the bottom end, providing deeper bass with more punch, and makes the sub-bass roll-off of the CT-200 very obvious.
Moving up, the WLS-5 is clearer and more resolving than the CT-200, especially in the midrange. The lower-end model, in comparison, lacks crispness and sounds a little smeared and lacking in detail. The WLS-5 has more upper midrange emphasis and more treble energy as well. The CT-200 has a more laid-back, out-of-the-head presentation while the WLS-5 is more forward and aggressive, due in part to the upper midrange emphasis. Despite this, the WLS-5 has slightly better overall imaging thanks to its crisp and clean note presentation.
Alclair Reference ($399)
The triple-driver Alclair Reference follows a balanced, slightly v-shaped sound signature. Compared to the WLS-5, the Reference has slightly deeper bass but lacks a bit of bass control and tightness. In the midrange, the WLS-5 is a little clearer and more resolving. Despite its upper midrange boost, it still sounds smoother and more refined overall compared to the Reference, especially in the treble region. The Alclair unit, on the other hand, sounds peaky and is more prone to sibilance. The presentation of the Reference is a bit wider overall, however, and unlike the CT-200 it keeps up with the WLS-5 in imaging, too.
EarSonics SM64 ($399)
The SM64 is a universal-fit earphone with quite a lot of bass for a balanced armature setup. Next to the WLS-5, the bass of the SM64 goes deeper and provides more impact and rumble. Unfortunately this also makes it sound a little muddy in comparison, especially in the midrange. The WLS-5 is clearer and brighter overall, with a lot more emphasis in the upper midrange and lower treble. It does tend to be a little harsher than the SM64, but it’s not bad at all considering how much more the upper mid and treble energy it has.
1964EARS V6-Stage ($699)
1964EARS’ latest flagship is a neutral-sounding earphone in the same price class as the WLS-5. The V6-Stage is a little tighter and more refined in the bass region but has more presence in the lower mids, which gives it a slightly warmer and richer sound. The bass of the WLS-5 is a bit deeper and more impactful but the earphone has dryer, more recessed mids compared to the V6-Stage. However, it gains emphasis towards the upper midrange, which often makes it sound clearer. Realistically, though, neither earphone lacks clarity or has a real advantage over the other here.
The 1964EARS set is more sibilant, especially on tracks already prone to sibilance, but also has a bit more treble “sparkle” and extension. The WLS-5 is less extended, but more forgiving of sibilance and less critical of recording quality. Overall, the V6-Stage does sound a little more natural on some tracks, but each of these earphones has a tendency to make the other sound flawed.
Westone ES5 ($950)
Westone’s flagship custom is a 5-driver, just like the WLS-5, but boasts a warmer, more bass-biased signature. It has deeper, more powerful bass than the Clear Tune Monitors and a richer, fuller, more prominent midrange. The WLS-5, on the other hand, boasts a thinner note presentation and is a touch clearer. Its upper midrange and treble are more prominent, lending it a brighter sound. The ES5 offers up a darker tone but is very, very smooth and has a more spacious soundstage. Neither earphone has great treble reach. Overall, the ES5 is a little more convincing from a tonal standpoint, but the WLS-5 is not far behind and has an advantage in clarity.
Unique Melody Miracle ($950)
The 6-driver Miracle is a top-tier earphone built around a 3-way, 6-driver configuration. Tonally, it is more neutral than the WLS-5 and has a more coherent sound. It lacks the bass presence of the WLS-5, as well as the emphasized mid-treble region, exhibiting great smoothness through the upper midrange and treble. The upper midrange lift of the WLS-5 throws off its tonality in comparison to the Miracle and makes it sound a bit “shouty”. The top end of the Miracle is also more extended and it sounds more spacious overall.
Value
(7.5/10) – The Clear Tune Monitors WLS-5 is a uniquely-voiced custom monitor oriented towards the pro audio market and doesn’t share many similarities with the lower-end CT-200 model. Instead, it is a less expensive, acrylic-shelled alternative to the Sensaphonics 3MAX. Like the 3MAX, its sound is characterized by a prominent upper midrange, though the WLS-5 also boasts excellent bass presence. It offers deep canals – what I normally see referred to as “musician’s fit” – and isolates rather well as a result. Add the excellent fit and finish with the engraved wood face plates and the WLS-5 is a musician’s truly monitor unlike anything else out there.
Pros: Great clarity and excellent bass; excellent fit & finish
Cons: Musician-oriented tuning with a distinct sound profile
(1A15) Gorilla Ears GX-4b
Details: Quad-driver custom in-ear from North Carolina-based Gorilla Ears
Starting price: $799 (manufacturer’s page)
Specs: Driver: 4 BA / 3-way crossover | Imp: 20Ω | Sens: 120 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug
Wear Style: Over-the-ear
Accessories (4/5) – Cleaning cloth, cleaning tool, drawstring carrying pouch, and plastic padded storage case
Build Quality (5/5) – Gorilla Ears earphones differ from the other acrylic custom in-ear monitors (CIEMs) I’ve encountered in that the faceplates are pre-manufactured and feature molded sockets for the 2-pin cables on the front. Normally, faceplates are made together with the rest of the in-ear monitor and have the cable connectors on the side. This allows custom colors and artwork, but necessitates a thicker faceplate and creates potential for variation in the fit and finish of the connectors. The pre-made faceplates of the Gorilla Ears have a lower profile and more secure fit for the cables, but also reduce all faceplate customization down to just four basic color options and no graphics. The cable connectors on my unit do feel tighter than with most of my other CIEMs and the construction quality is excellent overall. The included cable is twisted above the y-split and braided below. It is gray in color, which seems to be preventing the oxidation typical of clear cables
Isolation (4.5/5) – Isolation is excellent on my GX-4b unit, which was made with longer than average nozzles. It is slightly below that of silicone-shelled customs but on-par with other acrylic units
Microphonics (5/5) – Nonexistent
Comfort (5/5) – As with all acrylic custom-fit in-ear monitors, the shells of the Gorilla Ears are hard but very comfortable. Good impressions/ear molds are very important for the final fit. If the earphones are uncomfortable after an initial break-in/adjustment period, I recommend getting them refitted. Gorilla Ears carry a 30-day refit warranty
Sound (9.4/10) – The GX-4b utilizes four BA drivers in a 3-way, triple-bore configuration with dual armatures handling the bass. The first thing I noticed is the extreme efficiency of this earphone – it may just be the most sensitive IEM I’ve ever come across. The efficiency has its benefits – for instance, the GX-4b has no trouble reaching ear-splitting volumes even with limited-output sources – and also some downsides – namely, audible hiss with outputs that have even a moderately high noise floor and difficulty dialing in low volumes with sources not designed for sensitive IEMs.
The sound of the Gorilla Ears is warm, smooth, and intimate, with moderately enhanced bass and slightly relaxed treble. It definitely sounds like a stage IEM, with tuning in the vein of high-end universal stage monitors such as the Westone UM3X and EarSonics SM3. Among higher-end CIEMs, the GX-4b is closest perhaps to the Heir Audio 8.A (albeit with a slightly warmer, less balanced sound signature and more forward/intimate presentation) and Westone ES50 (with the GX-4b having more bass and a smoother, thicker, more forgiving sound that lags the Westones a bit in resolution).
The low end is the star of the show here, with good extension, rumble, and punch. Bass presence is excellent – the popular HiFiMan RE-400, for instance, sounds decidedly mid-centric and bass-light in comparison to the Gorilla Ears. The GX-4b has better bass depth and impact, providing a more solid footing for its sound, but still maintains similarly good bass quality. On the other hand it is not as bassy and warm as the similarly-priced Sony MDR-Z5 while sounding tighter, less muddy, and less intrusive and overbearing at the low end.
The midrange of the GX-4b is warm and forward. The combination of bass enhancement and lack of midrange recession provides a rich, full-bodied sound – thicker, for instance, than that of the RE-400. Also, in contrast to many (perhaps most) of the other custom in-ears I’ve tried, treble is not accented at all, maintaining a very smooth and forgiving sound – just a hair less so than the slightly laid-back highs of the RE-400 and Shure SE535. There is a tiny bit of grain, but less than with the InEar StageDiver SD-2, which is impressive. At the same time, the treble is not lacking severely in presence – the Gorilla Ears are not dark the way that the basshead Sony MDR-Z5 is. All in all, it’s a well-balanced top end that can range from “slightly dull” to “slightly grainy” from track to track.
The presentation of the GX-4b is forward, but not compressed or congested. It is similar to the RE-400, but less narrow and in-the-head, with more depth to the soundstage and a more open overall sound. This again reminds me of high-end universal-fit stage monitors such as the Westone UM3X (or UM PRO 30) and EarSonics SM3.
Select Comparisons
InEar StageDiver 2 ($449)
The StageDiver SD-2 and GX-4b both have their origins in pro audio and share many similarities in their tuning and overall performance. For comfort and noise isolation I definitely preferred the custom fit of the GX-4b, which justifies a large chunk of the price difference between the two. The differences in performance are less clear-cut. however. Both earphones are on the warm side of neutral, with punchy bass and smooth treble. The GX-4b is much more sensitive, more forward, and a little warmer. The common trade-off between bass and clarity is present to a small extent – the Gorilla Ears are slightly bassier while the SD-2 is a bit clearer and tighter at the low end. However, the GX-4b is smoother up top than the SD-2, which tends to be a hair more grainy.
1964EARS 1964-V3 ($499)
The GX-4b and 1964-V3 make for a good match-up in that both are extremely efficient, enhanced-bass acrylic CIEMs. The biggest difference between them is in the extra clarity and brightness of the 1964EARS unit and the buttery smoothness of the Gorilla Ears. In general, the GX-4b is warmer, smoother, and significantly more forgiving than the 1964-V3. Its presentation is more forward and intimate, however, giving it more of a “stage monitor” sound a-la Westone UM PRO 30 or EarSonics SM3.
Bass quantity is very similar between the 1964s and Gorilla Ears but the V3 has noticeably more treble presence and energy for a more v-shaped overall sound. It is brighter, but also harsher and more sibilance-prone than the GX-4b. I like the extra clarity and spaciousness of the 1964EARS unit, but when it came to treble I ended up wishing the V3 (and the higher-end V6-Stage, for that matter) were as smooth as the GX-4b.
EarSonics Velvet ($699)
EarSonics’ luxury universal-fit monitor costs about the same as a GX-4b and performs on a similar level while missing out on the custom-fit form factor of the Gorilla Ears. Surprisingly, even in the “low bass” setting, the Velvet is bassier and even smoother than the GX-4b.
The midrange of the GX-4b is slightly drier and the top end is a bit more revealing. The Velvet, on the other hand, is even smoother and does an unbelievably good job of killing sibilance and harshness. The Velvet at times sounds clearer but on some tracks its heavier bass gets in the way a bit more. The presentation of the Velvet is less forward while the GX-4b is significantly more intimate, and much more sensitive as well.
Lime Ears LE3B ($700)
Lime Ears’ triple-driver enhanced-bass model was the closest match I could find for the Gorilla Ears from a sound signature standpoint among all of my customs. The two are pretty similar except for the GX-4b being warmer and more intimate and the Lime Ears tending to be more neutral and laid-back. The presentation of the Lime Ears, combined with its fluid note presentation, makes it even smoother while the strong, forward midrange of the GX-4b sounds a touch more shouty, but also gives it a slight clarity advantage over the Lime Ears.
Value (7.5/10) – The Gorilla Ears GX-4b is a full-shell acrylic CIEM with a warm and smooth sound signature that makes it a great do-no-wrong in-ear monitor for stage use. There’s plenty of bass, pretty good clarity and resolution, and extremely high efficiency, which is often expected of stage IEMs. Of course you also get all the usual upsides of a custom-fit monitor – comfort, noise isolation, low cable noise, and very good construction. On that note, though the unique pre-made faceplates of Gorilla Ears IEMs limit customization, I quite like the low-profile fit and tight cable sockets that result.
It’s tough to talk about value with a $700 in-ear monitor, but the GX-4b is competitive in sound and more than competitive as an overall package, and with the additional advantage (for US customers, at least) of being based out of North Carolina, it has no trouble earning a recommendation.
Pros: Smooth, warm, bass-heavy sound; all the typical perks of a full-shell custom monitor plus a lower profile in the ear; cable resists oxidation well
Cons: Not for those seeking a flat freq. response, extreme clarity, or a huge soundstage; faceplate customization very limited compared to other acrylic CIEMs
(1A16) EarSonics Velvet
Added September 2015
Brief: Variable-tuning universal-fit earphone from French IEM experts EarSonics
MSRP: €699 (approx. $800)
Current Price: $699 from Amazon.com
Specs: Driver: Triple Balanced Armature w/ 3-way Crossover | Imp: 31.5 Ω – 41.5 Ω (depending on sound setting) | Sens: 116 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9′ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock double-flanges; Westone STAR tips, MEElec M6 double-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear
Accessories (4.5/5) – Small (1 pair) and regular (4 pairs) double-flange silicone tips, large single-flange silicone tips, cleaning tool, antibacterial wipes (2), 6.3mm adapter, flathead screwdriver for adjusting the sound tuning, and zippered protective carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The lightweight shells of the Velvet are made of plastic and come in either black or clear. The twisted cables are detachable and feature a memory wire section and standard 2-pin connectors. The construction is solid and the overall design is very understated – all that really stands out are the tuning screws, which are accessible from the faceplates (more on these in the sound section). Two minor complaints – first, the plastic of the tuning screws is rather soft, and can be scratched easily with the included screwdriver. Second, there are no external filters on the nozzles of the earphones, so the included cleaning tool should be used periodically to remove any earwax buildup
Isolation (4/5) – Isolation is quite good with the included double-flange tips – about on-par with the SM64 model
Microphonics (5/5) – Basically nonexistent, as with all similar designs
Comfort (4/5) – The Velvet has a relatively small footprint in the ear, reminding me of the Noble universals. The angular design of the housings harkens back to the EarSonics SM2/SM3 more so than the smoother shape of the SM64 and can introduce some pressure points in small ears but on the whole the earphones are lightweight and very comfortable
Sound (9.4/10) – The EarSonics Velvet is a 3-way, triple balanced armature earphone featuring variable sound tunings selectable via a built-in tuning screw on each earpiece. In my experience the tunings mainly affect the bass of the earphones, with the full clockwise position yielding maximum bass and full counterclockwise – the most balanced sound. The three marked settings are “tight” (minimum bass), “balanced” (medium bass), and “warm” (maximum bass).
An explanation on the Velvet webpage indicates that EarSonics considers listening volume a factor when selecting the best sounding tuning to use, with “tight” being best-suited for low-volume listeners and “warm” for high-volume listeners. The nomenclature is relative, of course – per headphone community conventions, all three of the Velvet’s the sound profiles are on the warm and bassy side and just differ in degree.
With that said, the Velvet is an excellent earphone. It actually shares quite a few similarities with the far more expensive FitEar TG334 – both are BA-based earphones with enhanced bass and fairly level mids and highs yielding good overall clarity. Admittedly, the Velvet is a little less neutral – its upper mids are slightly brighter and the bass hump is a little more audible. It is also much less sensitive, but at their core the two are much more similar than they are different.
All three of the Velvet’s sound settings have significantly higher than average bass impact (especially for a BA earphone) and a nice balance of mid-bass and sub-bass. Compared, for instance, to flatter IEMs such as the InEar StageDiver SD-2 and Shure SE535, the Velvet sounds warmer and offers more bass depth and impact. Compared to hybrid earphones such as the DUNU DN-2000 and FLC Technologies FLC8, which tend to have very good bass extension with little mid-bass boost, the Velvet sounds more full-bodied and impactful, and can be considered “bassier” in the conventional sense.
One of the things I like best about the bass of the Velvet – especially in the “tight” and “balanced” configurations – is that, while noticeably enhanced, it never becomes overwhelming to the point of being fatiguing. Unlike, for instance, the Sony XBA Z5 and InEar StageDiver SD-3, which have comparable bass quantity, the low end of the Velvet never feels overwhelmingly bassy. This may stop me from recommending the Velvet to a basshead, but for pretty much all other listeners it is definitely an asset.
The mids of the Velvet are surprisingly clear for a warmer-sounding earphone – much like those of the FitEar TG334. For instance, the Velvet has no less clarity than the flatter, more mid-centric StageDiver SD-2. The treble is also very well-balanced and accomplishes the rare feat of being smooth and non-fatiguing without sounding dull or rolled-off. There is more sparkle and presence than with the SD-2, but not too much so – the treble is not very bright compared to the DN-2000 or FLC8, which means the Velvet loses out on some of the perceived clarity those earphones gain from their extra treble energy but also sounds a little richer and more full-bodied. The other upside, of course, is that the Velvet is less prone to harshness and sibilance.
The deep, impactful bass and good end-to-end presence of the Velvet benefit its presentation. The soundstage doesn’t have the sheer width of earphones with more laid-back mids (like the DN-2000 and FLC8), but it ends up sounding well-layered and versatile. Compared, for instance, to the rather flat StageDiver SD-2, the Velvet does sound more lively and dynamic by a margin. There are earphones that have all that plus a wider soundstage, but they are few and far between – the only one that currently comes to mind is the FitEar TG334.
One last thing to note – while better in this regard than the SM64 model, the Velvet is not very sensitive for a BA earphone, with much lower efficiency than your typical Shure/Westone/Ultimate Ears IEM.
Select Comparisons
EarSonics SM64 ($449)
While both the Velvet and the older SM64 can be classified as having a warm and smooth sound, they actually sound fairly different from each other. I kept the Velvet in its minimum-bass (“tight sound”) setting for this comparison, and even then it offered more mid-bass impact than the SM64. I happen to think that the SM64 has fantastic bass – punchy and well-extended, yet linear in response and free of bloat. As a result of its extra mid-bass boost, however, the Velvet is a little more rich and lush-sounding.
The Velvet also lacks the upper midrange dip of the SM64. If not for this dip, the SM64 would sound significantly more neutral than the Velvet; as is, the Velvet is just a little more colored. The greater upper midrange presence helps it sound clearer than the SM64 despite its mid-bass hump. Vocals are fuller and more intelligible on the Velvet, and the overall sound is more cohesive. A side effect is that it is less tolerant of sibilance – while the SM64 does a great job of killing sibilance on tracks prone to it, the Velvet is more revealing, though still smoother than most IEMs in its class. It also has a more forward presentation, versus the more laid-back SM64.
RHA MA750 ($120)
The dynamic-driver, enhanced-bass MA750 has been one of my most consistent recommendations for warmer-sounding mid-level earphones. Its sound falls between the minimum-bass (“tight sound”) and medium-bass (“balanced sound”) settings of the Velvet. While closer to the latter setting in bass presence, the MA750 is actually a little less impactful than the Velvet, which has much more headroom for those who crave even greater impact.
The bass is less controlled and more intrusive on the RHA unit. The mids are more recessed for the most part, before gaining emphasis in the upper midrange. There, the RHA sounds less refined and a bit “tizzy” compared to the Velvet. The Velvet has more midrange presence and is smoother and clearer, but also warmer and more rich-sounding.
DUNU DN-2000 ($270)
The Velvet was kept in its minimum bass (“tight sound”) configuration for this comparison, but these earphones still have very different sound signatures. The V/U-shaped sound tuning of the DN-2000 boasts a bit more sub-bass presence with similar overall bass quantity and a much colder, brighter tonal character. Interestingly, the warmer EarSonics keep up in clarity despite being much smoother. The DN-2000, on the other hand, sounds more metallic through the upper mids and treble. At lower volumes this is not a big deal, but at higher volumes the Velvet sounds quite a bit more natural.
InEar StageDiver 3 (SD-3) ($599)
The SD-3 is a triple-driver, enhanced-bass universal IEM from Germany-based InEar. Being closer to the Velvet in both price and sound tuning than the more balanced-sounding SD-2 on which it is based, the SD-3 seemed like a better point of comparison. To match the SD-3’s sound most closely, the medium bass (“balanced sound”) tuning of the Velvet was used. Clearly, EarSonics’ definition of “balanced” differs not only from mine, but also from that of the folks at InEar.
In its medium-bass configuration, the Velvet has similar impact and depth to the SD-3 but its bass seems a little tighter overall, likely because the bass boost doesn’t reach too high into the upper bass. The Velvet never feels overwhelmingly bassy, yet the solid deep bass presence gives it a dynamic and engaging sound. The midrange of the Velvet is more forward and a little clearer. The upper midrange and lower treble have more sparkle and excitement, while the SD-3 sounds smoother and a bit more dull. The Velvet’s presentation is a little more layered and well-imaged. As usual, the SD-3 is way more sensitive.
Westone W40 ($500)
Westone’s former flagship is a quad-BA monitor with warm and smooth sound signature. For this comparison I put the Velvet in its minimum bass (“tight sound”) configuration. Even then, it generally provided a bit more bass impact while also having its bass emphasis focused more on the subbass region. The W40 has more mid/upper bass, and a result suffers from a bit more bass bleed. This, in turn, results in lower clarity, though on tracks with less sub-bass presence the Westone can appear punchier than the Velvet (of course, the Velvet can be retuned to one of its bassier settings to compensate if needed).
Above its sizable bass hump – from the upper bass region and up through the treble – the Velvet is on the whole more accurate-sounding than the W40. The W40 has less upper midrange presence, which doesn’t help its clarity. Vocals are more intelligible on the Velvet, and the treble is a bit more sparkly on the whole. Otherwise, the two are not far apart in performance though, as is the case with most other BA-based monitors, the W40 is significantly more efficient than the Velvet.
Sony XBA-Z5 ($700)
Sony’s flagship IEM is similar to the Velvet on paper – a warm-sounding high-resolution earphone with plenty of bass and good treble quality. I started out with the Velvet in its minimum bass (“tight sound”) and medium bass (“balanced sound”) configurations. Compared to the XBA-Z5, these had more prominent mids and sounded brighter and clearer. The XBA-Z5 is bassier, warmer, and darker. The bass is a little boomier and the overall sound is a little dull in comparison, with less forward and slightly more muffled mids. The Z5 is also even smoother and more forgiving than the Velvet, which is hardly harsh itself. The presentation of the XBA-Z5 is more spacious, due in part to the more laid-back midrange and excellent treble extension.
Switching the Velvet to its maximum bass (“warm sound”) setting evens the playing field quite a bit. With the Velvet in this configuration, the XBA-Z5 becomes the more balanced of the two earphones, though its bass still has a bit more rumble and the midrange is still not as forward or clear as that of the Velvet. However, in this setting the Velvet has a sizable bass hump and lots of bass impact, which removes its tighter, less powerful bass as an advantage over the Z5 and allows the Sony to keep up in other ways. Not only is the presentation more spacious in the Sony set, but the treble seems to be better quality as well – more level and also more extended.
On the whole, while the two are similar in general tuning philosophy, the Z5 is a very good basshead earphone while the Velvet sounds best when kept it in its warm-but-not-quite-basshead configurations.
Gorilla Ears GX-4b ($799)
The GX-4b is a quad-driver, enhanced-bass custom in-ear monitor that performs on a similar level to the Velvet. The Velvet is no less impactful than the GX-4b even in its minimum bass (tight sound) setting. The midrange of the GX-4b is slightly drier and the top end is a bit more revealing. The Velvet, on the other hand, is even smoother and does a better job of killing sibilance and harshness. The Velvet at times sounds clearer but on some tracks its bass gets in the way a bit more. The presentation of the Velvet is less forward while the GX-4b is significantly more intimate, and much more sensitive as well.
Value (8.5/10) – It is always hard to put a value rating on a ultra-high-cost earphone like this, but the Velvet may just be an end-game IEM for those who like the “warm and smooth” type of sound signature – and that in itself can be worth a lot. With the ability to fine-tune its sound (mostly the bass boost) and a compact form factor with all the usual trappings of a top-tier BA earphone, what’s not to like?
Pros: potential end-game IEM for warm and smooth sound, detachable cables
Cons: N/A
looks great so far 
